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 .
The instant application having Application No. 19/296,081 filed on 03/21/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Drawings
The drawings filed 08/11/2025 are accepted for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 11/13/2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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.
As per claim 1, the claim recites “A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request in a first prompt;
generating a second prompt that includes a request to identify facts in the
first prompt and a desired format for the facts in key value pairs;
providing as input the second prompt to a large language model (LLM),
the LLM returning one or more first facts in respective formatted
value pairs;
generating, by the LLM, a search query based on the one or more first
facts formatted as value pairs;
`extracting, by the LLM, one or more second facts from scarch results
resulting from the search query; and
presenting information on the one or more first facts and the one or more
second facts in response to the request”.
Step 1 : Statutory Category
Claim 1 discloses a method which is a process within the meaning of the section.
Step 2A - Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited
The claim recites the limitations “generating” which specifically recite “generating a second prompt ….….key value pairs” and “generating, by the LLM, a search query……….as value pairs”. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “computer system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper looking at the data items/records and examine that the data items/records relevant.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
The claim recites the additional elements “receiving a request….…”, “providing as input the second prompt……..” and “presenting information on the one or more……….”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional steps: the “receiving” step mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-gathering and the step of “extracting, by the LLM, one or more second facts……” is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using one or more processors to detect the extracting, by the LLM, one or more second facts....…” step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
As per claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the first prompt comprises a plurality of factual statements relating to an item”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 3, the claim recites “wherein extracting one or more second facts further comprises: performing textual analysis on search results from external sources to identify facts corresponding to the scarch query”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 4, the claim recites “further comprising: generating an output that identifies differences between the one or more first facts and the one or more second facts and a listing of external sources from which the second facts were extracted”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 5, the claim recites “wherein the output further comprises a distribution indicating a frequency of the second facts across the external sources”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the output further comprises a section identifying facts found in the external sources that are missing from both the first facts and the second facts”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 7, the claim recites “further comprising: updating the information on the one or more first facts and the one or more second facts by replacing incorrect facts with facts received from a user”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 8, the claim recites “presenting further comprises: generating a user interface displaying the first facts, the second facts, external sources used in the search query, and differences
between the first facts and the second facts”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 9, the claim recites “wherein extracting one or more second facts further comprises: aggregating facts from a plurality of external sources; and determining a most frequent fact found in the plurality of external sources”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the first prompt relates to an item listing for an e-commerce platform”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 11 the claim recites “A system comprising:
a memory comprising instructions; and
one or more computer processors, the instructions, when executed by the
one or more computer processors, causing the system to perform
operations comprising:
receiving a request in a first prompt;
generating a second prompt that includes a request to identify
facts in the first prompt and a desired format for the facts
in key value pairs;
providing as input the second prompt to a large language model
(LLM), the LLM returning one or more first facts in
respective formatted value pairs;
generating, by the LLM, a search query based on the one or more
first facts formatted as value pairs;
extracting, by the LLM, one or more second facts from search
results resulting from the search query; and
presenting information on the one or more first facts and the one
or more second facts in response to the request”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 11 discloses a system which is a machine within the meaning of the section.
Claim 11 recites the same limitations as claim 1 and therefore is rejected under the same premise as claim 1.
As per claim 12, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 2.
As per claim 13, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 3.
As per claim 14, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 4.
As per claim 15, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 5.
As per claim 16 the claim recites “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform
operations comprising:
receiving a request in a first prompt;
generating a second prompt that includes a request to identify facts in the
first prompt and a desired format for the facts in key value pairs;
providing as input the second prompt to a large language model (LLM),
the LLM returning one or more first facts in respective formatted
value pairs;
generating, by the LLM, a search query based on the one or more first
facts formatted as value pairs;
extracting, by the LLM, one or more second facts from search results
resulting from the search query; and
presenting information on the one or more first facts and the one or more
second facts in response to the request”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 16 discloses a CRM which is a manufacture within the meaning of the section.
Claim 16 recites the same limitations as claim 1 and therefore is rejected under the same premise as claim 1.
As per claim 17, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 2.
As per claim 18, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 3.
As per claim 19, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 4.
As per claim 20, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections as set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1757. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 6-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Jun. 08, 2026
/KIM T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights