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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendments/remarks filed on 04/29/2026. Claims 1-2,4-19 and 27 have been examined and are currently pending.
Priority
Application 18/953,885 claims priority of provisional application 63/624,463 filed 01/24/2024.
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 1-2,4-19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-2, 4-19 and 27 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method and computing device for compliance testing of mixed data content items.
For Claim 1:
receiving a request to perform content compliance testing of a mixed data type content item with a compliance ruleset, the mixed data type content item comprising a textual media content and a non-textual media content associated with a vehicle;
preprocessing the mixed data type content item by converting the non-textual media content into a textual media content analyzable by a compliance checker by at least: (i) applying […] recognition to an image portion of the non-textual media content to produce a first text; or (ii) applying […] conversion to an audio portion of the non- textual media content to produce a second text; and (iii) combining the first text and the second text with the text content of the mixed data type content item to form a text representation of the mixed data type content item;
autonomously identifying, a compliance ruleset based on a presentation medium of the mixed data type content item the compliance ruleset specifying a set of at least partially different criteria that to evaluate compliance of mixed data type content items with different sets of constraints associated with regulatory constraints, and wherein the compliance ruleset comprises configuration parameters for configuring a set of […] models, to perform a set of operations on the compliance ruleset and the mixed data type content item;
executing the compliance checker, via the set of […] models wherein the set of operations is configured to cause the accuracy of the compliance checker to satisfy an accuracy threshold;
generating a prompt for the set of […] models, the prompt comprising the text representation of the mixed data type content item and the compliance ruleset;
processing the prompt by the compliance checker, wherein the compliance checker uses the set of […] models to verify compliance with the regulatory constraints of the mixed data type content item based at least in part on the compliance ruleset;
receiving, from the compliance checker, a compliance determination dataset comprising a number of entries that correspond to a number of criteria evaluated by the compliance checker while determining the compliance of the mixed data type content item with the compliance ruleset, each entry comprising a criterion from the compliance ruleset evaluated by the compliance checker, and an indication whether the mix data type content item complies with the criterion; and
generating an output for display […] based at least in part on the compliance determination dataset.
For Claim 27:
[…]:
receive, […], a request to check if the content item complies with the compliance ruleset, wherein the content item is a mixed data type content item having a textual portion and a non-textual portion, of content associated with a vehicle;
identify, […], an image sub-portion and an audio sub- portion from the non-textual portion of the content item;
preprocess, […], the content item by converting, the image sub-portion of the content item into a first text via […] recognition, and converting, the audio sub-portion of the content item into a second text, via […] conversion;
generate, via a […] model, a textual representation of the content item by combining the first text and the second text with the textual portion of the content item;
autonomously identify, […], based on a selection criteria, a compliance ruleset comprising, a set of at least partially different criteria to evaluate compliance of content items, and a set of configuration parameters instructing a set of […] models to perform a set of operations on the compliance ruleset and the textual representation of the content item;
execute the compliance checker via the set of […] models wherein the set of operations is configured to cause the accuracy of the compliance checker to satisfy an accuracy threshold;
determine, via the set of […] models if the content item complies with the compliance ruleset;
receive, from the compliance checker, a compliance determination dataset comprising an entry for each criterion from the compliance ruleset evaluated by the compliance checker, and an indication for whether the content item complies with the evaluated criterion; and
generate an output for display […] based at least in part on the compliance determination dataset.
The above limitations are reciting a process of receiving data, a ruleset with regulatory constraints, and determining if the data received is compliant against the ruleset. This is claiming a concept of determining compliance and is a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea. As set forth in the specification, it is known that people in the form of compliance experts and/or attorneys review and analyze data for compliance. The concept of verifying compliance, is considered to be a method of reducing risk and the application of a ruleset with regulatory constraints (satisfying a legal obligation). Verifying data against a ruleset with regulatory constraints is a commercial practice that is a risk mitigation method and execution of steps required by a legal agreement. For the above reasons, claims 1, and 27 fall into the category of being an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activities. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, and 27 recites the additional elements of a computing system comprising one or more hardware processors (Claims 1, and 27), machine learning models (Claims 1, and 27), user interface (Claims 1, and 27), memory (Claim 27), optical character recognition (Claims 1, and 27), speech-to-text conversion (Claims 1, and 27), large language model (Claim 27), that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, and 27 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing system one or more hardware processors (Claims 1, and 27), machine learning models (Claims 1, and 27), user interface (Claims 1, and 27), memory (Claim 27), optical character recognition (Claims 1, and 27), speech-to-text conversion (Claims 1, and 27), large language model (Claim 27), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more’). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, and 27 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2 and 4-19 are similarly rejected because they further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1, as discussed above. Claim(s) 2 merely describes(s) the type of format of a content item, and converts the format to an accepted format if it is unsupported. Claim(s) 7 merely describes(s) for the compliance ruleset having different criteria presented as a set of interrelated criteria where at least one criterion is evaluated based on evaluation of another. Claim(s) 8 merely describes(s) a unique label for the set of constraints. Claim(s) 9 merely describes(s) verifying the compliance of the mixed data type content and if it passes or satisfies criteria. Claim(s) 10 merely describes(s) the compliance ruleset being associated with a different compliance standard. Claim(s) 11 merely describes the type of data of the mixed data type content. Claim(s) 12 and 13 merely describes(s) the range of the accuracy threshold. Claim(s) 14 merely describes(s) a request to perform the testing of the mixed data type content. Claim(s) 15 merely describes(s) what the selection criteria comprises. Claim(s) 16 merely describes(s) obtaining an output from the compliance checker, selecting a second compliance ruleset based in part on the output, generating a prompt with the mixed data type content and the compliance ruleset, and processing the compliance checker. Claim(s) 17 merely describes(s) the compliance determination dataset being generated on the prompt using the checker and processing the second prompt. Claim(s) 18 merely describes(s) the compliance ruleset and the second compliance ruleset being subsets of an overall ruleset. Claim(s) 19 merely describes(s) evaluating the mixed data content item using a deterministic compliance ruleset where it is generated on an outcome of determining compliance.
Dependent Claim(s) 4-6 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, and 27. In addition, it recites the additional elements of a transformer machine learning model, large language models of different sizes, vision model, optical character recognition tool, image processing model, audio model, and data store. The transformer machine learning model, large language models of different sizes, vision model, optical character recognition tool, image processing model, audio model, and data store are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 4-19, are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Distinguishable from Prior Art
As previously disclosed in the Non-Final on 02/04/2026 claim(s) 1 and 27 would be allowable over prior art. Claims 2 and 4-19, are also allowable over the prior art due to their dependencies on Claim 1.
An updated search and Non-Patent Literature search was conducted and no relevant art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind nor with the assistance of a pen and paper. The Examiner does not assert the claims to be a mental process, but a certain method of organizing human activity, in particular a legal obligation. Therefore, this argument is moot. The Applicant further argues that the claims are not directed to certain method of organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent commercial practices of risk mitigation of verifying data against a ruleset with regulatory constraints. Because the claim element fall under commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that under Step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application where the claims of the current application include specific features that were specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result and provide improvements to that technical field. The Applicant particularly points out the specification describing that using each of the set of static instructions may cause accuracy of the compliance checker to satisfy an accuracy threshold. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states "the word 'improvements' in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B." Here, there is no improvement to the technological environment to which the claims are confined (a general purpose computer); put another way, the computer is implementing what it was programmed to implement. The computer did not cause the problem of the accuracy to be outside of a threshold. Further, the use of static instruction’s to cause accuracy of the compliance checker to satisfy an accuracy threshold is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Looking at the limitations of Applicant's claimed invention there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Merely performing an abstract idea process more efficiently using generic computer components does not render the claims patent-eligible. In other words, the claims simply require the performance of the abstract idea of determining the compliance of website content on generic computer components.
Applicant further argues that neither the processor executing the compliance checker via the set of machine learning models, nor the set of machine learning models that is configured based on a set of configuration parameters amounts to a generic computer component, and that the instructions and details in the prompts to the LLMs utilize various techniques to improve efficiency and accuracy of compliance checks. The Examiner has fully considered this argument, but respectfully disagrees. The additional elements taken alone, and in combination are no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer, as it is merely instructing the commuter to perform basic computing tasks to carry out the abstract idea. Nothing in the claims, even when considered as a whole, provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of one or more hardware processors, machine learning models, user interface, memory, large language model, optical character recognition, and speech-to-text conversion are generic computer components that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). The steps being time-consuming, costly, and labor intensive are not problems caused by technology involved in the process. At best, the problem(s) described in the as-filed disclosure are business problems. Further, there is no technical architecture that would amount to a practical application/significantly more, only high-level instructions of determining compliance of content.
The Applicant further argues that the claim recites more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Examiner never argued well-understood, routine, or conventional therefore making this argument moot. Based on the updated rejection above and the response presented here, the 101 rejection holds.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights