DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the claimed amendment filed on December 8, 2025, in which claims 1-20 are presented for further examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
The claim objection set forth in the last office action has been withdrawn in view of the claimed amendment filed on December 8, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC 112 rejection set forth in the last office action has been withdrawn in the view of the claimed amendment filed on December 8, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
After further reviewed Applicant’s argument in view of the original specification, it is conceivable that the combination of Tater, Xu and Horowitz fails to generate two different audio outputs from two different natural language summaries. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection set forth in the last office action has been withdrawn in the view of the applicant’s arguments filed on December 8, 2025.
After further reviewed Applicant’s argument in view of the original specification, it is conceivable that the amended independent claims 1 and 11 does not render the claims to be eligible under 35 USC 101. In particular, the recited “generating a first natural language summary of the data records from the unstructured dataset and a visualization based on the additional data records from the structured dataset and generating, by the orchestrator, a second natural language summary based on the first natural language summary and the visualization” are identified as abstract idea; the recited “selecting, by an orchestrator based on pre-processed input generated from an initial input by the orchestrator, a plurality of different agents, wherein the orchestrator uses one or more multimodal models that includes at least a transformer-based model; and retrieving, by the selected plurality of different agents, data records from an unstructured dataset and additional data records from a structured dataset” amount to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and “transmitting the second natural language summary as a response to the pre-processed input” represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
There is no additional element recited in the claim that takes the abstract idea “generating a first natural language summary of the data records from the unstructured dataset and a visualization based on the additional data records from the structured dataset and generating, by the orchestrator, a second natural language summary based on the first natural language summary and the visualization” into a practical application. There is no transformation presented in the claim that would render the abstract idea element eligible under 35 USC 101. The 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the last office action is sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
At Step 1:
With respect to subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it is determined that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The limitation “generating a first natural language summary of the data records from the unstructured dataset and a visualization based on the additional data records from the structured dataset” in claims 1 and 11, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “generating a first natural language summary of the data records from the unstructured dataset and a visualization based on the additional data records from the structured dataset”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “generating a first natural language summary of the data records from the unstructured dataset and a visualization based on the additional data records from the structured dataset”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper generates a first natural language summary of the data records based on the additional data records from the structured dataset.
The limitation “generating, by the orchestrator, a second natural language summary based on the first natural language summary and the visualization” in claims 1 and 11, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “generating, by the orchestrator, a second natural language summary based on the first natural language summary and the visualization”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “generating, by the orchestrator, a second natural language summary based on the first natural language summary and the visualization”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper generate a second natural language summary based on the first natural language summary and the visualization.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system" is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “selecting, by an orchestrator based on pre-processed input generated from an initial input by the orchestrator, a plurality of different agents, wherein the orchestrator uses one or more multimodal models that includes at least a transformer-based model; and retrieving, by the selected plurality of different agents, data records from an unstructured dataset and additional data records from a structured dataset” amount to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “transmitting the second natural language summary as a response to the pre-processed input” represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The limitation “one or more processors and memory” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the " selecting and retrieving….." identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the " transmitting …" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334; i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
The “one or more processors and memory” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claim 11 falls short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
Claims 2 and 12 recite “wherein the transformer-based model comprises a large language model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for having a large language model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2 and 12 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Claims 3 and 13 recite “wherein a particular agent of the plurality of different agents comprises one or more other multimodal models, and an additional agent of the plurality of different agents comprises one or more additional multimodal models”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for having one or more additional multimodal models, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3 and 13 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Claims 4 and 14 recite “wherein the particular agent implements an iterative generative artificial intelligence process using one or more unstructured data retrieval tools to retrieve the data records from the unstructured dataset”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for implementing an iterative generative artificial intelligence process using one or more unstructured data retrieval tools to retrieve the data records from the unstructured dataset this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 14 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Claims 5 and 15 recite “wherein the additional agent implements a non-iterative generative artificial intelligence process using one or more structured data retrieval tools to retrieve the additional data records from the structured dataset”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for implementing a non-iterative generative artificial intelligence process using one or more structured data retrieval tools to retrieve the additional data records from the structured dataset this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 15 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Claims 6 and 16 recites “wherein the particular agent instructs the one or more unstructured data retrieval tools based upon embeddings in a vector store”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for instructing the one or more unstructured data retrieval tools based upon embeddings in a vector store, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 16 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 17 recite “wherein the additional agent instructs the one or more structured data retrieval tools based upon a data model describing relationships of one or more types of the data model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for instructing the one or more structured data retrieval tools based upon a data model describing relationships of one or more types of the data model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7 and 17 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Claims 8 and 18 recite “wherein the selecting, by the orchestrator based on the pre-processed input generated from the initial input by the orchestrator, the plurality of different agents, further comprises generating intermediate input based on a first portion of the pre-processed input and routing the intermediate input to the particular agent”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for generating intermediate input based on a first portion of the pre-processed input and routing the intermediate input to the particular agent, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, claims 8 and 18 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Claims 9 and 19 recite “generating a third input based on a second portion of the pre-processed input and routing the third input to the additional agent”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for generating a third input based on a second portion of the pre-processed input and routing the third input to the additional agent, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, claims 9 and 19 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “wherein the particular agent and the additional agent execute in parallel and perform retrievals in parallel”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for executing in parallel and performing retrievals in parallel, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, claims 10 and 20 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 December 23, 2025
Prosecution Insights