DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
This action is in reply to the first amendment to non-final filed on June 6, 2026.
Claims 29–48 have been added.
Claims 1–28 have been canceled.
Claims 29–48 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 29–48 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
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 29–48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 29–41 are directed to a machine (“A decentralized computing system”), and claims 42–48 are directed to a process (“A computer-implemented method”). Thus, claims 29–48 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 29–48, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 29, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
. . . agents; and a plurality of micro-agents communicably coupled with the . . . agents; wherein:
at least one micro-agent of the plurality of micro-agents is configured to:
receive a service request from a client-agent, the service request specifying parameters of an action to be performed;
generate, in response to the service request, at least one protocol for a protocol specification, the protocol specification defining a dialogue-based bilateral interaction protocol comprising message-exchange steps, message-exchange conditions, and message sequencing for communication among the . . . agents; and
transmit . . . the protocol specification and contextual data associated with the action, the contextual data comprising information relating to at least one of: capabilities of the at least one micro-agent, or the action to be performed; . . .
in response to receiving the protocol specification and the contextual data, generate an insight corresponding to the action . . .; and
generate an inference by applying the insight and the contextual data . . ., the inference identifying at least one of: an existing protocol, an existing skill, or an existing connection for generating an implementation of the protocol specification; or a new protocol, a new skill, or a new connection to be generated for generating the implementation of the protocol specification;
. . . generate, by . . . using the inference, an executable protocol implementing the dialogue-based bilateral interaction protocol; and
the at least one micro-agent is further configured to cause communication among the . . . agents according to the executable protocol to perform the action associated with the service request.
The claims, therefore, recite determining protocols for executing a service request, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction. This is further evidenced by the specification, which indicates that the service request recited in the claims relates to economic transactions and other interactions in various problem domains, including finance (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0297860, ¶ 110: AEAs transact with each another for wide range of economic transactions; ¶ 62: problem domains include energy, finance, and supply chain, for example).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“decentralized computing system”, “autonomous economic agents (AEAs)”, “computing devices”, “co-learning software module”, “machine learning (ML) models”, “protocol generator”, “distributed ledger arrangement”, “homomorphic encryption”, and “cryptographic immutability”). These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to determine and implement a protocol for a service request. Claim 1 does introduce more specific technology—machine learning (ML) models—but again, these are merely being used as generic tools to implement the abstract idea above. The machine learning only provides an alternative means for determining the protocols, through generic pattern and feature comparisons. The additional elements are therefore still merely applying the abstract idea to this technology, using it as a generic tool, rather than creating any type of improvement to the technology itself. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 29 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 42 is rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent system claim 1. There are no additional elements recited in this claim other than the generic technology and computer parts discussed above (“autonomous economic agents (AEAs)”, “decentralized computing system”, “computing devices”, “co-learning software module”, “machine learning (ML) models”, and “protocol generator”). The only difference is that the features of claim 29 are implemented by a method in claim 42. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claim 42 is also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 29–48 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 30, 31, 35–37, 43, 44, and 48, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the service request recited in claims 29 and 42 by further specifying how the insight and inference are generated—“based on the individually received learning outputs”, “analyzing the contextual data and the learning outputs . . . such that the analysis identifies commonalities and differences across learned patterns and features”, “a recommendation specifying how to produce . . . how to combine . . .; or . . . how to generate”, “contextual data comprises . . . existing protocols . . . existing skills . . . existing connections . . . technological setup . . . or the service request”, and “technological setup comprises . . . programming language . . . operating system . . . library . . . computational resources . . . or a platform”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“decentralized computing system”, “co-learning software module”, “computing device”, and “ML model”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 32–34 and 45–47, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the service request recited in claims 29 and 42 by further specifying how it is implemented—“on a . . . ledger . . . providing tamper-evident recording”, “processes the learning outputs in encrypted form”, and “operates . . . and records selected co-learning events”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“decentralized computing system”, “co-learning software module”, “computing device”, and “ML model”). These claims do introduce more specific technologies—distributed ledger arrangement, homomorphic encryption, encrypted, and cryptographic immutability—but again, these are merely being used as generic tools to store and communicate data, rather than creating any type of improvement to the technology itself. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 38 and 40, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the service requesting recited in claim 29 by further specifying the service request—“associated with an objective . . . represented as one or more vectors . . . representing one or more aspects or characteristics of the objective” and “a time . . . a price . . . a quality . . . or at least one preference”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“decentralized computing system” and “ML model”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 39 and 41, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the service request recited in claim 29 by further specifying how the service request is analyzed—“validate an order or tasks” and “determine a sequence of steps”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“decentralized computing system”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because they recite machine-level operations that are not a method of organizing human activity. Applicant explains that the claims recite a distributed system with micro-agents that receive a service request, generate protocol specifications for a machine learning model to generate insights and inferences, and then perform the action. The claims, however, still recite receiving and executing a service request, which is a commercial interaction. The use of various computing devices and machine learning models to do so is an implementation of this abstract idea through additional elements, and is therefore addressed further in the next steps of the analysis. Thus, claims 29–48 do recite an abstract idea.
Next, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite the specific sequence of operations above, which produce a concrete technical effect. Applicant explains that the machine learning, co-learning software, and protocol generator carry out an interaction from inferences drawn across multiple models, and conventional static protocol engines do not operate this way. Applicant therefore argues that these features are an unconventional arrangement to achieve an improved technical result. The claims, however, are merely improving the abstract idea of the service request by implementing it on these technologies. The claims are only making the service request more efficient by determining how it is implemented based on certain protocols, rather than improving the machine learning technology itself in any way. Applicant further cites the additional elements in the dependent claims—distributed ledger arrangement, homomorphic encryption, cryptographic immutability, specific protocol combinations and inferences, vector analysis, and language models—and argues that these are concrete technical features. Again, however, these additional elements are merely applied as generic tools to improve the abstract idea. The dependent claims only further narrow the abstract idea by specifying how the service request is analyzed and implemented, through the use of these additional generic technologies. And, the more specific distributed ledger and encryption technologies are also merely applied to improve the abstract idea itself, by making the communication and storage of data more secure. Thus, claims 29–48 do not include additional elements sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features or combination of features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
De Kadt et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,951,540, discloses task parameters for executing tasks.
Jhoney et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,676,539, discloses a distributed environment with service providing agents.
Chessell et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2018/0285979, discloses storing service history information on a blockchain .
High et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2018/0349879, discloses a distributed blockchain system for executing contracts.
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 DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. 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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights