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 the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are amended. Claims 3 and 14 are canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A Prong One: The Claim Recites An Abstract Idea
Under Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework, the evaluation includes whether a judicial exception (abstract idea) is set forth or described in the claim. The invention and claims are drawn towards generating product documentation in a less labor-intensive way by using AI models, and the claims recite limitations that correspond to certain method of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions; commercial interactions, business relations, following rules or instructions) since the claims detail receiving templates comprising preferences for stakeholders associated with a product and a product story and source code and generating product documentation based on the stakeholder preferences and application of a generative AI model. The claims also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) since the claims recite limitations involving the observation and evaluation of data, and making a decision (judgment or opinion) biased on the observed and evaluated data. The claims recite an abstract idea. The use of a computer and AI models to aid in generating the product documentation does not take the claim out of the judicial exception groupings. For instance, the certain methods of organizing human activity sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Further, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). In the applicant’s claimed invention, the claim limitations recites limitations corresponding to the observation and evaluation of data, as well as commercial interactions, business relations, following rules or interactions, managing personal interactions, with said limitations being merely performed via computer.
Applicant’s argument that the claimed features are “inextricably tied to a machine” and directed to a “technological solution” are unpersuasive. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. In addition to the claims focusing on the indicated judicial exceptions, applicant’s specification states in the Background :[0002] “In today's fast-paced and competitive market, efficient and comprehensive product documentation is vital for the successful deployment, operation, and maintenance of various products, including software applications, hardware devices, and complex systems. Product documentation encompasses a wide range of materials, such as user manuals, technical guides, release notes, and compliance certifications, which are crucial for ensuring proper usage, troubleshooting, and regulatory compliance. Traditionally, generating these documents has been a manual, cumbersome, and time-consuming process that often requires the collaboration of multiple teams, including product development, technical writing, and quality assurance.” [0003] “Even though product documentation is crucial, the manual creation process is prone to several challenges, including inconsistencies in content, delays in documentation availability, a lack of standardization across different product versions, and human errors. As products evolve rapidly with frequent updates and new feature releases, maintaining up-to-date and accurate documentation becomes even more challenging. These issues can lead to customer dissatisfaction, increased support costs, and potential compliance risks.” This issues and solutions are also detailed in the Detailed Description which discloses: [0016] Nowadays, effective product documentation is crucial to the success of any product (say software), as it enables faster product adoption, enhances user experience, and provides clarity on product capabilities. Generally, product documentation must address the needs of diverse audiences, including business users who need to understand what product capabilities are available and how they align with business goals, application developers who require detailed guidance on how to get started with the product using code samples and integration points, and technical sales professionals who focus on why the product is relevant to the industry by highlighting competitive advantages and use cases. [0017] Currently, the creation of product documentation is a manual and labor-intensive process. It is typically managed by technical writers who must work in close collaboration with the product development team to capture and document the latest features, changes, and usage instructions. This manual approach requires a significant investment of time and resources, and it also imposes a tight dependency on the development cycle. Every product update or new release requires corresponding updates to the documentation to ensure it accurately reflects the latest features, bug fixes, and enhancements. This continuous need for updates makes maintaining up-to-date documentation a challenging and resource-intensive task. [0018] Moreover, online documentation resources such as FAQs, tutorials, readmes, and other instructional content are usually tied to specific software or application versions. As a result, each version's documentation must be updated or recreated to remain relevant and useful to end-users. Failure to maintain accurate and current documentation leads to user confusion, increased support requests, and a slower rate of product adoption. Given these challenges, there is a need for a more efficient and automated solution that can streamline the generation and maintenance of product documentation. [0019] The proposed disclosure aims to address these challenges by providing a computer system and method for the automatic generation of product documentation. This disclosed computer system integrates seamlessly with the product development lifecycle, leveraging advancements in natural language processing, data extraction, and template-based content creation to automatically gather relevant information from various sources such as source code repositories, project management tools, and configuration files. The disclosed system utilizes this information to generate comprehensive, standardized, and up-to-date documentation with minimal human intervention using artificial intelligence (AI) models. The highlighted portions of the specification along with the claim limitations further indicate that any alleged improvement is an improvement to the judicial exception itself, not a technical improvement in computers or technology. Technical improvement focuses on enhancing the computers, software, or machinery, while business process improvement focuses on streamlining the steps, workflows, and methodologies people use to do their work. Applicant’s claims fall under a business process improvement, at best. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Regarding applicant’s argument that the claims are tied to a machine, applicant is remined that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010); MPEP §2106.05(b)). When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, relevant factors to be considered is the particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. In applicant’s invention, the computer is a tool to apply the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two: The Judicial Exception Is NOT Integrated Into A Practical Application.
Applicant argues that the computer-implemented method automatically generating accurate, consistent, and updated product documentation by extracting technical specifications from source code and associating them to product features and enhancements, thereby reducing inconsistencies, delays, and lack of standardization across product integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant is alleging an improvement in technology Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s argument regarding the reducing inconsistencies, delays, and lack of standardization across product is not an improvement in computers or technology, but at best an improvement in the judicial exception itself. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(a). It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Technical improvement focuses on enhancing the computers, software, or machinery, while business process improvement focuses on streamlining the steps, workflows, and methodologies people use to do their work. Applicant’s claims fall under a business process improvement, at best. Reducing inconsistencies, delays, and lack of standardization across product at best results in an improvement in user experience, which is what applicant’s specification describes as well. An improvement in user experience is not an improvement in computers or technology. "We have also held that improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, we held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader's order. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly 'assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly,' we held that this purported improvement in user experience did not 'improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims 'focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly' did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality)." Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of a computer (claim 1), a processor set (claim 12), one or more computer-readable media (claims 12 and 20), a computer program product (claim 20), and the generative AI models. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the generative AI models amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (generating product documentation). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 20, filed 05/05/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
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, 4-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 12, 13, and 15-19 recite a system (i.e. machine), and claim 20 recites a computer program product (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 recite the limitations of: receiving a template comprising a set of preferences of a set of stakeholders associated with a product, a product story associated with the product, wherein the product story comprises at least one of a set of enhancements in the product or a set of features of the product, and a source code associated with the product; applying a [third generative artificial intelligence (AI) model] to the source code; extracting a set of technical specifications associated with the product based on the applying of the [third generative Al model] to the source code, wherein the set of technical specifications is selected from the group consisting of an architecture of the product, an execution flow of the source code, an interaction between [Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)] associated with the product, a time complexity associated with one or more operations of the product, consumption of a memory associated with the product, and an encryption standard used by the product; associating the set of technical specifications with the at least one of the set of enhancements in the product or the set of features of the product; applying a [first generative Al model] to the template, the product story, and the set of technical specifications associated with the at least one of the set of enhancements in the product or the set of features of the product; generating a first product documentation associated with the product based on the set of preferences of the set of stakeholders and the applying of the [first generative Al model] to the template, the product story, and the set of technical specifications associated with the at least one of the set of enhancements in the product or the set of features of the product; and rendering the generated first product documentation. The invention and claims are drawn towards generating product documentation in a less labor-intensive way by using AI models, and the claims recite limitations that correspond to certain method of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions; commercial interactions, business relations, following rules or instructions) since the claims detail receiving templates comprising preferences for stakeholders associated with a product and a product story and source code and generating product documentation based on the stakeholder preferences and application of a generative AI model. The claims also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) since the claims recite limitations involving the observation and evaluation of data, and making a decision (judgment or opinion) biased on the observed and evaluated data. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of a computer (claim 1), a processor set (claim 12), one or more computer-readable media (claims 12 and 20), a computer program product (claim 20), and the generative AI models. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the generative AI models amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (generating product documentation). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 7 and 18 recite the limitation(s) of comparing the first product documentation with the second product documentation; tagging, based on the comparing, each update of a set of updates in the first product documentation; and transmitting the first product documentation to a user device based on the tagging of each update of the set of updates in the first product documentation (claim 7), and transmitting the first product documentation to a user device, wherein each update of the set of updates is tagged in the first product documentation (claim 18). The claims recite limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of the computer (claim 7), the processor set (claim 18) and a user device. The additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above, and/or additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2, 4-6, 8-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Hubley (2025/0053737) which discloses a method to produce an automated work product is described. The method includes receiving a request from a user and analyzing the request to determine which area of expertise applies to the request. The method also includes assigning a scope identifier to the area of expertise and generating a work product based on the user request and the scope identifier associated with the request. The reference does not appear to discloses the detailed amended limitations of the applicant’s claims. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes “Al-Driven Automated Software Documentation Generation for Enhanced Development Productivity” (Thota, 2024) which discloses an approach to automatically generating software documentation, focusing on fine-tuning sophisticated AI models such as GPT-2 and RoBERTa by leveraging a large existing dataset from the GitHub CodeSearchNet challenge. The reference does not appear to discloses the detailed amended limitations of the applicant’s claims. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights