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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 16, 2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims have been analyzed in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("2019 PEG"), and MPEP §§ 2106 et seq. Claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, and manufacture and therefore fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. Under Step 2A, Prong One, it is determined whether the claims recite a judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04. Independent claim 1 recites: obtaining prompt criteria defining context for classifying documents; generating a prompt based on the criteria; inputting the prompt and a document into a generative AI model to generate a classification; and generating an explanation of why the classification was generated. These limitations collectively describe collecting information, analyzing information, classifying information, evaluating information, and providing explanatory information. Such activities constitute mental processes because they are observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Mental processes are one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified in the 2019 PEG. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claim additionally recites classifying documents according to criteria and generating explanations regarding those classifications. Such operations amount to evaluating and organizing information and therefore fall within the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Independent claims 11 and 16 recite substantially the same limitations in the form of a computer device and computer system and therefore likewise recite the same abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite additional information gathering, information analysis, information updating, information presentation, and user review functions that likewise fall within the identified abstract idea and therefore do not alter the determination under Prong One. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception. Because the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to Step 2A, Prong Two to determine whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The claims additionally recite one or more processors, memories, user devices, display devices, prompts, documents, and a generative AI model. These additional elements merely perform generic computer functions such as: receiving information, storing information, processing information, displaying information, and executing software instructions. The claims do not recite any improvement to computer functionality or any improvement to another technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). In particular, the claims do not recite: a specific improvement to the architecture or operation of a generative AI model; a specific machine-learning training technique; a specific model-explainability algorithm; a specialized data structure; a technical solution to a computer-networking problem; a technical solution to a memory-management problem; or any other technological improvement. Instead, the claims merely use a generative AI model as a tool for performing the abstract process of document classification and explanation generation. The claims also do not effect a transformation of an article, apply the abstract idea in any meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a technological environment, or otherwise impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), 2106.05(c), and 2106.05(f)-(h). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception. Because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. The additional elements include processors, memories, user devices, display devices, and a generative AI model. The claims merely require these elements to perform conventional computer functions such as receiving, storing, processing, classifying, displaying, and transmitting information. These functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the claims recite the generative AI model at a high level of generality and do not require any particular model architecture, training procedure, inference mechanism, explainability technique, or technological implementation. The claims therefore amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Considering the claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1-20 do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely collecting, analyzing, classifying, evaluating, updating, and explaining information, which constitutes a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d) or recite additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception under MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0273291) in view of Rankin (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2025/0156484).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, Smith et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for providing explanations, the method comprising: obtaining, via one or more processors, at least one prompt criteria defining context for classifying a corpus of documents using a generative AI model (paragraph 0034); generating, via the one or more processors, a first prompt based upon the at least one prompt criteria (paragraph 0038-0039); inputting, via the one or more processors, the first prompt and a first document of the corpus of documents into the generative AI model to generate a classification of the first document (paragraph 0145 and 0170).
Smith et al. does not teach generating, via the one or more processors, an explanation of why the generative AI model generated the classification based on an output of the generative AI model.
Rankin teaches generating, via the one or more processors, an explanation of why the generative AI model generated the classification based on an output of the generative AI model (paragraph 0073-0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine generating an explanation, as taught by Rankin, with the method of Smith et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications because the explanation provides a human readable reasoning to help the user known why things happened.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 17, Smith et al. teaches further comprising: obtaining, via the one or more processors, review data associated with the first document; updating, via the one or more processors, the at least one prompt criteria based on the classification of the first document and the review data; and generating, via the one or more processors, an explanation of the updated at least one prompt criteria (paragraph 0370-0371).
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 18, Smith et al. teaches further comprising: generating, via the one or more processors, a second prompt based upon the updated at least one prompt criteria; and classifying, via the one or more processors, the second document by inputting the second prompt into the generative AI model (paragraph 0330).
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 19, Smith et al. teaches wherein obtaining the review data comprises: obtaining, via the one or more processors, a first comment associated with the first document from a first user device; obtaining, via the one or more processors, a second comment associated with the first document from a second user device; and merging, via the one or more processors, the first comment with the second comment to create the review data (paragraph 0049).
Regarding claims 5, Smith et al. teaches wherein merging the first comment with the second comment includes: determining, via the one or more processors, that no contradiction exists between the first comment and the second comment; and in response to determining that no contradiction exists, adding, via the one or more processors, the first comment to the second comment (paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 6, Smith et al. teaches wherein merging the first comment with the second comment includes: determining, via the one or more processors, that a contradiction exists between the first comment and the second comment; and in response to determining that a contradiction exists, merging, via the one or more processors, the first comment and the second comment based on a priority associated with the first user device and a priority associated with the second user device (paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 7, Smith et al. as modified by Rankin teaches further comprising: granting, via the one or more processors, to a user profile, a first permission level or a second permission level; and wherein the first permission level allows the user profile to generate review data but not modify the at least one prompt criteria, and wherein the second permission level allows the user profile to both generate review data and modify the at least one prompt criteria (see paragraph 0036 of Rankin).
Regarding claim 8, Smith et al. as modified by Rankin teaches wherein the method further includes: granting, via the one or more processors, to a first user profile associated with a first user, a first permission level, wherein the first permission level allows the first user profile to generate review data but not modify the at least one prompt criteria; and granting, via the one or more processors, to a second user profile associated with a second user, a second permission level, wherein the second permission level allows the second user profile to both generate review data and modify the at least one prompt criteria; and wherein: obtaining the review data comprises obtaining, via the one or more processors, the review data via the first user profile; the method further comprises receiving, via the one or more processors, a modification to the at least one prompt criteria via the second user profile; and updating, via the one or more processors, based on the received modification and the second permission level, the at least one prompt criteria (see paragraph 0008 and 0036 and Rankin).
Regarding claim 9, Smith et al. teaches wherein the first document comprises an email file, a word processing file, a spreadsheet file, an audio recording, a text message, and/or imagery data (paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 10, Smith et al. teaches wherein the first document is associated with a file type, and updating the at least one prompt criteria includes updating the at least one prompt criteria to specify that documents: (i) associated with the file type are responsive, and/or (ii) not associated with the file type are not responsive (paragraph 0170).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Smith et al. teaches further comprising a display device, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to display, on the display device, the explanation of why the generative AI model generated the classification (paragraph 0077).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON HOFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. 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.
/BRANDON HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights