DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 19/057548 filed on January 02, 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 have been considered but are not persuasive.
On Pg. 4 of remarks in regards to 35 U.S.C. 101, relating to claim 1, Applicant states “These operations involve machine-implemented pattern matching, vector mathematics, and database indexing that are not mental steps and cannot practically be performed by a human.”
Examiner replies that the steps can be performed by a mental process and a pen and paper. With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 1, specifically claim 1 recites “execute a vector-based search limited to the designated document database to retrieve document excerpts relevant to the user's query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally searching a document for text portions that are relevant to a user question,
“and output an output of the generative AI in response to the prompt as an answer to the user's query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a response to a user’s question.
On Pg. 5 of remarks in regards to 35 U.S.C. 101, relating to claim 1, Applicant argues “that are "specific technological implementation details" that specifically and narrowly define how the system constrains retrieval and controls the prompt supplied to the generative AI to improve the accuracy of the output”
Examiner replies that the steps do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The elements do not amount more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
For example “detect, from a user's query, one or more product attributes including at least a vehicle type, a driving system, and an annual model by matching keywords in the query against regular expressions stored in a switching setting file”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
"designate, prior to execution of a generative AI, a document database to be used for searching from a plurality of document databases based on a combination of the detected product attributes and a document-database information file that associates combinations of product attributes with corresponding document databases” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
“generate a prompt to be input to a generative AI by combining (i) role-defining instructions for the generative AI, (ii) the retrieved document excerpts as prerequisite knowledge, and(iii) the user's query” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) i. remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
wherein limiting the search to the designated document database improves accuracy of the answer by preventing use of documents associated with different product configurations is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §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.
3. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a dialogue system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 1, specifically claim 1 recites “execute a vector-based search limited to the designated document database to retrieve document excerpts relevant to the user's query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally searching a document for text portions that are relevant to a user question,
“and output an output of the generative AI in response to the prompt as an answer to the user's query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a response to a user’s question.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify locations to search for information.
Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 1 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “detect, from a user's query, one or more product attributes including at least a vehicle type, a driving system, and an annual model by matching keywords in the query against regular expressions stored in a switching setting file”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
"designate, prior to execution of a generative AI, a document database to be used for searching from a plurality of document databases based on a combination of the detected product attributes and a document-database information file that associates combinations of product attributes with corresponding document databases” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
“generate a prompt to be input to a generative AI by combining (i) role-defining instructions for the generative AI, (ii) the retrieved document excerpts as prerequisite knowledge, and(iii) the user's query” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) i. remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
wherein limiting the search to the designated document database improves accuracy of the answer by preventing use of documents associated with different product configurations is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “detect, from a user's query, one or more product attributes including at least a vehicle type, a driving system, and an annual model by matching keywords in the query against regular expressions stored in a switching setting file”, "designate, prior to execution of a generative AI, a document database to be used for searching from a plurality of document databases based on a combination of the detected product attributes and a document-database information file that associates combinations of product attributes with corresponding document databases”, “generate a prompt to be input to a generative AI by combining (i) role-defining instructions for the generative AI, (ii) the retrieved document excerpts as prerequisite knowledge, and(iii) the user's query”, “wherein limiting the search to the designated document database improves accuracy of the answer by preventing use of documents associated with different product configurations”.
For example, “detect, from a user's query, one or more product attributes including at least a vehicle type, a driving system, and an annual model by matching keywords in the query against regular expressions stored in a switching setting file”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “designate, prior to execution of a generative AI, a document database to be used for searching from a plurality of document databases based on a combination of the detected product attributes and a document-database information file that associates combinations of product attributes with corresponding document database” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “generate a prompt to be input to a generative AI by combining (i) role-defining instructions for the generative AI, (ii) the retrieved document excerpts as prerequisite knowledge, and(iii) the user's query”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “wherein limiting the search to the designated document database improves accuracy of the answer by preventing use of documents associated with different product configurations”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a dialogue system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 2, specifically claim 2 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 2 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “request additional information to the user when the user’s query lacks information for designating the document database, designate the database on the basis of the users query and the additional information” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “request additional information to the user when the user’s query lacks information for designating the document database, designate the database on the basis of the users query and the additional information”.
For example, “request additional information to the user when the user’s query lacks information for designating the document database, designate the database on the basis of the users query and the additional information”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a dialogue system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 3, specifically claim 3 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 3 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “acquire supplementary information from user information related to the user that has been registered in advance when the user’s query lacks information for designating the document database, designate the document database on the basis of the user’s query and the supplementary information” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “acquire supplementary information from user information related to the user that has been registered in advance when the user’s query lacks information for designating the document database, designate the document database on the basis of the user’s query and the supplementary information”.
For example, “acquire supplementary information from user information related to the user that has been registered in advance when the user’s query lacks information for designating the document database, designate the document database on the basis of the user’s query and the supplementary information” is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a dialogue system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 4, specifically claim 4 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein each of the plurality of databases includes vector data in which a character string indicating a document as the vehicle information is vectorized” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein each of the plurality of databases includes vector data in which a character string indicating a document as the vehicle information is vectorized”.
For example, “wherein each of the plurality of databases includes vector data in which a character string indicating a document as the vehicle information is vectorized” is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 5, specifically claim 5 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 5 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein each of the plurality of databases includes vector data in which a character string indicating a document as the vehicle information is vectorized” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein each of the plurality of databases includes vector data in which a character string indicating a document as the vehicle information is vectorized”.
For example, “wherein each of the plurality of databases includes vector data in which a character string indicating a document as the vehicle information is vectorized” is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein each of the plurality of databases includes vector data in which a character string indicating a document as the vehicle information is vectorized” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein each of the plurality of databases includes vector data in which a character string indicating a document as the vehicle information is vectorized”.
For example, “wherein each of the plurality of databases includes vector data in which a character string indicating a document as the vehicle information is vectorized” is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a dialogue system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 7, specifically claim 7 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “the processor is configured to generate the prompt to include (i) an instructions section, (ii) a prerequisite knowledge section comprising the retrieved document excerpts, and (iii) a query section comprising the user's query; and the prerequisite knowledge section includes a plurality of separately identified search results retrieved by the vector-based search” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “the processor is configured to generate the prompt to include (i) an instructions section, (ii) a prerequisite knowledge section comprising the retrieved document excerpts, and (iii) a query section comprising the user's query; and the prerequisite knowledge section includes a plurality of separately identified search results retrieved by the vector-based search”.
For example, “the processor is configured to generate the prompt to include (i) an instructions section, (ii) a prerequisite knowledge section comprising the retrieved document excerpts, and (iii) a query section comprising the user's query; and the prerequisite knowledge section includes a plurality of separately identified search results retrieved by the vector-based search” is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a dialogue system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 8, specifically claim 8 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 8 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the processor is configured to vectorize the user's query, determine cosine similarity between the vectorized query and vector data representing documents in the designated document database, and retrieve the document excerpts based on the cosine similarity” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the processor is configured to vectorize the user's query, determine cosine similarity between the vectorized query and vector data representing documents in the designated document database, and retrieve the document excerpts based on the cosine similarity”.
For example, “wherein the processor is configured to vectorize the user's query, determine cosine similarity between the vectorized query and vector data representing documents in the designated document database, and retrieve the document excerpts based on the cosine similarity” is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (ii).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a dialogue system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 9, specifically claim 9 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 9 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the processor is configured to detect the vehicle type, driving system, and annual model by mapping detected keywords to regular expressions and synonyms defined in the switching setting file” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the processor is configured to detect the vehicle type, driving system, and annual model by mapping detected keywords to regular expressions and synonyms defined in the switching setting file”.
For example, “wherein the processor is configured to detect the vehicle type, driving system, and annual model by mapping detected keywords to regular expressions and synonyms defined in the switching setting file” is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (i).
Conclusion
10. 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 JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/J.A.M/ January 23, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159