DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 09/11/2025, Applicant on 12/07/2025, amended Claims 1-4 and 6-9. Claims 1-9 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections have been updated to address the amendments and are maintained below.
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous action, except as it pertains to Claim 5 and 6-9 by virtue of their dependency from Claim 5. Therefore, these rejections have been updated to address the amendments and are maintained below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Given the overlap between Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully responds to the main points in aggregate.
Regarding Applicant’s characterization of Leeds as lacking organizations with discrete boundaries (see arguments responding to Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9) of remarks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. See, for example, Figure. 16 of Leeds for the ability of forums to intermediate conversations with various parties. Applicant’s characterization of the claims as being distinct by virtue of governing access to separate organizational structures and layered architectures is not manifest in the language of the claims. In the previous action, organizations were understood to encompass various forums. For clarification on this interpretation, we have support for human groups in Col 12 Lines 64 – Col 13 Line 4, “ In one such embodiment, an adaptive forum is used as the basic infrastructure for the present invention (see FIG. 6). As described in the '516 patent, the “entry points” in FIG. 6 can be any of the aforementioned forms further including a human user or group of human users, a conventional forum (such as texting, community website posting, customer support forums and reader responses), or any combination thereof”. For purposes of advancing prosecution, Examiner notes that if the particulars of organizational structure and architecture is an integral part of how Applicant conceptualizes the invention, this needs to be made apparent in the language of the claims. The broadest reasonable interpretation is how claims are constructed and examined, and “located within an organization or multiple organizations”, or “carry out intra-organization or inter-organization” reasonably encompasses serving as an intermediary between any number of abstractions that represent a group, which Leeds does teach. This extends to all arguments of Applicant; for purpose of examination, what is of import is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Citing MPEP 2111.01, "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
With respect to the security functionality of censoring information, an argument Applicant brings forth with respect to Claim 4, see Col 42 Lines 37-41, “FIG. 12 shows a configuration wherein there is a third submind that is coupled directly to the facilitator, not to the forum. This may be useful to assist the facilitator with an aspect of its function in the conversation, such as self-censoring”. Given our understanding of organizations as distinct entities, supported by Figure 16 as outlined above, this supports the usage of a facilitator serving a security role in serving as an intermediary between user access.
With respect to the functionality of performing digital-monitoring, or engaging with software outputs, which Applicant notes when making arguments in Claims 1-3. Examiner respectfully disagrees that Leeds is confined to engaging with hardware systems. As cited in the previous action, input that a submind can use as information to reach a decision is outlined in Col 44 Lines 16-18, "New external input from outside the current forum (e.g., news relevant to the topic from the web or another forum, software updates, etc.)".
With respect to the ability of agents to conduct actions and perform specialized tasks, which Applicant notes when arguing rejections with respect to Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding leveraging subminds to accomplish tasks, in Col 24 Line 65 - Col 25 Line 4, "However, forming a team of subminds to accomplish a specialized goal (e.g., social therapy, medical screening, project management, customer support, industrial operations) can be organized and recruited based on providing needed capabilities (e.g., members with specialized subject knowledge, conversation organizers, content presenters, or idea generators)". For a tangible example of this in Col 41 Lines 49-56, “In an embodiment where the chatbot is directed to a formulator in order to provide signals to control an external application, the formulator must be able to interpret the sensors' outputs and convert them into input into the forum, and to command sensors (e.g., change sensor dynamic range, take a reading, recalibrate) and actuators (controlled mechanisms such as electrical power, valves, fans, heaters, etc.).”.
With respect to the configuration of internal and external LLMs, note that as outlined above, we understand the recitation of organizations to be disclosed by a particular arrangement of Forums in Leeds, see Figure 16 regarding support for communication between multiple parties, with respective facilitators, and regarding the dynamic between forums in Col 2 Lines 4-17, "A Forum is a venue in which conversational collaboration occurs. More specifically, in the preferred embodiment of the present invention, a forum is a conversational computing system potentially producing results utilized externally or in another forum. In a most basic form, a forum is a set of protocols for interlocution and interplay between equal Participants, implemented by one or more Facilitators. A forum further is a conversational computing system for aggregating collaborating Subminds (humans, collaborative chatbots and hybrids), potentially producing results utilized externally or in another forum. A forum describes a construct for facilitating multiple party (n-participant) conversations (as defined above)". Further, regarding the incorporation of LLMs, Examiner notes one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. The test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ
871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). As stated in the original Non-Final Rejection, we are incorporating the LLMs as taught in Talebirad to the arrangement of internal and external agents in Leeds.
With respect to instant responses and synthesizing, Examiner respectfully notes arguments are rendered moot in light of updated rejections to the Claims below, see updated Claim 7.
With respect to the workflow, document analysis and compliance in the arguments with respect to Claim 9, Applicant asserts Leeds does not disclose these functionalities. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the execution of salient workflows, in Col 53 Lines 18-30 of Leeds, "Unifying elements defining this new conversational AI field include the following: Sampling multiple interactions (conversations, visual, proximity or other interactions such as business, public, private or other records) realtime in the real world, and analog and digital media, for audio, video, thermal, geospatial, spectrum users, spectrum variations, chemo sensors, body sensors (brain, facial, eye, finger, skeletal, somatic, skin, hair, sweat, prosody, tone of voice, etc.), including layers (foreground, middle grounds, background). Extracting correlations (including causation, e.g., cause and effect) from the sampled interactions". Regarding the automation of processes and compliance with safety procedures, in Col 50 Lines 17-28 of Leeds, "additional CCAI applications include collaborative monitoring and response systems, for example, in a system or device monitoring and responding to status changes, autonomous CCAIs can interact with expertise on a portion of larger operations (e.g. in a medical operation separate CCAIs may supervise real-time treatment of individual organs, or alternatively in real-time control of multiple prostheses). Further applications include the control of asymmetrical safety measures (such as distributed firewalls, automated industrial plant shutdowns and other threat responses)".
Applicant further argues that transparency refers to traceable and explainable AI decision chains. In Col 58 Lines 20-25, "The transparency offered by the present invention is better than neural network blenders or logs because the conversation that drove the decision-making human comprehensible, recorded, and human participation enabled. This improves “social IQ” by combining multiple intelligences, in a Gardner sense". We understand the predefined level of transparency to analogize to the predefined transparency features such as comprehensibility of the conversation or human participation. Again, referencing Examiner’s discussion of organizations above, said differences need to be manifest in the language of the claims. “operates with a predefined level of transparency” encompasses providing interpretability as to the means by which a decision is reached. Further, even if it is specified that what is claimed is the generation of “decision chains” as opposed to discussion transcripts before action execution, decision chains are recited at a high level of generality that itself encompasses transcripts related to decision making.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 5-9 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.
Claim 5 recites “the LLMs”. It is unclear which of the multitude of recitations of LLMs in Claim 1 or Claim 4 this is intended to reference. In light of the specification, it is not clear if what is meant in this limitation is an internal LLM or external LLM, and so for the purpose of examination, we interpret this as a reference to the “LLMs of multiple organizations” in Line 2 of Claim 1 to preserve generality.
Claims 6-9 are rejected as depending from rejected Claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeds(US 11431660 B1) in view of Talebirad, Nadiri(2023).
Claim 1
As to Claim 1,
Leeds teaches:
A system of ... an internet of models (IoMs) comprising internal ... and external ..., located within an organization or multiple organizations, wherein the internal … and the external ... are configured to carry out intra-organization or inter-organization communication by a method comprising:
In Col 2 Lines 4-17, "A Forum is a venue in which conversational collaboration occurs. More specifically, in the preferred embodiment of the present invention, a forum is a conversational computing system potentially producing results utilized externally or in another forum. In a most basic form, a forum is a set of protocols for interlocution and interplay between equal Participants, implemented by one or more Facilitators. A forum further is a conversational computing system for aggregating collaborating Subminds (humans, collaborative chatbots and hybrids), potentially producing results utilized externally or in another forum. A forum describes a construct for facilitating multiple party (n-participant) conversations (as defined above)". Forums can produce results for other external forums, logically analogizing to external organizations, as well as set the stage for conversations between participants internally, analogizing to intra-organization communication.
utilizing the internal … and the external ... for enabling real-time awareness; and continuous monitoring,
Regarding continuous monitoring, in Col 46 Lines 23-28, "Referring to FIG. 30, the present invention may be used as a control system for wind turbine equipment attached to a power grid where: (A) human participants have related roles of operator, supervisor, and administrator, and (B) specialized AI subminds provide for the continuous monitoring of equipment and conditions”.
action-taking, and cross-department collaboration
In Col 12 Lines 50-58, ““Collaboration” in the context of the present invention means that the participants (AIs and humans) work together to make responses, potentially including suggestions, evaluations, decisions, actions, and plans, with no designated “manager” that may command the other participants to do anything. Decisions are made collaboratively, for example by majority rule, and then the group may execute according to a collaborative plan. Each AI acts independently of the others”. Departments are understood to be an abstraction and one possible construction of subminds, in Col 2 Lines 54-58, “A submind is one of a set of independent, collaborating, intelligent entities that, functioning together on a forum, present themselves as a single AI. For example, a submind can be viewed as a forum of collaborators itself controlling a single participant in a higher forum”. Thus, building off our analogy of forums acting as organizations, we analogize subminds collaborating = in a forum to departments collaborating as an organization.
by coordinating tasks and sharing insights among the internal and the external …; wherein the internet of models (IoMs) comprises a network of interconnected ...;
We construe the domain specific LLMs as the participant models in the outlined Internet of Models(IOMs), and the subminds of Leeds to play the role of the domain specific LLMs. In Col 2 Lines 54-64, "A submind is one of a set of independent, collaborating, intelligent entities that, functioning together on a forum, present themselves as a single AI. For example, a submind can be viewed as a forum of collaborators itself controlling a single participant in a higher forum. A submind has basic chat capabilities, a communication conduit to a forum, and a means for processing natural language that normally includes the ability to assess proposed responses in the context of the conversation to enable collaboration. A submind may be human, artificial, or a combination, including a CCAI entity based on the present invention".
wherein there are domain specific ... specially designed for processing software output and performing predefined operational tasks within the organization.
Regarding their specialized, domain-specific aspect in Col 14 Lines 14-29, "To accomplish this, at a strategic or tactical level, they can recruit new subminds with new or better knowledge and they can replace subminds that are underperforming. Through the evaluation of experience, subminds learn to recognize subject matter knowledge, task utility, and other qualifications in order to assess and value another submind's expertise, and subminds learn which other subminds can be trusted and the boundaries of that trust...Subminds for specialized information processors may be recruited from the Submind Talent Library". Note that the storing of experience, specifically pertaining to subject matter knowledge and task utility, indicates the ability to perform predefined operational tasks. In Col 44 Lines 16-18, "New external input from outside the current forum (e.g., news relevant to the topic from the web or another forum, software updates, etc.)".
Leeds does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches:
Large Language Models(LLMs); LLMs
On pg. 3, "Each agent i ∈ V is represented as a tuple Ai = (Li,Ri,Si,Ci,Hi), where: • Li refers to the language model instance utilized by the agent. This encompasses the model’s type (such as GPT-4 or GPT-3.5-turbo) and its specific configuration parameters, including the ’temperature’ setting which influences the degree of randomness in the agent’s output. The choice of the language model can be dictated by the task requirements. For instance, while GPT-4, due to its exceptional reasoning capabilities, could be assigned tasks demanding deep insights and complex problem-solving, GPT-3.5-turbo could be employed for tasks requiring quicker execution owing to its faster performance".
Leeds discloses a system for coordinating agents to solve tasks collaboratively. Talebirad discloses an architecture for coordinating LLM-powered agents. Each reference discloses means for coordinating agents. Extending the LLM architecture as recorded in Talebirad to the system of Leeds is applicable as both are concerned with coordinating agents to perform tasks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the LLM architecture as taught in Talebirad and apply that to the system as taught in Leeds. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting LLM architectures would enable leveraging frontier reasoning and synthesis capabilities. With two specific examples on pg. 3, "For instance, while GPT-4, due to its exceptional reasoning capabilities, could be assigned tasks demanding deep insights and complex problem-solving, GPT-3.5-turbo could be employed for tasks requiring quicker execution owing to its faster performance".
Claim 2
As to Claim 2, Leeds combined with Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Leeds teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the real-time awareness is carried out by continuous feeding of outputs, from all software of the system, to the internal … and the external … to keep the internal … and the external … updated about all activities within the system.
With regard to monitoring operations, in Col 47 Lines 10-16, "These AI subminds provide for the continuous monitoring of equipment and conditions, including monitoring wind, weather, environmental hazards, equipment performance, power grid conditions, maintenance, personnel, reports and security. Additional human participants, device interfaces and trained AI systems are anticipated in full real world applications". For more granularity in such monitoring to encompass all operations, in Col 50 Lines 17-24, "Additional CCAI applications include collaborative monitoring and response systems, for example, in a system or device monitoring and responding to status changes, autonomous CCAIs can interact with expertise on a portion of larger operations (e.g. in a medical operation separate CCAIs may supervise real-time treatment of individual organs, or alternatively in real-time control of multiple prostheses).".
Leeds does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches:
LLMs
On pg. 3, "Each agent i ∈ V is represented as a tuple Ai = (Li,Ri,Si,Ci,Hi), where: • Li refers to the language model instance utilized by the agent. This encompasses the model’s type (such as GPT-4 or GPT-3.5-turbo) and its specific configuration parameters, including the ’temperature’ setting which influences the degree of randomness in the agent’s output. The choice of the language model can be dictated by the task requirements. For instance, while GPT-4, due to its exceptional reasoning capabilities, could be assigned tasks demanding deep insights and complex problem-solving, GPT-3.5-turbo could be employed for tasks requiring quicker execution owing to its faster performance".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the LLM architecture of Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) and apply that to the system of Leeds. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 3
As to Claim 3, Leeds combined with Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Leeds teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the cross-department collaboration comprises is performed by the internal … that coordinate activities among different departments of the organization and communicate through the external … to coordinate tasks with other organizations under defined security constraints.
In Col 17 Lines 28-36, "Forum Builder facilitator: Based on protocols (including social metrics of participants) and participant votes, helps with deployment. Possible examples include that the Forum Builder convenes new forums, invites humans and chatbots (potential participants) to join a forum, moves participants into and out of a forum, creates sub forums and segregates participants, connects forums as participants, and connects facilitator bot teams". We consider the movement of participants in and out of a forum to analogize to working on task that might be beyond the organization’s boundaries. The management of individual subminds and their interactions within a forum corresponds to inter-departmental activities within an organization. This construction of subminds as departments is acceptable as we understood them to analogize to a specific domain, in Col 24 Line 65 - Col 25 Line 4, "However, forming a team of subminds to accomplish a specialized goal (e.g., social therapy, medical screening, project management, customer support, industrial operations) can be organized and recruited based on providing needed capabilities (e.g., members with specialized subject knowledge, conversation organizers, content presenters, or idea generators)". Regarding security constraints, in Col 42 Lines 37-47, "FIG. 12 shows a configuration wherein there is a third submind that is coupled directly to the facilitator, not to the forum. This may be useful to assist the facilitator with an aspect of its function in the conversation, such as self-censoring. This function could be performed without using the submind role since a simple censoring filter does not require a fully collaboratized chatbot, but is shown in the submind form for convenience of discussion, and also because the modularity of the invention anticipates subminds becoming a standard for development of AI components". We construe the submind performing a self-censoring function to analogize to the provision of limited information to the external LLM, in this case the facilitator. In Col 45 Lines 59-60, "The system may also include censorship, bias, sensitivity or any other filtering, for instance for decorum".
Leeds does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches:
LLMs
On pg. 3, "Each agent i ∈ V is represented as a tuple Ai = (Li,Ri,Si,Ci,Hi), where: • Li refers to the language model instance utilized by the agent. This encompasses the model’s type (such as GPT-4 or GPT-3.5-turbo) and its specific configuration parameters, including the ’temperature’ setting which influences the degree of randomness in the agent’s output. The choice of the language model can be dictated by the task requirements. For instance, while GPT-4, due to its exceptional reasoning capabilities, could be assigned tasks demanding deep insights and complex problem-solving, GPT-3.5-turbo could be employed for tasks requiring quicker execution owing to its faster performance".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the LLM architecture of Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) and apply that to the system of Leeds. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 4
As to Claim 4, Leeds combined with Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Leeds teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the communication among ... of multiple organizations takes place through a dedicated …. in each organization acting as an external ...,
In Col 2 Lines 9-15, “In a most basic form, a forum is a set of protocols for interlocution and interplay between equal Participants, implemented by one or more Facilitators. A forum further is a conversational computing system for aggregating collaborating Subminds (humans, collaborative chatbots and hybrids), potentially producing results utilized externally or in another forum”. We construe the communication of information from one forum to another to represent the exchange of information between organizations. A facilitator, coupled with a submind as outlined below, can act as the dedicated external LLM.
and wherein the external ... of each organization is provided with a predefined subset of information to be communicated with an external … of another organization, to act as a security barrier.
In Col 42 Lines 37-47, "FIG. 12 shows a configuration wherein there is a third submind that is coupled directly to the facilitator, not to the forum. This may be useful to assist the facilitator with an aspect of its function in the conversation, such as self-censoring. This function could be performed without using the submind role since a simple censoring filter does not require a fully collaboratized chatbot, but is shown in the submind form for convenience of discussion, and also because the modularity of the invention anticipates subminds becoming a standard for development of AI components". We construe the submind performing a self-censoring function to analogize to providing a predefined subset of information(what is allowed to pass through the filter) to the external LLM, in this case the facilitator. In Col 45 Lines 59-60, "The system may also include censorship, bias, sensitivity or any other filtering, for instance for decorum".
Leeds does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches:
LLMs
On pg. 3, "Each agent i ∈ V is represented as a tuple Ai = (Li,Ri,Si,Ci,Hi), where: • Li refers to the language model instance utilized by the agent. This encompasses the model’s type (such as GPT-4 or GPT-3.5-turbo) and its specific configuration parameters, including the ’temperature’ setting which influences the degree of randomness in the agent’s output. The choice of the language model can be dictated by the task requirements. For instance, while GPT-4, due to its exceptional reasoning capabilities, could be assigned tasks demanding deep insights and complex problem-solving, GPT-3.5-turbo could be employed for tasks requiring quicker execution owing to its faster performance".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the LLM architecture of Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) and apply that to the system of Leeds. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 5
As to Claim 5, Leeds combined with Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches all the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above.
Leeds teaches:
The system of claim 4, wherein the … are customized for, communication with other ... and users,
In Col 2 Lines 4-17, "A Forum is a venue in which conversational collaboration occurs. More specifically, in the preferred embodiment of the present invention, a forum is a conversational computing system potentially producing results utilized externally or in another forum. In a most basic form, a forum is a set of protocols for interlocution and interplay between equal Participants, implemented by one or more Facilitators. A forum further is a conversational computing system for aggregating collaborating Subminds (humans, collaborative chatbots and hybrids), potentially producing results utilized externally or in another forum. A forum describes a construct for facilitating multiple party (n-participant) conversations (as defined above)".
and, processing software outputs and domain specific knowledge to perform the tasks.
In Col 14 Lines 14-29, "To accomplish this, at a strategic or tactical level, they can recruit new subminds with new or better knowledge and they can replace subminds that are underperforming. Through the evaluation of experience, subminds learn to recognize subject matter knowledge, task utility, and other qualifications in order to assess and value another submind's expertise, and subminds learn which other subminds can be trusted and the boundaries of that trust...Subminds for specialized information processors may be recruited from the Submind Talent Library". In Col 44 Lines 16-18, "New external input from outside the current forum (e.g., news relevant to the topic from the web or another forum, software updates, etc.)".
Leeds does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches:
LLMs
On pg. 3, "Each agent i ∈ V is represented as a tuple Ai = (Li,Ri,Si,Ci,Hi), where: • Li refers to the language model instance utilized by the agent. This encompasses the model’s type (such as GPT-4 or GPT-3.5-turbo) and its specific configuration parameters, including the ’temperature’ setting which influences the degree of randomness in the agent’s output. The choice of the language model can be dictated by the task requirements. For instance, while GPT-4, due to its exceptional reasoning capabilities, could be assigned tasks demanding deep insights and complex problem-solving, GPT-3.5-turbo could be employed for tasks requiring quicker execution owing to its faster performance".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the LLM architecture of Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) and apply that to the system of Leeds. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 6
As to Claim 6, Leeds combined with Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches all the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above.
Leeds teaches:
The system of claim 5, wherein all the internal ... are configured to interface and converse with each other, request information or actions from the internal ..., and serve as a liaison for intra-organizational tasks.
In Col 2 Lines 4-17, "A Forum is a venue in which conversational collaboration occurs. More specifically, in the preferred embodiment of the present invention, a forum is a conversational computing system potentially producing results utilized externally or in another forum. In a most basic form, a forum is a set of protocols for interlocution and interplay between equal Participants, implemented by one or more Facilitators. A forum further is a conversational computing system for aggregating collaborating Subminds (humans, collaborative chatbots and hybrids), potentially producing results utilized externally or in another forum. A forum describes a construct for facilitating multiple party (n-participant) conversations (as defined above)".
Leeds does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches:
LLMs
On pg. 3, "Each agent i ∈ V is represented as a tuple Ai = (Li,Ri,Si,Ci,Hi), where: • Li refers to the language model instance utilized by the agent. This encompasses the model’s type (such as GPT-4 or GPT-3.5-turbo) and its specific configuration parameters, including the ’temperature’ setting which influences the degree of randomness in the agent’s output. The choice of the language model can be dictated by the task requirements. For instance, while GPT-4, due to its exceptional reasoning capabilities, could be assigned tasks demanding deep insights and complex problem-solving, GPT-3.5-turbo could be employed for tasks requiring quicker execution owing to its faster performance".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the LLM architecture of Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) and apply that to the system of Leeds. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 7
As to Claim 7, Leeds combined with Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches all the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above.
Leeds teaches:
The system of claim 6, which provides instant natural language responses through interaction among interconnected … configured to share contextual information and generate unified responses to organizational or user inquiries.
In Col 59 Lines 55-62, "In particular, a system utilizing the present invention, with a limited set of local data, may be used by a submind AI to nearly instantly reach a decision to perform a reconveyance of a previous response to a prompt, providing a quick and correct solution, whereas existing systems completing a more exhaustive solution (for example with many inputs to a NN AI) would result in a solution that is too late". It is reasonable that truly "instantaneous" communication with an LLM is impossible, as there is an inherent delay in the processing of the query. Therefore, we consider the idea of nearly instantly to read upon the claimed language. Regarding the generation of unified responses and sharing of contextual information, in Col 17 Lines 28-36, "Forum Builder facilitator: Based on protocols (including social metrics of participants) and participant votes, helps with deployment. Possible examples include that the Forum Builder convenes new forums, invites humans and chatbots (potential participants) to join a forum, moves participants into and out of a forum, creates sub forums and segregates participants, connects forums as participants, and connects facilitator bot teams". Note that the aggregate of individual expertise is outlined in Col 24 Line 65 - Col 25 Line 4, "However, forming a team of subminds to accomplish a specialized goal (e.g., social therapy, medical screening, project management, customer support, industrial operations) can be organized and recruited based on providing needed capabilities (e.g., members with specialized subject knowledge, conversation organizers, content presenters, or idea generators)".
Leeds does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches:
LLMs
On pg. 3, "Each agent i ∈ V is represented as a tuple Ai = (Li,Ri,Si,Ci,Hi), where: • Li refers to the language model instance utilized by the agent. This encompasses the model’s type (such as GPT-4 or GPT-3.5-turbo) and its specific configuration parameters, including the ’temperature’ setting which influences the degree of randomness in the agent’s output. The choice of the language model can be dictated by the task requirements. For instance, while GPT-4, due to its exceptional reasoning capabilities, could be assigned tasks demanding deep insights and complex problem-solving, GPT-3.5-turbo could be employed for tasks requiring quicker execution owing to its faster performance".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the LLM architecture of Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) and apply that to the system of Leeds. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 8
As to Claim 8, Leeds combined with Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches all the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above.
Leeds teaches:
The system of claim 6, which performs specialized tasks of each organization by use of customized domain specific ... specially designed for performing the specialized tasks.
In Col 14 Lines 14-29, "To accomplish this, at a strategic or tactical level, they can recruit new subminds with new or better knowledge and they can replace subminds that are underperforming. Through the evaluation of experience, subminds learn to recognize subject matter knowledge, task utility, and other qualifications in order to assess and value another submind's expertise, and subminds learn which other subminds can be trusted and the boundaries of that trust...Subminds for specialized information processors may be recruited from the Submind Talent Library".
Leeds does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches:
LLMs
On pg. 3, "Each agent i ∈ V is represented as a tuple Ai = (Li,Ri,Si,Ci,Hi), where: • Li refers to the language model instance utilized by the agent. This encompasses the model’s type (such as GPT-4 or GPT-3.5-turbo) and its specific configuration parameters, including the ’temperature’ setting which influences the degree of randomness in the agent’s output. The choice of the language model can be dictated by the task requirements. For instance, while GPT-4, due to its exceptional reasoning capabilities, could be assigned tasks demanding deep insights and complex problem-solving, GPT-3.5-turbo could be employed for tasks requiring quicker execution owing to its faster performance".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the LLM architecture of Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) and apply that to the system of Leeds. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 9
As to Claim 9, Leeds combined with Talebirad, Nadiri(2023) teaches all the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above.
Leeds teaches:
The system of claim 6, which assists employees in optimizing workflow, simplifies document management by analyzing documents, gathers and analyzes information,
In Col 53 Lines 18-30, "Unifying elements defining this new conversational AI field include the following: Sampling multiple interactions (conversations, visual, proximity or other interactions such as business, public, private or other records) realtime in the real world, and analog and digital media, for audio, video, thermal, geospatial, spectrum users, spectrum variations, chemo sensors, body sensors (brain, facial, eye, finger, skeletal, somatic, skin, hair, sweat, prosody, tone of voice, etc.), including layers (foreground, middle grounds, background). Extracting correlations (including causation, e.g., cause and effect) from the sampled interactions".
performs specific organizational tasks, ,
Pertaining to the execution of tasks, in Col 24 Line 65 - Col 25 Line 4, "However, forming a team of subminds to accomplish a specialized goal (e.g., social therapy, medical screening, project management, customer support, industrial operations) can be organized and recruited based on providing needed capabilities (e.g., members with specialized subject knowledge, conversation organizers, content presenters, or idea generators)".
facilitates collaborative problem-solving
Pertaining to collaborative problem solving, in Col 2 Lines 4-17, "A Forum is a venue in which conversational collaboration occurs. More specifically, in the preferred embodiment of the present invention, a forum is a conversational computing system potentially producing results utilized externally or in another forum. In a most basic form, a forum is a set of protocols for interlocution and interplay between equal Participants, implemented by one or more Facilitators. A forum further is a conversational computing system for aggregating collaborating Subminds (humans, collaborative chatbots and hybrids), potentially producing results utilized externally or in another forum. A forum describes a construct for facilitating multiple party (n-participant) conversations (as defined above)".
enables user reporting,
In Col 4 Lines 52-54, "An External Conversation is outside the forum being discussed; it is a conversation between the CCAI and one or more external users and conversation participants". In Col 20 Lines 52-53, "A proctor may deliver the winning proposed response to an external conversation".
automates various processes,
In Col 50 Lines 17-28, "additional CCAI applications include collaborative monitoring and response systems, for example, in a system or device monitoring and responding to status changes, autonomous CCAIs can interact with expertise on a portion of larger operations (e.g. in a medical operation separate CCAIs may supervise real-time treatment of individual organs, or alternatively in real-time control of multiple prostheses). Further applications include the control of asymmetrical safety measures (such as distributed firewalls, automated industrial plant shutdowns and other threat responses)".
and operates with a predefined level of transparency.
In Col 58 Lines 20-25, "The transparency offered by the present invention is better than neural network blenders or logs because the conversation that drove the decision-making human comprehensible, recorded, and human participation enabled. This improves “social IQ” by combining multiple intelligences, in a Gardner sense". We understand the predefined level of transparency to analogize to the predefined transparency features such as comprehensibility of the conversation or human participation.
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 THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623