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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election with traverse of species I (including claims 1-5 and 11) in the reply filed on 08/18/2026 for examination is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant respectfully traverses the Election/Restriction Requirement because the present record does not establish that Species I and Species II are patentably distinct or that examination of both species would impose a serious search and/or examination burden”. This is not found persuasive because examiner has clearly cited the differences between independent claims of species I and species II on page 2 of the action mailed on 07/29/2026. Species I clearly requires the steps that are not required in the species II, and clearly the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species. Further adding, applicant’s response also points out that there is difference between species in 4th paragraph of the response. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following reasons are provided to evaluate subject matter eligibility.
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.é., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
With regard to (1), the analysis is a ‘yes’, claim 1 recites a process and claim 11 recites a machine.
With regard to (2A) Prong One, the analysis is a “yes”. Claims 1 and 11 recite “generating formal languages by parsing the image and text of the question information, respectively, based on a pre-constructed problem solving template; generating text-based intermediate inference information for the question information by inputting the generated formal language to a formal language inference unit; generating image-based inference information by inputting the text-based intermediate inference information, the text included in the question information (hereinafter referred to as “text question information”), and the image included in the question information (hereinafter referred to as “image question information”) to a multi-modal image generation model; and generating text-based inference information by inputting the text-based intermediate inference information, the image-based inference information, and the text question information to a multi-modal text generation model”.
When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation the claim recites an abstract idea reciting a series of mental processes: collecting data, parsing it into a specific format, and performing step-by-step reasoning (inference) to reach a conclusion. The core steps—taking a question, translating it into a structured format, using logic rules to deduce intermediate steps, and then generating text or image conclusions—are steps a human could theoretically perform with a pen and paper. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus, pen/paper, can perform, and the recitation of modules (such as inference unit, a model, module (with no particular details)) in the claim is a mere use of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04 and the 2019 PEG.
With regard to (2A) Prong Two: the analysis is a “No”. Claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements of “receiving question information comprising an image and text;”; and these additional elements represents mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity, a generic operation. See MPEP 2106.05(1). The claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regard to (2B): the pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field, including the use of a particular machine or particular transformation. It has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do. The claim describes using existing generic technology (a computer, a multi-modal text model, an image model – models with no specific details) to execute a logical method. It does not claim a new type of AI architecture, a faster way to train the models, or a solution to a specific computer hardware/software limitation.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication module” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
7. Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art(s) of record as cited (e.g. Lu et al., 2021, “Inter-GPS: Interpretable Geometry Problem Solving with Formal Language and Symbolic Reasoning” (as cited by applicant); and, Costabello et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,949,718 B2) teaches text and image/diagram parser to translate into formal languages (see Lu – Section 5), and further see figure 1 in Costabello with respect to generating text and image based inference information; but when considered alone or in combination they do not teach “generating text-based inference information by inputting the text-based intermediate inference information, the image-based inference information, and the text question information to a multi-modal text generation model” as recited in claims 1 and 11, in combination with other limitations.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
El-Saban et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0331929 A1, discloses natural language image search is described, for example, whereby natural language queries may be used to retrieve images from a store of images automatically tagged with image tags being concepts of an ontology.
Lim, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0173996 A1, discloses a method of providing a text-related image is provided. The method includes obtaining a text, transmitting the obtained text and a request for at least one image related to the obtained text to a server, receiving at least one image related to the transmitted text based on a degree of relatedness between a result of applying a first AI data recognition model to the transmitted text and a result of applying a second AI data recognition model to a user-accessible image, in response to the request, and displaying the received at least one image..
Wang, U.S. Patent No. 10,185,763, discloses in response to a text query received from a first user (i.e., the querying user), the social-networking system 160 may parse the text query and identify portions of the text query that correspond to particular social-graph elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manav Seth whose telephone number is (571) 272-7456. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Sumati Lefkowitz, can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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:/Awww.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.
/Manav Seth/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
September 23, 2026
