DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the Amendment filed 18 June 2026.
Claims 2-21 are currently pending. In the Amendment filed 18 June 2026, claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-19 and 21 are currently amended. This action is Final.
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 .
Priority
This application is claiming priority as a continuation US Application # 18/920,367 filed 10/18/2024, now US Patent # 12,277,162 which claims priority to Provisional Application # 63/545,035 filed 10/20/2023.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 2, 9 and 16 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment to the claims.
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 2-7, 9-12, 14-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 2 recites a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a search query based on input from a client device, the input comprising text or one or more images; providing the search query to a trained generative artificial intelligence (Al) model; generating, via the trained generative Al model, confabulated content embeddings based on the search query; retrieving a listing of real content items responsive to the search query by: searching based on the confabulated content embeddings a database of real content embeddings corresponding to real content items; determining similarity scores between the confabulated content embeddings and the real content embeddings; and providing, for display via a user interface of the client device, search results comprising the listing of real content items responsive to the search query.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of generating confabulated content embeddings based on the search query; retrieving a listing of real content items responsive to the search query by: searching based on the confabulated content embeddings a database of real content embeddings corresponding to real content items; and determining similarity scores between the confabulated content embeddings and the real content embeddings, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict generating a set of confabulated embeddings, searching, using the confabulated content embeddings, a database of real content, determining similarity scores between confabulated and real embeddings and then based on the scores identifying real content. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except 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.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a computer, a client device, a trained generative AI model and a user interface. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of generating and providing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receiving a search query based on input, the search query comprising text or one or more images; providing the search query; and providing, for display, search results comprising the listing of real content items. These elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are gathering and outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a computer, a client device, a trained generative AI model and a user interface. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of generating and providing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receiving a search query based on input, the search query comprising text or one or more images; providing the search query; and providing, for display, search results comprising the listing of real content items. These elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are gathering and outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of gathering and outputting data, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites a system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the memory includes instructions executable by the one or more processors to: providing a search query to a trained generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, the search query based on input received from a client device; generate, via the trained generative AI model, confabulated content embeddings based on the search query; retrieve a listing of real content items responsive to the search query by: searching, based on the confabulated content embeddings, a database of real content embeddings corresponding to real content items; determining similarity scores between the confabulated content embeddings and the real content embeddings; identifying the listing of real content items responsive to the search query based on the similarity scores; and provide, for display via a user interface of the client device, the listing of real content items responsive to the search query.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of generate confabulated content embeddings based on the search query; retrieve a listing of real content items responsive to the search query by: searching, based on the confabulated content embeddings, a database of real content embeddings corresponding to real content items; determining similarity scores between the confabulated content embeddings and the real content embeddings; and identifying the listing of real content items responsive to the search query based on the similarity scores, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict generating a set of confabulated embeddings, searching, using the confabulated content embeddings, a database of real content, determining similarity scores between confabulated and real embeddings and then based on the scores identifying real content. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except 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.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of one or more processors, a memory, a client device, a trained generative AI model and a user interface. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of generating, determining and providing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of providing a search query, the search query based on input received; and provide, for display, search results comprising a listing of real content items corresponding to the listing of real content embeddings. These elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are gathering and outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of one or more processors, a memory, a client device, a trained generative AI model and a user interface. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of generating, determining and providing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of providing a search query, the search query based on input received; and provide, for display, search results comprising a listing of real content items corresponding to the listing of real content embeddings. These elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are gathering and outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of gathering and outputting data, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: provide a search query to a trained generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, the search query based on input received from a client device; generate, via the trained generative AI model, confabulated content embeddings based on the search query; retrieve a listing of real content items responsive to the search query by: searching, based on the confabulated content embeddings, a database of real content embeddings corresponding to real content items; determining similarity scores between the confabulated content embeddings and the real content embeddings; and identifying the listing of real content items responsive to the search query based on the similarity scores; and provide, for display via a user interface of the client device, a listing of real content items responsive to the search query.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of generate, via the trained generative AI model, confabulated content embeddings based on the search query; retrieve a listing of real content items responsive to the search query by: searching, based on the confabulated content embeddings, a database of real content embeddings corresponding to real content items; determining similarity scores between the confabulated content embeddings and the real content embeddings; and identifying the listing of real content items responsive to the search query based on the similarity scores, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict generating a set of confabulated embeddings, searching, using the confabulated content embeddings, a database of real content, determining similarity scores between confabulated and real embeddings and then based on the scores identifying real content. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except 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.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a medium, a client device, a trained generative AI model and a user interface. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of generating, determining and providing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of provide a search query, the search query based on input received; and provide, for display, a listing of real content items corresponding to the listing of real content embeddings. These elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are gathering and outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a medium, a client device, a trained generative AI model and a user interface. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of generating, determining and providing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of provide a search query, the search query based on input received; and provide, for display, a listing of real content items corresponding to the listing of real content embeddings. These elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are gathering and outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of gathering and outputting data, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 10, 18 and 21 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” Each claim fails to provide any additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7, 11, 14 and 19 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” The additional limitations of each of the claims is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 15 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” The additional limitations of each of the claims are directed to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 4 is directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” The additional elements of the claim is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity which does not provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-21 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Bolcer and Gudla.
Bolcer discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a search query from a client device, the search query comprising text or one or more images (see [0027]; [0028]; [0077] – The system receives an NL query 101. The query 101 is a question or information request written in NL. The query may come from user input.); providing the search query [query 101] to a trained generative Al model [large language model (LLM)] (see [0017]; [0025]; [0029]; [0077] – The query 101 is a prompt that comprises the first input given to a language model.); generating, via the trained generative Al model [LLM], a listing of confabulated content embeddings (see [0080]-[0084]; Fig 4 – The vector of the answer from NLP); generating a listing of real content embeddings based on determining a similarity between the confabulated content embeddings and real content embeddings (see [0052]; [0059]; [0060]; [0082]-[0083]; see Fig 4 – For each value the LLM returns, we can extract the company name regardless of whether it’s in a list or unstructured text. We pull each company name out and score it against our reference data. With the answer the NLP 405 gave, we can generate a new answer based on using our reference data and vector data analysis across all billions of data points.); and providing search results [answers] comprising a listing of real content items corresponding to the listing of real content embeddings (see [0052]; [0059]).
Gudla teaches providing a conversational textual search query via a client device to an online concierge system (see [0035]), including the further limitation of providing, for display via a user interface of the client device, search results (see [0035] – The ranked list of items are presented to the customer client device as search results.).
The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach the limitations found in each of the independent claims of providing a search query to a trained generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, the search query based on input received from a client device; generate, via the trained generative AI model, confabulated content embeddings based on the search query; retrieve a listing of real content items responsive to the search query by: searching, based on the confabulated content embeddings, a database of real content embeddings corresponding to real content items; determining similarity scores between the confabulated content embeddings and the real content embeddings; identifying the listing of real content items responsive to the search query based on the similarity scores; and provide, for display via a user interface of the client device, the listing of real content items responsive to the search query in combination with the other claimed limitations.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
The Examiner agrees that the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach the limitation of the independent claims as amended.
Applicant's arguments filed with regards to the 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the arguments on page 11 concerning “The Kim Memo,” the guidelines are a reminder that the claim has to recite at least one abstract idea. The Memo does not recite that the human mind has to be able to perform every claimed limitation. For example, the limitations recited in claim 2 of generating confabulated content embeddings based on the search query; retrieving a listing of real content items responsive to the search query by: searching based on the confabulated content embeddings a database of real content embeddings corresponding to real content items; and determining similarity scores between the confabulated content embeddings and the real content embeddings can be performed in the human mind for the reasons stated above in the rejection.
With regards to the close call argument on page 12, the Examiner agrees that it is not a close call because the claim recites “Mental Processes.” Therefore, the claim is 100% abstract.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-14 concerning the improvements, Applicant points to paragraph [0004]. Paragraph [0004] discusses first confabulating the items and then creating the embeddings from those items. This concept is recited in dependent claims 8, 13 and 17 instead of the independent claim. The independent claims have to include the limitation that is the improvement is directed to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPub 2025/00117838 to Baviskar et al teaches the identification of hallucinations.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY LOVEL WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2750. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/KIMBERLY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights