DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated March 11,2026. In Response, submitted May 11, 2026, claims 1, 10, and 16 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 10-13 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are found persuasive in light of the amended claims.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 13-17 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 13-16 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant traverses the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being allegedly directed to non-statutory subject matter. … When considered in light of Desjardins, claim 1 recites patentable subject matter. Indeed, rather than merely reciting ‘aggregating, summarizing, and providing reviews for an item,’ the above quoted features recite specific data that is input to large language models to generate target keyword summaries and item object summaries, as well as the use of one or more large language models that evaluate characteristics of the item object summaries and adjust the item object summaries, where these large language models are iteratively trained to adjust parameters based on inputted features associated with item object summaries. As such, at least because claim 1 improves large language models that allow them to generate and adjust the item object summaries, at least under Desjardins, claim 1 recites patentable subject matter and is not directed to a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, inputting “specific data … to … models to generate target keyword summaries and item object summaries” as well as “evaluat[ing] characteristics of the item object summaries and adjust[ing] the item object summaries,” and “adjust[ing] parameters based on inputted features associated with item object summaries” are aspects of the recited abstract idea, and are therefore unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. One set of large language models argued serve simply to generally link the abstract ideas of inputting “specific data … to … models to generate target keyword summaries and item object summaries” to the field of machine learning. The other set of “one or more large language models” which are “iteratively trained” that are argued simply serve to generally link the abstract ideas of “evaluat[ing] characteristics of the item object summaries and adjust[ing] the item object summaries,” and “adjust[ing] parameters based on inputted features associated with item object summaries” to the field of machine learning as well. The lack of technical detail found within the specification regarding the specifics how these models work to ingest the abstract inputs and arrive at the abstract outputs serve to support these findings. Contrarily most significant detail provided regarding these models is found in specification Para. 65 where the Applicant provides a non-exhaustive list of example large language models that could be used in this invention, and explicitly states that this list is “non-limiting and any large language model can be used”. If any large language model can be used in this example, there is no support for the claims reflecting a technical improvement to the technology of large language models, rather this indicates that the recited large language models merely generally link the abstract ideas to the field of machine learning/LLMs. The alleged improvement argued appears to be to the abstract idea of “generat[ing] and adjust[ing] the item object summaries” rather than to the technology itself. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
On Page 16, Applicant argues “Moreover, Applicant's specification demonstrates to one of ordinary skill in the art that, at least as amended, claim 1 provides technical several improvements, including using large language models that are trained to generate item object summaries that summarize what may be an overwhelming amount of review data, which can reduce the amount of processing otherwise required as users attempt to navigate through voluminous reviews, thereby integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. … Claim 1 further provides for the generation of a set of instructions to cause the item object summary to be displayed on a user interface, which Applicant respectfully submits provides further statutory subject matter by allowing for the practical application of displaying of the generated and modified item object summaries. Id. As such, and as persons of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, the claimed subject matter provides several technical advantages, and is not merely directed to ‘aggregating, summarizing, and providing reviews for an item.’”
Examiner notes, as discussed above, “using large language models that are trained to generate item object summaries” amounts to merely using “large language models that are trained” to generally link the abstract idea of “generat[ing] item object summaries” to the field of machine learning, but fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Further the alleged improvements of “summariz[ing] what may be an overwhelming amount of review data, [and…] reduc[ing] the amount of processing otherwise required as users attempt to navigate through voluminous reviews” are abstract ideas as they only represent benefits to the user and do not describe any technical improvement to the large language models or any other technology.
Examiner further notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, “generat[ing …] a set of instructions to cause the item object summary to be displayed” is a recitation of the abstract idea. The additional element of the user interface is used merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is “displaying of the generated and modified item object summaries” is not a practical application but rather the abstract idea being carried out. While this may provide advantages in the abstract displaying of data, these are not improvements to the user interface technology or any other technical aspect.
On Pages 16-17 of the Response, Applicant argues “the claims recite significantly more than ‘aggregating, summarizing, and providing reviews for an item.’ Indeed, the claims recite ‘specific limitation[s] other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field,’ and ‘add[] unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application,’ as the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05; see also supra. (indicating that the claims recite novel and nonobvious subject matter). Indeed, the claimed subject matter is confined to a ‘particular useful application’ that includes the generation, modification, and adjustment of item object summaries using large language models that are iteratively trained to revise its parameters, as well as for the generation of instructions that cause the item object summaries to be displayed on user interfaces, thereby allowing for various technical advantages, such as those noted above.”
Examiner notes, “lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.” (MPEP 2106.05)
Examiner further, “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is a single test of several provided to examiners for determining if claims amount to significantly more. This test is not utilized as a grounds for the rejection of these claims, therefore these aspects of the argument are moot.
Examiner additionally notes, as discussed above and further in the detailed rejection below, rather than providing evidence of a “particular useful application”, “generati[ng], modif[ying], and adjust[ing …] item object summaries … revis[ing …] parameters, as well as … generati[ng …] instructions that cause the item object summaries to be displayed” are recitations of the abstract idea, and therefore unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. As previously discussed at length, the large language models serve only to generally link the abstract ideas to the field of machine learning, and the user interface is used merely as a generic tool to carry out the abstract idea, and therefore fail to amount to significantly more in accordance the findings of the court detailed in MPEP 2106.05(A).
On Page 17 of the Response, Applicant argues “rather than merely claiming the alleged Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity of ‘aggregating, summarizing, and providing reviews for an item,’ Applicant's claims recite and are directed to statutory subject matter at least for at least the reasons provided herein. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that, when properly considered, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the claims are merely directed to an abstract idea. Instead, as illustrated above, the claims, at least in amended form, are directed to statutory subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 10, and 16 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and respectfully request the reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Further, as claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 depend from independent claims 1, 10, and 16, these claims are directed to statutory subject matter for at least those reasons set forth above for these independent claims. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 be withdrawn.”
Examiner notes, both the detailed rejection below as well as the analysis performed in the Non-Final Office Action, mailed March 11, 2026, (hereafter Non-Final) provide detailed analysis of the claims which amount to a preponderance of evidence supporting the determination that the claims are ineligible over 101. Non-Final Para. 7 provides the explicit abstract idea recited in each limitation of the claims. Non-Final Para. 8 provides the explicit abstract idea categorization as well as a short summary (“aggregating, summarizing, and providing reviews for an item”) of the abstract idea explicitly detailed in Para. 7. Non-Final Para. 9 provides explicit recitations of the additional elements. Non-Final Paras. 10-11 provide specific analysis of each additional element, disclosing which elements amount to “apply it” or “generally linking” and provides specific evidentiary support for these findings from the Applicant’s Specification. Non-Final Para. 12 explicitly discloses various combination of the recited elements, citing directly to combinations provided by the Applicant, which were considered as part of the analysis of the elements as a whole/ordered combination, as well as the determination that this analysis too did not result in the abstract ideas being integrated into a practical application. Non-Final Para. 13 details how the analysis performed in Paras. 9-12 overlaps with the analysis for determining if the claims amount to significantly more, and serve as the support for the claims being found to not amount to significantly more at Step 2B. Similar analysis of the amended claims is found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Representative independent claim 1 has been amended to recite “input each respective target keyword of the selected subset of the target keywords to a large language model to generate one or more target keyword summaries describing features of the item that are associated with the corresponding target keyword;”, representative dependent claim 5 recites “input each respective target keyword of the selected subset of the target keywords to a large language model to generate the one or more target keyword summaries for each respective target keyword.” Dependent claim 14 similarly fails to further limit the subject matter of independent claim 10, and dependent claim 20 similarly fails to further limit the subject matter of independent claim 16.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-9 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 10-15 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 substantially recite receiving review data associated with an item object, wherein the review data includes one or more review features including one or more target keywords;
selecting a subset of the review data based on a first selection criteria configured to select a first subset of the review data;
generating a target keyword score for each respective target keyword of the one or more target keywords based on a polarity of the target keywords;
selecting a subset of the target keywords each having a respective target keyword score based on a predetermined range of the target keyword scores;
inputting each respective target keyword of the selected subset of the target keywords to a model to generate one or more target keyword summaries describing features of the item that are associated with the corresponding target keyword;
input the one or more target keyword summaries to the model to generate an item object summary comprising each of the subset of the target keywords and at least a portion of the corresponding features of the item;
iteratively modify the item object summary based on at least one or more characteristics of the item object summary, wherein:
one or more models evaluate the at least one or more characteristics of the item object summary and adjust the item object summary in accordance with a determination that the at least one or more characteristics of the item object summary does not meet a first criteria, wherein the one or more models iteratively adjust parameters based on inputted features associated with item object summaries; and
generating a set of instructions to cause the item object summary to be displayed.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions) of aggregating, summarizing, and providing reviews for an item. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, and 16 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon (claims 1, 16), (ii) a processor configured to read the instructions/one or more processors of a computing device (claims 1, 16), (iii) a database (claims 1, 10, 16), (iv) a self-critique module (claims 1, 10, 16), (v) one or more large language models (of the self-critique module) are iteratively trained (claims 1, 10, 16), (vi) a user interface (claims 1, 10, 16), (vii) a large language model (to generate one or more target keyword summaries) (claims 1, 10, 16), and .
The additional elements of (i) a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon, (ii) a processor configured to read the instructions/one or more processors of a computing device, (iii) a database, (iv) a self-critique module, and (vi) a user interface are recited at a high level of generality (see [0042] of the Applicants Specification discussing the non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon, [0040] discussing the processor configured to read the instructions/one or more processors of a computing device, [0034] discussing the database, [0054/0063] discussing the self-critique module, and [0050] discussing the user interface) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of (v) iteratively trained one or more large language models (of the self-critique module) and (vii) a large language model (to generate one or more target keyword summaries) are recited at a high level of generality (See [0065/0090] of the Applicant’s Specification discussing the iteratively trained one or more large language models (of the self-critique module), and [0059/0065] discussing the large language model (to generate one or more target keyword summaries)) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. Large Language Modeling) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1, 2, and 4 showing all the (i) a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon, (ii) a processor configured to read the instructions/one or more processors of a computing device, (iii) a database, (iv) a self-critique module, (v) iteratively trained one or more large language models (of the self-critique module), (vi) a user interface, and (vii) a large language model (to generate one or more target keyword summaries) in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 10, and 16 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 11-15, and 17-20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 10, and 16 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-7, 11-15, and 17-20 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 8 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 8 also recites the additional elements of an untrained self-critique module, and a database.
The additional element of an untrained self-critique module is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0090] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the untrained self-critique module) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. machine learning modeling) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of a database is recited at a high level of generality (See [0035] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the database) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of an untrained self-critique module, and a database do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 9 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 9 also recites the additional elements of a landing page which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0031] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the landing page) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a landing page does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious over the Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are found to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however all of the above applicable rejections remain applied to these claims.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application Number to Dong (US 2014/0351079) (hereafter Dong). Dong discloses receiving review data from a database which include features and keywords, determining and selecting a subset of target keywords based on polarity, generating target keyword summaries and item object summaries, as well as providing for display of summaries on a user interface.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application Number to Norton (US 2022/0156464) (hereafter Norton). Norton discloses selecting a subset of target keywords based on a predetermined range of target keyword scores.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application Number to Rahman (US 2024/0330661) (hereafter Rahman). Rahman discloses iteratively modifying item object summaries with a self-critique module using characteristics of the item object summary, evaluating summaries with LLMs to determine whether or not criteria of the characteristics are met.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application Number to Liu (US 2025/0371061) (hereafter Liu). Liu discloses inputting target keywords into an LLM to generate keyword summaries describing features.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application Number to Wadhwa (US 2021/0012405) (hereafter Wadhwa). Wadhwa discloses using keyword data as modeling inputs to generate object summaries comprising target keywords and features.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application Number to Ouyang (US 2025/0094728) (hereafter Ouyang). Ouyang discloses adjusting parameters of LLMs through iterative training.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Dong in view of Norton and further in view of Rahman and even further in view of Liu and even further in view of Wadhwa and even further in view of Ouyang fails to explicitly disclose “input the one or more target keyword summaries to the large language model to generate an item object summary comprising each of the subset of the target keywords and at least a portion of the corresponding features of the item”. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
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 DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights