DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 10/07/2024, said application claims a priority date of 10/16/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are independent claims.
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 idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 12 and 20:
Claim 1 recites:
“A method implemented by one or more computing device, the method comprising:
constructing a subject keyword library by collecting industry trend data, and collecting content materials for article generation based on subject keywords in the library;
in response to a request for generating an industry information article, determining a target subject keyword, and constructing a prompt word text for dialogue with an artificial intelligence (AI) large language model according to the target subject keyword, to enable the AI large language model to generate an article subject;
screening multiple segments of target content materials from the content materials according to the article subject and the target subject keyword;
constructing the prompt word text for dialogue with the AI large language model according to the article subject and the target content materials, to enable the AI large language model to generate an article outline according to the multiple segments of the target content materials, the article outline including multiple sub-subjects; and
calling the AI large language model multiple times to generate corresponding text contents for the multiple sub-subjects respectively according to the article subject, the multiple sub-subjects and the target content materials, to generate a target article according to the article subject and the text contents corresponding to the multiple sub-subjects.”
The claim describes tasks traditionally performed by humans (e.g. researching a topic and writing an article about it). These tasks are performed in the human mind and therefore falls under the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular constructing a subject keyword library by collecting industry trend data and collecting content materials for article generation based on subject keywords in the library simply amounts to collecting and organizing information (mental process). The remaining limitations simply state in sequence the steps of the human editorial process: (1) “determining a target keyword…constructing a prompt word text… generate an article subject” amounts to deciding what to write about (mental step), examiner considers constructing a prompt to be an analog for how the mind forms an internal plan for executing tasks and therefore is considered to be a mental process as well (2) “screening multiple segments of target content materials” amounts to typical editorial research that entails deciding which source materials are worth incorporating into the article (mental process), this limitation also qualifies as an abstract idea for a second reason, it is basically a filtering operation that, aside from the editorial process, is in and of itself a recognized mental process (3) “constructing the prompt word text…generate an article outline…including multiple sub-subjects” amounts to deciding how to structure a piece of writing (mental step), (4) generating “text contents for the multiple sub-subjects…to generate a target article” amounts to the act of writing the article (mental process). The artificial intelligence large language model is recited in the limitations only as a “black box” for performing the cited mental processes.
The disclosure of the instant application also recognizes that these steps are mental processes. In particular, paragraph [0004] of the specification recites “However, in existing technologies, such industry information articles are usually generated by manual writing. For example, some industry experts and other authors can make introductions on aspects such as industry trends, innovative technologies, market changes, industry mergers, etc., and create complete articles. However, such method has problems such as high content production costs and relatively low production efficiency, etc., so that the amount of content is small and cannot meet the growing user needs. In addition, the content is usually relatively monotonous, and cannot attract users’ continued retention through richer content” (emphasis added).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to linking the abstract idea to generic computer elements (“the method implemented by one or more computing device”) and to using a generic artificial intelligence large language model as a “black box” for performing the recited abstract steps (Specification: ¶ [0054]-[0058]). The recitation of generic computing elements, and of a generic AI large language model applied as a black box in this manner, at this high-level of generality is not considered meaningful limitations to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements – a generic computing device and a generic artificial intelligence large language model – amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer and a generic AI tool as a black box. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, or invoking a generic AI large language model to perform its ordinary function, is not a sufficient inventive concept. The combination of elements adds nothing beyond the abstract idea itself.
Claim 11 is directed to one or more computer readable media storing executable instructions for performing the same method for generating a target article claimed in claim 1 and is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for similar reasons. Examiner notes that paragraph [0127] defines the computer readable media to “not include transitory media, such as modulated data signals and carrier waves.” As such, the subject matter of claim 11 is directed to a statutory category.
Claim 20 is directed to an apparatus for performing the same method for generating a target article claimed in claim 1 and is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for similar reasons.
Claims 2-11 and 13-19:
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 depend on claims 1 and 12 respectively and have been considered as a whole. Each of the dependent claims recites only further limitations directed to the same abstract idea (e.g. additional data-organization steps, additional steps pertaining to the mental process of writing an article, etc…), or generic computer/AI-tool implementation of that idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12. For the same reasons, these claims do no recite an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
NOTE: Examiner was not able to find prior art to teach all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 12 and 20.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
Smith et al., US 2024/0273291 A1 (An AI LLM is used to generate an article outline and to generate the article itself, abstract, Table 1, ¶ [0112]-[0113]).
Zeigler et al., US 12,243,653 B1 (A an article directed to a topic is generated based on a request and using machine learning, abstract, column 6 lines 20-36)
Shen et al., US 2025/008357 A1 (An article can be generated based on a generated article outline via an AI LLM, abstract, ¶ [0020]-[0024], [0066], [0108]-[0119])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights