DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted July 28, 2026 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments towards a 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The Applicant states “The amended claims are not reasonably characterized as mental processes or pen-and-paper activity. A person cannot mentally execute a server-side machine-learning operations workflow that trains an LLM, evaluates the trained model, exports and saves a model artifact to a cloud, generates a prediction from the trained model, saves the prediction locally, and deploys trained machine learning models to a production environment for real-time or batch operation. These are computer-implemented model-promotion operations performed by a framework executed by a server, not merely observations, judgments, or mental categorizations.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A person is able to perform the functionality of the claims in their minds or with help of pen and paper. Using generic hardware (i.e. server side machines) and well-known concepts (i.e. an LLM) to perform mentally performed operations does render the Claims statutory under 35 USC 101.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Even if any portion of the claims were viewed as involving an abstract idea, the amended claims integrate any such idea into a practical application. The claims do not merely receive and display information. They use a server-executed framework to coordinate configuration files, feature groups, executable run-configuration steps, prediction generation, artifact saving, and production model serving.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Identifying a set of rules (i.e. configuration file) to perform a particular functionality is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper.
Collecting and grouping data (i.e. feature groups) is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper. Specifically, collecting data may be considered as gathering data step, which may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05. While grouping data is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper.
As to predicting a particular outcome, that is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper.
The rest of the elements are hardware elements that are recited at a high generality level and seem to be used as implementing abstract ideas on a computer.
As such, the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
As to use of LLM (and arguments towards Desjardins), the claims do not seem to improve the functionality of artificial intelligence. Rather, artificial intelligence is used to execute the above identified abstract ideas. Furthermore, in view of Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp, the instant claims do not claim any improvement to machine learning technology or the underlying computer technologies, but rather, applied generic machine learning methods to particular fields of data analysis.
Step 2B
The Applicant states “The amended claims also recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Claims recite abstract ideas as discussed above, as well as in the below rejection. When the claim is treated as w hole, it still recites an abstract concept that is executed with generic hardware and other generic components as described above.
No further specific arguments are presented.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 state “the sequence of functionality steps including…evaluating the trained LLM.” However, it is unclear what such evaluation entails. While the instant specification contains the language quoted above, nowhere does the specification describe what that means or how that is accomplished. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be established.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not shed further light on the above issues and are thus are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11 recite:
receiving a user instruction at an application executed by an electronic device – Receiving information is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
generating, at a framework executed by a server, one or more feature groups based on profile data, wherein a feature group is a second level logical grouping of semantically similar data features sharing common input data and computed in the same deployment – Grouping data based on particular characteristics is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper.
generating, at the framework, a data configuration file – Generating the configuration file seems to be gathering of information such as various parameters. That is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper. Also, gathering information may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
generating, at the framework, a model configuration file – Generating the model configuration file seems to be gathering of information such as information about the model. That is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper. Also, gathering information may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
specifying, at the framework, in a run configuration file, a sequence of functionality steps for execution, the sequence of functionality steps including training a large language model ("LLM"), evaluating the trained LLM, exporting and saving a model artifact to a cloud, generating a prediction from the trained LLM, and saving the prediction locally - Identifying a probable output based on gathered information is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper. Also, training and saving are well-understood, routine and conventional functions of an LLM.
generating, at the framework, a prediction score for the prediction based on the sequence of functionality steps - Identifying a probable output based on gathered information is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper.
saving and executing, at the framework, the sequence of functionality steps, wherein executing the sequence of functionality steps deploys trained machine learning models to a production environment where they can be accessed and used to make predictions or decisions in real-time or batch mode to show top-K number recommendations to the users - Storing and executing data is generic functionality of a computer. Furthermore, such functionality may also be considered a well-understood, routine and conventional activity of the device as discussed in MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, using of an LLM to a particular technological field does not make the claim eligible under 101 at least in view of Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.
generating, at the electronic device, one or more outputs including, for example, a prediction based on the sequence of functionality steps - Identifying a probable output based on gathered information is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other, the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements of hardware executing the abstract idea. The additional elements such a processor, storage device, etc are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information processing. 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.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite further mental processes that may be completed with aid of pen and paper and as such are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Biswas et al (2024/0370187) describes at least a configuration file that create machine learning systems.
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 ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights