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
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on August 10, 2026 has been received and entered. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 14, 17, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claim 15 has been cancelled. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are pending for examination.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8/10/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of prior patent No. 12,254,014 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8, lines 4 and 7, recites the limitation " a corresponding similarity value". It is not clear if they are referring to the same limitation or not.
Similar problem exists in claim 10.
Claim 9, line 5 and claim 10, lines 5 recites “a similarity”. It is not clear if they are referring to the same limitation or not.
Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
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 non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “A method comprising: obtaining a content that is associated with a plurality of topics and a plurality of information sources; identifying a plurality of queries that is associated with one or more topics of the plurality of topics; determining, using a validation model, that the plurality of queries is not addressed by the content; based on determining that the plurality of queries is not addressed by the content, (i) providing the plurality of queries to a generative machine learning (ML) model as an input to prompt the generative ML model to address the plurality of queries and (ii) generating an updated content using the generative ML model based on the plurality of topics, the plurality of information sources, and the query plurality of queries; determining, using the validation model, that each of the plurality of queries is addressed by the updated content; and outputting the updated content”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the content comprises a document”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “obtaining the content comprises generating, using the generative ML model, the content based on the plurality of topics and the plurality of information sources”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “obtaining an instruction to generate the content, wherein the instruction indicates a subject for the content, wherein the subject spans the plurality of topics comprising the topic, and wherein the generative ML model is configured to generate the content and the updated content further based on the instruction”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the generative ML model is configured to generate the updated content further based on contextual data associated with generating the content”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the content is associated with a subject that spans the plurality of topics, and wherein identifying the plurality of queries comprises: identifying one or more queries associated with the subject based on a similarity between the subject and the one or more queries, wherein the plurality of queries comprises the one or more queries; and determining at least one topic of the plurality of topics by processing the one or more queries using a text summarization model”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “wherein the text summarization model is configured to summarize the plurality of queries by determining the at least one topic, and wherein the at least one topic to collectively represents plurality of queries”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “identifying the one or more queries comprises: determining, for each respective query of multiple queries associated with the subject, a corresponding similarity value representing a similarity between the subject and the respective query; and selecting, from the multiple queries, the one or more queries based on each of the one or more queries having a corresponding similarity value that exceeds a threshold query similarity value”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the content is associated with a subject that spans the plurality of topics, and wherein the method further comprises: identifying one or more information sources associated with the subject based on a similarity between the subject and the one or more information sources, wherein the plurality of information sources comprises the one or more information sources; and determining, using a query answering model, that each of the plurality of queries is addressed using the one or more information sources, wherein the updated content is generated based on determining that the plurality of queries is addressed using the one or more information sources”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “identifying the one or more information sources comprises: determining, for each respective information source of two or more information sources associated with the subject, a corresponding similarity value representing a similarity between the subject and the respective information source; and selecting, from the two or more information sources, the one or more information sources based on each of the one or more information sources having a corresponding similarity value that exceeds a threshold information similarity value”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “determining that each of the plurality of queries is addressed using the one or more information sources comprises: for each respective query of the plurality of queries, identifying within the one or more information sources a corresponding textual string that answers the respective query”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “storing a textual string selected from the plurality of information sources to answer a query of the plurality of queries, wherein the query is addressed by the updated content using a generated textual string that differs from the textual string; transmitting, to a client device, instructions configured to cause display of the updated content using a user interface comprising a user interface component associated with the generated textual string and configured to receive a request for the textual string; receiving, from the client device, the request for the textual string based on an interaction with the user interface component; and based on receiving the request for the textual string, transmitting, to the client device, additional instructions configured to cause display of the textual string using the user interface”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “receiving a user-specified query to be answered by the content, wherein the generative ML model is configured to generate the updated content further based on the user-specified query”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “identifying an additional query that is associated with a topic of the plurality of topics; determining, using the validation model, that the additional query is not addressed by the updated content; based on determining that the additional query is not addressed by the updated content, generating a second updated content using the generative ML model based on the plurality of topics, the plurality of information sources, the plurality of queries, and the additional query; determining, using the validation model, that each of the plurality of queries query and the additional query are addressed by the second updated content; and outputting the second updated content”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the generative ML model comprises a large language model that has been trained to generate contents using a target writing style represented by a plurality of sample contents”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “determining that an information source of the plurality of information sources has been modified; based on determining that the information source has been modified, determining, using a query answering model, that a first response to a query of the plurality of queries provided by the updated content is different from a second response to the query provided by the information source as modified; based on determining that the first response is different from the second response, generating a second updated content using the generative ML model based on the plurality of topic§. and the information source as modified; and outputting the second updated content”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “receiving, by way of a user interface, a modification to the updated content; generating a second updated content using the generative ML model; determining that a first portion of the updated content differs from a second portion of the second updated content, wherein the first portion corresponds to the modification received by way of the user interface, and wherein the second portion corresponds to the first portion at least in that the second portion addresses a same query as the first portion; based on determining that the first portion differs from the second portion, causing display of a representation of a difference between the first portion and the second portion by way of the user interface; and receiving, by way of the user interface, a specification of content for the second portion based on causing display of the representation of the difference”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: obtaining a content that is associated with a plurality of topics and a plurality of information sources; identifying a plurality of queries that is associated with one or more topics of the plurality of topics; determining, using a validation model, that the plurality of queries is not addressed by the content; based on determining that the plurality of queries is not addressed by the content, (i) providing the plurality of queries to a generative machine learning (ML) model as an input to prompt the generative ML model to address the plurality of queries and (ii) generating an updated content using the generative ML model based on the plurality of topics, the plurality of information sources, and the plurality of queries; determining, using the validation model, that each of the plurality of queries is addressed by the updated content; and outputting the updated content”.
The limitations of “
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “a computing system” to perform the claimed steps. The “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “a computing system” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “a computing system” to perform the claimed steps. The “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “a computing system”, performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory, containing program instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: obtaining a content that is associated with a plurality of topics and a plurality of information sources; identifying a plurality of queries that is associated with one or more topics of the plurality of topics; determining, using a validation model, that the plurality of queries is not addressed by the content; based on determining that the plurality of queries is not addressed by the content, (i) providing the plurality of queries~ to a generative machine learning (ML) model as an input to prompt the generative ML model to address the plurality of queries and (ii) generating an updated content using the generative ML model based on the plurality of topics, the plurality of information sources, and the plurality of queries; determining, using the validation model, that each of the plurality of queries is addressed by the updated content; and outputting the updated content”.
The limitations of “
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “A system”, “one or more processors” and “memory” to perform the claimed steps. The “A system”, “one or more processors” and “memory” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “A system”, “one or more processors” and “memory” to perform the claimed steps. The “A system”, “one or more processors” and “memory”, performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anand et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0004912) in view of Kimbrough et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2007/0106662) and Shrivastava et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2026/0161721).
Referring to claim 1, Anand et al. teaches a method comprising:
obtaining a content that is associated with a plurality of topics and a plurality of information sources (have access to a storage device for maintaining documents 105 … online system 190 to access the documents 105 remotely so as to provide one or more documents 105 to clients 120, see Anand et al., Para. 27, a document 105 can be assigned to a first-level topic, to second-level topic that is a subtopic of the first-level topic, to a third-level topic that is a subtopic of the second-level topic, and so on. Thus, a document 105 may be assigned to a set of topics, which may include a topic at each level of the hierarchy, see Anand et al., Para. 30);
based on determining that the plurality of queries is not addressed by the content (if no such other documents 105 are identified, see Anand et al., Para. 67), generating an updated content using the generative ML model (machine learning and topic modeling and, in particular, unsupervised learning to generate hierarchical topic models, see Anand et al., Para. 21) based on the plurality of topics, the plurality of information sources (determine semantic relations describing relationships between pairs of words in the documents 105 and statistical relations describing relationships between words and documents 105, see Anand et al., Para. 26, at block 305, the process 300 involves generating a semantic relations matrix, Matrix SE, to rep resent semantic relations between pairs of words in documents 105 of a corpus, see Anand et al., Para. 32, categorizes the documents 105 of the corpus based on the document-word matrix determined at block 315 … categorize that document 105 as belonging to the first-level topic corresponding to the column in which that highest weight appears., see Anand et al., Para. 36), and the plurality of queries (At block 720, the process 700 involves generating custom content for the user based on the one or more other documents 105 identified at block 715. The custom content can take various forms. For example, the custom content could be a list of the one or more other documents 105, possibly including links to access the one or more other documents 105, or the custom content could be a marketing message attempting to sell a product related to the one or more other documents 105, see Anand et al., Para. 68);
outputting the updated content (transmit the custom content to the client 120, see Anand et al., Para. 69).
However, Anand et al. does not explicitly teach
identifying a plurality of queries that is associated with one or more topics of the plurality of topics;
determining, using a validation model, that the plurality of queries is not addressed by the content;
(i) providing the plurality of queries to a generative machine learning (ML) model as an input to prompt the generative ML model to address the plurality of queries and (ii) generating an updated content using the generative ML model;
determining, using the validation model, that each of the plurality of queries is addressed by the updated content.
Kimbrough et al. teaches
identifying a plurality of queries that is associated with one or more topics of the plurality of topics (a query set for at least one dimension of the array, there will frequently be a substantial number of documents that do not return a "hit" for any Qj. Depending on the intended use of the information, these documents may be ignored, or a column in the array may be assigned for no-hit documents, see Kimbrough et al., Para, 171);
determining, using a validation model, that the plurality of queries is not addressed by the content (unclassified documents do exist under any classification being used, they may be treated in any of the ways mentioned above for documents that return no hit to a query set, see Kimbrough et al., Para, 172);
determining, using the validation model, that each of the plurality of queries is addressed by the updated content (a query set for at least one dimension of the array, there will frequently be a substantial number of documents that do not return a "hit" for any Qj. Depending on the intended use of the information, these documents may be ignored, or a column in the array may be assigned for no-hit documents, see Kimbrough et al., Para, 171).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Anand et al., to have identifying a plurality of queries that is associated with one or more topics of the plurality of topics; determining, using a validation model, that the plurality of queries is not addressed by the content; determining, using the validation model, that each of the plurality of queries is addressed by the updated content, as taught by Kimbrough et al., to improve effective information access to collections of texts (Kimbrough et al., Para. 5).
Anand et al. as modified does not explicitly teach
(i) providing the plurality of queries to a generative machine learning (ML) model as an input to prompt the generative ML model to address the plurality of queries and (ii) generating an updated content using the generative ML model.
Shrivastava et al. teaches
(i) providing the plurality of queries to a generative machine learning (ML) model as an input to prompt the generative ML model to address the plurality of queries and (ii) generating an updated content using the generative ML model (The generative machine-learned model can obtain input prompts (e.g., comprising search queries and context data) and be trained and tuned to provide output responses based on the obtained input prompts, see Shrivastava et al., Para. 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Anand et al. as modified, to have (i) providing the plurality of queries to a generative machine learning (ML) model as an input to prompt the generative ML model to address the plurality of queries and (ii) generating an updated content using the generative ML model, as taught by Shrivastava et al., to improve the performance (Shrivastava et al., Para. 122).
As to claim 2, Anand et al. teaches the content comprises a document (documents 105, see Anand et al., Para. 27).
As to claim 3, Anand et al. as modified teaches obtaining the content comprises generating, using the generative ML model, the content based on the topic (unsupervised machine learning to organize a collection of documents into groups, referred to as topics, see Anand et al., Para. 2) and the information source (some or all of the hits may contain only a link or other reference to the original location of the document, see Kimbrough et al., Para, 61).
As to claim 4, Anand et al. as modified teaches
obtaining an instruction (instructions that are executable to cause the one or more processors to perform operations, see Shrivastava et al., Para. 142) to generate the content (generate custom content, see Anand et al., Para. 5. At block 720, the process 700 involves generating custom content for the user based on the one or more other documents 105 identified at block 715. The custom content can take various forms. For example, the custom content could be a list of the one or more other documents 105, see Anand et al., Para. 68), wherein the instruction indicates a subject for the content, wherein the subject spans the plurality of topics (identify which topic the document 105 belongs to at each topic level of the HTM 110. This may include, for instance, identifying a first-level topic to which the document 105 is assigned, a second-level topic to which the document 105 is assigned, see Anand et al., Para. 65), and wherein the generative ML model is configured to generate the content and the updated content further based on the instruction (The generative machine-learned model can obtain input prompts (e.g., comprising search queries and context data) and be trained and tuned to provide output responses based on the obtained input prompts, see Shrivastava et al., Para. 107).
As to claim 5, Anand et al. as modified teaches
the generative ML model is configured to generate the updated content further based on contextual data associated with generating the content (The generative machine-learned model can obtain input prompts (e.g., comprising search queries and context data) and be trained and tuned to provide output responses based on the obtained input prompts, see Shrivastava et al., Para. 107).
As to claim 6, Anand et al. as modified teaches
the content is associated with a subject that spans the plurality of topics (identify which topic the document 105 belongs to at each topic level of the HTM 110. This may include, for instance, identifying a first-level topic to which the document 105 is assigned, a second-level topic to which the document 105 is assigned, see Anand et al., Para. 65), and wherein identifying the plurality of queries comprises:
identifying one or more queries associated with the subject based on a similarity between the subject and the one or more queries, wherein the plurality of queries comprises the one or more queries (query marginals may report the number of documents in the relevant collection that matched or had a certain degree of match to the query, the number of taxa in which there were documents that matched the query or that matched to a certain degree or that numbered above a threshold, see Kimbrough et al., Para, 106); and
determining at least one topic of the plurality of topics by processing the one or more
queries using a text summarization model (especially for rows of cells where a taxon in the classification has anomalous numbers of hits relative to a high proportion of the queries of Step 210, see Kimbrough et al., Para, 128).
As to claim 7, Anand et al. as modified teaches
the text summarization model is configured to summarize the plurality of queries by determining the at least one topic, and wherein the at least one topic collectively represents the plurality of queries (this information may be useful and valuable when there is a natural ordering on, or grouping of, the documents/queries (e.g., by time or other classification), see Kimbrough et al., Para, 117).
As to claim 13, Anand et al. as modified teaches receiving a user-specified query to be answered by the content, wherein the generative ML model is configured to generate the updated content further based on the user-specified query (The generative machine-learned model can obtain input prompts (e.g., comprising search queries and context data) and be trained and tuned to provide output responses based on the obtained input prompts, see Shrivastava et al., Para. 107).
As to claim 14, Anand et al. as modified teaches
identifying an additional second query that is associated with a topic of the plurality
of topics (a query set for at least one dimension of the array, there will frequently be a substantial number of documents that do not return a "hit" for any Qj. Depending on the intended use of the information, these documents may be ignored, or a column in the array may be assigned for no-hit documents, see Kimbrough et al., Para, 171);
determining, using the validation model, that the additional query is not addressed
by the updated content (unclassified documents do exist under any classification being used, they may be treated in any of the ways mentioned above for documents that return no hit to a query set, see Kimbrough et al., Para, 172);
based on determining that the additional query is not addressed by the updated
content (if no such other documents 105 are identified, see Anand et al., Para. 67), generating a second updated content using the generative ML model (machine learning and topic modeling and, in particular, unsupervised learning to generate hierarchical topic models, see Anand et al., Para. 21) based on the plurality of topics, the plurality of information sources (determine semantic relations describing relationships between pairs of words in the documents 105 and statistical relations describing relationships between words and documents 105, see Anand et al., Para. 26, at block 305, the process 300 involves generating a semantic relations matrix, Matrix SE, to rep resent semantic relations between pairs of words in documents 105 of a corpus, see Anand et al., Para. 32, categorizes the documents 105 of the corpus based on the document-word matrix determined at block 315 … categorize that document 105 as belonging to the first-level topic corresponding to the column in which that highest weight appears., see Anand et al., Para. 36), the plurality of queries, and the second additional query (At block 720, the process 700 involves generating custom content for the user based on the one or more other documents 105 identified at block 715. The custom content can take various forms. For example, the custom content could be a list of the one or more other documents 105, possibly including links to access the one or more other documents 105, or the custom content could be a marketing message attempting to sell a product related to the one or more other documents 105, see Anand et al., Para. 68);
determining, using the validation model, that each of the plurality of queries and the
additional query are addressed by the second updated content (a query set for at least one dimension of the array, there will frequently be a substantial number of documents that do not return a "hit" for any Qj. Depending on the intended use of the information, these documents may be ignored, or a column in the array may be assigned for no-hit documents, see Kimbrough et al., Para, 171); and
outputting the second updated content (transmit the custom content to the client 120, see Anand et al., Para. 69).
As to claim 16, Anand et al. as modified does not explicitly teach the generative ML model comprises a large language model that has been trained (generative model can include a "large language model" or other machine-learned model that has been trained, see Shrivastava et al., Para. 109) to generate contents using a target writing style represented by a plurality of sample contents (having separate sets of training data for different entities associated with web resources can allow for training or tuning of the generative machine-learned model(s), see Shrivastava et al., Para. 21, provide for a feedback loop for training machine-learned models. For instance, model trainers or validators can utilize the output obtained by the conversational machine-learned models and continually train the model to generate better (e.g., more relevant) output, see Shrivastava et al., Para. 33).
Referring to claim 19, Anand et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (memory, see Anand et al., Para. 72), having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Referring to claim 20, Anand et al. teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors (processor, see Anand et al., Para. 72); and
memory (memory, see Anand et al., Para. 72), containing program instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s remarks filed on 8/14/2026 with respect to claims 1, 19 and 20 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 at 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 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights