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 .
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 10/23/2025.
Claims 1 – 18 are currently 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 18 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 – 18 are directed to a " method, and a system…", and therefore, directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The independent claims 1, 10, include the following limitations that directed to an abstract idea:
“tokenizing the sentence fragment and the user-expanded sentence using a word-level tokenization algorithm, wherein receiving both the sentence fragment and the user-expanded sentence via an application programming interface (API) and the tokenization includes breaking down the text into discrete tokens, based on spaces, punctuation, and other delimiters”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. The core operation involves breaking the text into space is a routine well-known data pre-processing step. This can be performed entirely by the human mind or with pen and paper. Relying on general functional components like “an application programming interface (API) " to perform the tokenizing does not confer patent eligibility. See court case FairWarning IP v. Iatric Systems, and also in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, the court held that gathering, analyzing, and displaying information is inherently abstract.
“comparing the tokens of the sentence fragment and the user-expanded sentence using a token comparison algorithm, wherein the comparison involves determining whether the meaning of the sentence fragment is preserved in the user-expanded sentence by assessing the presence, order, and contextual alignment of the corresponding tokens in both sentence fragment and user-expanded sentence; generating a prompt by a prompt generator to guide the AI engine to determine the semantic and grammatical correctness of the user-expanded sentence” as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally evaluate two tokens for comparison. See court case FairWarning IP v. Iatric Systems, and also in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, the court held that gathering, analyzing, and displaying information is inherently abstract.
“evaluate the grammatical correctness of the user-expanded sentence using a grammar checking algorithm, wherein the grammar checking algorithm identifies grammatical errors including syntax mistakes, punctuation errors, and improper sentence structures”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally evaluate a sentence, find punctuation mistakes, and check grammar using their minds or paper. See court case FairWarning IP v. Iatric Systems, and also in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, the court held that gathering, analyzing, and displaying information is inherently abstract.
“perform a semantic analysis of the user-expanded sentence using a natural language processing (NLP) model, wherein the NLP model determine whether the meaning conveyed by the user-expanded sentence is logically consistent with the sentence fragment”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally evaluate a sentence, find punctuation mistakes, and determine whether it is consistent with the sentence, using their minds or paper. See court case FairWarning IP v. Iatric Systems, and also in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, the court held that gathering, analyzing, and displaying information is inherently abstract
“synthesizing the results of the token comparison, grammar correctness, and semantic analysis to generate a Boolean output, wherein the Boolean output indicates whether the user-expanded sentence is semantically and grammatically correct relative to the sentence fragment”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. Turning a set of rules into a simple True/False or Yes/No output is a basic mathematical/logical step. This can be performed entirely by the human mind or with pen and paper.
“providing real-time feedback to the user based on the Boolean output, wherein the feedback includes either confirmation of correctness or detailed error reporting that identifies specific grammatical or semantic inconsistencies and provides suggestions for improving the user-expanded sentence”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. Checking grammar, spotting semantic mistakes, and giving feedback are tasks a human teacher or editor can do mentally or on paper. Merely using generic software, Boolean logic, or outputs to perform a traditional editing task does not turn an abstract concept into a patent-eligible invention.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites additional elements such as:
“receiving, via an input interface, a sentence fragment and the user-expanded sentence from a user;”, “transferring the prompt to the AI engine”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. The Act of “receiving, transferring” is merely a data gathering/collection process, which is categorized as “mental process”. See case FairWarning IP v. Iatric Systems, the court explicitly ruled that collecting and analyzing computer audit logs to detect misuse is an unpatentable abstract idea because it simply automates human data-gathering and tracking concepts.
The claim recites the term "an Artificial Intelligence (AI) engine", “one or more processors of a computer system”, “an application programming interface (API)”, “a natural language processing (NLP) model”, “a prompt generator to guide the AI engine”, are considered as a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. Using physical hardware terminology does not automatically save a claim. These are just generic, off-the-shelf computer hardware acting as a tool to execute the abstract concept.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In this case, using a "an Artificial Intelligence (AI) engine", “one or more processors of a computer system”, “an application programming interface (API)”, “a natural language processing (NLP) model”, “a prompt generator to guide the AI engine” are considered conventional or routine computer functions. Because the additional elements amount to nothing more than routine data-gathering and standard computer implementation, they fail to provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not providing significantly more than the
judicial exception. Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and
therefore, the claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims 2, 11, includes “wherein, tokenizing the sentence fragment and the user-expanded sentence comprises the use of the word-level tokenization algorithm that identifies tokens by splitting the text into individual units based on spaces, punctuation marks, and other delimiters”, is description of a metal process. Splitting text into words using spaces and punctuation is a fundamental linguistic and cognitive task that a human can perform manually with a pen and paper.
The dependent claim 3, 12, includes “wherein, comparing the tokens of the sentence fragment and the user-expanded sentence comprises using the token comparison algorithm that evaluates presence of tokens and relative order and position within the sentence”, are “mental process” as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Comparing text strings or tokens based on presence, order, and position is a process that humans can perform mentally or with pencil and paper.
The dependent claim 4, 13, includes “wherein, evaluating the grammatical correctness of the user-expanded sentence comprises utilizing the grammar checking algorithm integrated with a grammar evaluation tool to identify grammatical issues including subject-verb agreement errors, run-on sentences, improper punctuation usage, misplaced modifiers, and stylistic concerns” is considered as mental process of data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. The claim describes evaluating grammar, spotting run-on sentences, and checking subject-verb agreement. One can mentally have traditionally done these exact tasks inside their minds or with a pen on paper.
The dependent claim 5, 14, includes “wherein performing semantic analysis on the user-expanded sentence comprises using a multi-stage approach, wherein the semantic analysis evaluates the syntactic structure of the user-expanded sentence to determine whether the meaning conveyed by the user-expanded sentence aligns with the intended meaning of the sentence fragment” is considered as mental process, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Evaluating syntactic structures and comparing the meaning of a sentence to an intended meaning is something humans (like students or translators) do mentally.
The dependent claim 6,15, includes “wherein comparing the tokens of the sentence fragment and the user-expanded sentence comprises handling cases where the user-expanded sentence includes additional contextual information not present in the sentence fragment, wherein the token comparison algorithm evaluates whether such added information alters the original meaning of the sentence fragment, and rejects the expansion if significant deviations in meaning are detected” is considered as mental process, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. The steps of reading text, comparing words (tokens), checking for changes in meaning, and deciding to accept or reject the text are things people do naturally in their minds.
The dependent claim 7, 16, includes “wherein receiving the sentence fragment and the user-expanded sentence from a user devices integrating the input interface through the API to enable interaction”, is insignificant extra solution activity, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. The action of "receiving" sentence fragments and expanded sentences is treated as collecting and transferring information.
The dependent claim 8, 17 includes “wherein evaluating the grammatical correctness of the user- expanded sentence comprises assessing stylistic elements of the sentence, including sentence length, complexity, tone, and readability to provide the user with an enhanced assessment of the overall quality and effectiveness of the sentence”, is considered as mental process, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. The Acts of “evaluating, judging, observing, or analyzing text quality or grammar” are considered concepts that can theoretically be performed in the human mind.
The dependent claim 9, 18 includes “storing in a database history of user-expanded sentences and real-time feedback to enable the user to review past sentence fragment expansions, along with the corresponding feedback and corrections for tracking progress, identify patterns of recurring mistakes to improve sentence construction”, is considered as mental process, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Storing data, reviewing past actions, tracking progress, and identifying patterns are methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Humans have traditionally done this with paper notebooks or memory.
Claims 10 - 18, Applicant claims the abstract idea on a system comprising process, memory with codes to carry-out the method as in claim 1, without adding further limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment (See Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp. (2025)). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to "receiving, tokenizing, comparing, generating, transferring…" do not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are not patent eligible.
The Following are some related art:
Kumar et al (U.S. 12,688,357 B1) discloses “Commercially available spelling checkers and grammar checkers can use trained machine learning models to predict suggestions for changes to spelling and grammar” (col. 1 lines 30 – 35). Further in Fig 3C, column 18, lines 5 - 30, Kumar teaches receiving input texts, processing using a machine learning model and output suggestions to improve a text input along multiple attributes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM LINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 pm.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/CAM LINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights