DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on May 22, 2026. The application contains claims 1-20.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, and 19 are amended
Claims 1-20 are pending
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on May 22, 2026 have been fully considered and the objections and rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. Please refer to the updated 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below that address the newly introduced limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In view of the amendments to the claims, the 35 USC § 103 rejections are withdrawn. However, the claims are not allowable due to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below.
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.
The 2019 PEG guidance for subject matter eligibility is applied in the following analyses:
At Step 1
The inventions of claims 1-20 are directed to the statutory categories of a process (claims 1-7), a machine (claims 8-14), and a manufacture (claims 15-20). Thus, the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter.
The following analysis refers to representative claim 1, but the same analysis applies to independent claims 8 and 15, which recite similar limitations.
At Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite abstract ideas in the following limitations:
“dividing, ..., the document into multiple chunks ..., ..., wherein ... dynamically adjust chunk size and overlap based on content and structure of the document” can be practically performed in the human mind. Choosing different chunk size and overlap based on document content and structure for best division results involves observation, evaluation, and judgment that the human mind is capable of doing. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“embedding, ..., ..., the chunks into a multi-dimensional vector space to generate vector representations of the chunks”. Representing each chunk with a vector can be practically performed in the human mind with or without the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process. Additionally, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept and relationship as vector mathematics and vector embeddings are mathematical relationships that represent data as numeric vectors, consistent with the description in the specification at [0012]-[0013] and [0023]-[0028].
“comparing, ..., the vector representations of the chunks with existing vector representations of existing knowledge elements in ... using cosine similarity to determine relevance scores for the chunks, wherein the relevance scores indicate how relevant each of the chunks is to the knowledge base” recites a mathematical calculation that uses cosine similarity to determine relevance scores between vectors. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as mathematical concepts.
“determining, ..., an acceptance threshold based on a chunk relevance metric and a document relevance metric, wherein the chunk relevance metric indicates a measure of how much a chunk matches one or more of the existing knowledge elements in the knowledge base, and wherein the document relevance metric indicates a measure of how many chunks, associated with relevance scores that satisfy the acceptance threshold, are required to indicate that the document is relevant to the knowledge base”. The specification provides no specifics on how this “determining” is implemented. Recited at a high-level of generality, determining an acceptance threshold based on two other metrics encompasses the processes that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, this new limitation is not integrated into the reminder of the claim, because none of the newly introduced elements “an acceptance threshold”, “a chunk relevance metric”, and “a document relevance metric” is utilized in the determination of storing or flagging a document.
“determining, ..., a final score for the document based on the relevance scores of the chunks”. Per paragraph [0078], “determining the final score for the document based on the relevance scores of the chunks includes calculating an average of the relevance scores of the chunks as the final score for the document”. Calculating an average can be practically performed in the human mind with or without the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“selectively: storing ... the document in the knowledge base based on the final score satisfying a relevance threshold, or flagging ... the document for review based on the final score failing to satisfy the relevance threshold”. The “selectively” performed operation is essentially performing an either/or operation based one whether the score satisfies a threshold. The concept recited in this limitation as “based on the final score satisfying a relevance threshold” and “based on the final score failing to satisfy the relevance threshold” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally compare a score to a threshold and determine if it exceeds the threshold or not. The other portions of the limitation could represent insignificant extra-solution activity. “Storing” data to a database and/or “flagging” the data for review is mere data outputting/application, because the specification in [0012], [0018], and [0079] essentially refers to this entire process as just validation, without any technological details at all. As such, other than “storage”, the limitation in its entirety is the mere concept of “apply it” for the document score as being “good” to store or “bad” needing further human review.
At Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of:
“a device” and “one or more processors” (claim 8 and 15) may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
“a/the device … comprises/comprising one or more machine learning models”, “using a chunking model, from the one or more machine learning models of the device”, “using a neural network model, from the one or more machine learning models of the device”, and “a knowledge base for a large language model (LLM)” recite various machine learning models without providing technical details on how each of these models is implemented to perform the respective functionality. Therefore, these limitations may be characterized as generally linking the abstract idea to a technological area – machine learning or artificial intelligence, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“receiving, ..., a document …” (claim 1 and 8) and “receive a document that includes textual information” (claim 15) may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly preliminary data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“storing … the document in the knowledge base …” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly post-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the additional elements constitute a high-level recitation of a generic computer components which represent mere instructions to apply on a computer, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and insignificant extra-solution activities including preliminary data gathering and post-solution activity.
As per MPEP 2106.05(II), at Step 2B the conclusions for these additional elements under MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h) from Step 2A Prong Two are carried over and they do not provide significantly more. The additional elements from Step 2A Prong Two considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g) are re-evaluated as follows:
“receiving, ..., a document …” (claim 1 and 8) and “receive a document that includes textual information” (claim 15). Receiving a document is claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [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)].
“storing … the document in the knowledge base …” is claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93].
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claim 2 recites additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea of “determining … an acceptance threshold …” in independent claim 1 that are still mentally performable.
Dependent claims 3 and 16 each recite additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea of “dividing …” in independent claims 1 and 15 that are still mentally performable. The “utilizing a token-based chunking model” may be characterized as generally linking the abstract idea to a technological area – machine learning or artificial intelligence, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 4 and 17 each recite additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea of “embedding …” in independent claims 1 and 15 that are still mentally performable. The “the neural network model is trained to …” and “the at least one machine learning model is trained to …” may be characterized as generally linking the abstract idea to a technological area – machine learning or artificial intelligence, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 5 and 18 each recite additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea of “comparing …” in independent claims 1 and 15 that are still mentally performable.
Dependent claims 6 and 19 each recite additional elements of “… validate the chunks and identify deviations from the existing knowledge elements in the knowledge base” that are still mentally performable. The “utilizing … the LLM” may be characterized as generally linking the abstract idea to a technological area – machine learning or artificial intelligence, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 7 recites additional elements of “providing a retrieval context …” and “providing the chunks to …” that may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly preliminary data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation “receiving … additional relevance scores for the chunks” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activities. Even with the assumption that it involves calculating additional relevance scores for the chunks, because no specific technical details are recited, it is still mentally performable.
Dependent claims 9 and 20 each recite additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea of “determining … a final score …” in independent claims 8 and 15 that are still mentally performable.
Dependent claim 10 recites additional elements of “providing … the document for display …” that may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 11 recites additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract ideas that the document recited in independent claim 8 “includes textual information”. It is still mentally performable.
Dependent claim 12 recites additional elements of “… the knowledge base is part of a generative artificial intelligence system”. The “generative artificial intelligence system” may be characterized as generally linking the abstract idea to a technological area – machine learning or artificial intelligence, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 13 recites additional elements of “removing irrelevant or malicious knowledge elements from the knowledge base … based on the final score failing to satisfy the relevance threshold” that are still mentally performable.
Dependent claim 14 recites additional elements of “selecting … based on content of the knowledge base” that are still mentally performable. The element “the at least one machine learning model” may be characterized as generally linking the abstract idea to a technological area – machine learning or artificial intelligence, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights