DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following FINAL office action is in response to Applicant communication filed on 08/17/2025 regarding application 18/577,664. Claims 1-8 have been amended. Claims 1-8 are currently pending have been rejected.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 filed on 08/17/2025, with respect to Specification Objections to Abstract have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the Specification Objections to Abstract have been withdrawn. Examiner Note: Examiner has considered Applicant’s amendment to Abstract and has indicated “OK to ENTER” on the record with Examiner’s initials, date and time for OC Submission for this case.
3. Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 filed on 08/17/2025, with respect to Claim Objections for Claims 2-8 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections for Claims 2-8 have been withdrawn.
4. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 filed on 08/17/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C § 112 (a) Claim Rejections have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C § 112 (a) Claim Rejections have been withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 filed on 08/17/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C § 112 (b) Claim Rejections have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C § 112 (b) Claim Rejections have been withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 filed on 08/17/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) (1) Claim Rejections for Claims 1-8 have been fully considered and are found to be not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-8 have been considered, but is maintained.
Foreign Priority
7. The Examiner has noted the Applicants claiming Priority from Foreign Application IL284896 filed on 07/15/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Therefore, the earliest effective filing date examined for this case is 07/15/2021.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments
8. Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments, filed with respect to Claims 1-8 have been fully considered, but they are found not persuasive (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 8-9, dated 08/17/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Argument #1:
(A). Applicant argues that Claims 1-8 do not recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon under revised step 2a prong one of the 35 U.S.C § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 8-9, dated 08/17/2025). Examiner withdraws the “software per se” rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for step 1. However, Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection for Claims 1-8 and respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments.
Specifically, Applicant argues that amended claim limitations of Independent Claim 1 is not an abstract idea under step 2a prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C § 101 analysis and states that the Examiner does not articulate what the abstract idea is nor does the analysis appear to follow the Office guidance (see Applicant Remarks, Page 9, dated 08/17/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s remarks, Examiner notes that Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising a mission generator (MG), agents (TGPS), and a multi-agent planner (MAP), all executed by one or more computer processors. This describes a computer-implemented system for automated planning, allocation, and execution of missions. The core of the invention is the "computing [of] a set of mal missions," the "building [of] an allocation vector" (a plan), and the agents "performing its assigned mal mission... while considering all other agents" (coordination/planning). Here, for Independent Claim 1, the claim language provided describes a process for generating missions, assigning them to agents, and planning the execution, which primarily involves the abstract ideas of organization/planning for mission control purposes. The first step is directed to the abstract idea of setting a goal or plan and using a mental logical process to define a set of tasks. The "computing a set of mission agent language (mal) missions" describes a functional result (defining tasks) that a person could, in theory, perform mentally or with pen and paper, even if a computer makes it more efficient. The "mission generator" itself describes a function, not a specific, non-abstract implementation. The second step is directed to the abstract ideas of organization and assigning roles. The third step is strongly directed to the abstract ideas of planning/allocation. The "multi-agent planner": This is a method of planning and optimization (e.g., efficiently planning tasks, optimizing resources). The last step reiterates and elaborates on the abstract ideas of planning and coordination, specifically regarding (coordinating a group of agents). Thus, for the “Mental Processes” category, the core logic of planning and assigning tasks can be performed by a human mentally. The use of generic computer processors does not automatically make an abstract idea patent-eligible if the processors merely perform the steps in a conventional manner. Independent Claim 1 which essentially automates a planning and allocation task, is directed to an abstract idea. The focus is on the functional result (planning and allocation) rather than a specific, technological improvement to the underlying computer or multi-agent system technology itself.
With respect to “Mental Processes” category, Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP § 2106.04 (a) (2) (III) (C): “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").” “For instance, the Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s Specification and determined that the claimed invention is described as concepts that are performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer (see Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0032] & ¶ [0070].) or 2) in a computer environment (see Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0032] & ¶ [0070].), or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform these concepts.” Thus, based on these 3 factors, Examiner maintains that the claims still recite a mental process.
Therefore, in conclusion, Examiner maintains that Claims 1-8 are still patent ineligible over step 2a prong one of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis as still reciting “Mental Processes”.
Argument #2:
(B). Applicant argues that Claims 1-8 recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under revised step 2a prong two of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Page 9, dated 08/17/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues that “even if the claim were, as a whole, directed to a judicial exception, it is integrated into a practical application – for example, that improves the functioning of the autonomous systems in real-time, resource-constrained environments – and thus eligible for that reason as well” integrating the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Page 9, dated 08/17/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s remarks, Examiner notes that Independent Claim 1 requires the MG, agents, and MAP to be "executed by one or more computer processors". Merely requiring a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not make it eligible. The processors and associated components (e.g., memory) appear generic. The step 2a prong 2 of 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis hinges on whether the claim language describes a specific improvement to computer technology or a technological field, rather than just an application of an abstract concept on a computer. Here, Independent Claim 1, uses specific terminology like "mission agent language (mal) missions," "group of agents (tgps)," and "allocation vector," but these terms appear to describe the logic or data structures of the planning methodology itself, not necessarily a concrete, non-generic technical solution or an improvement in computer functionality (e.g., a specific improvement to memory systems or network security). The claim's requirement for agents to "consider all other agents in its corresponding tactical group" sounds like a computational instruction or process rule, not a specific, physical, or technical implementation that provides a concrete technological improvement over prior art.
Thus, Independent Claim 1, as written, lacks an inventive concept because it appears to implement an abstract planning idea using generic computing components without specifying a particular configuration or technical improvement that amounts to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. Under the Mayo/Alice framework as applied by the courts, the provided claim language is patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is directed to the abstract idea of planning and coordination using generic computer components, and lacks an inventive concept to transform it into a patent-eligible application. Independent Claim 1 is essentially for software that organizes tasks, which has generally been found abstract unless it improves the functioning of the computer itself or another technology. Thus, Claims 1-8 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are each focused to a statutory category namely, a “system” or a “apparatus” (Claims 1-8). However, we proceed to analyze the claims under Step 2A Prong One shown below.
Step 2A Prong One: Independent Claim 1 recites limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely (see in bold except where strikethrough):
“” (see Independent Claim 1);
“a) compute a set of Mission Agent (MAL) missions” (see Independent Claim 1);
“b) , each executed capable of performing at least one Mission Agent (MAL) mission” (see Independent Claim 1);
“c) receive said set of Mission Agent (MAL) missions to build an allocation vector between said MAL missions and said agents in said group” (see Independent Claim 1);
“wherein is further capable of performing its assigned Mission Agent (MAL) mission per said allocation vector, while considering all other agents in its corresponding tactical group” (see Independent Claim 1).
Here, for Independent Claim 1, the claim language provided describes a process for generating missions, assigning them to agents, and planning the execution, which primarily involves the abstract ideas of organization/planning for mission control purposes. The first step is directed to the abstract idea of setting a goal or plan and using a mental logical process to define a set of tasks. The "computing a set of mission agent language (mal) missions" describes a functional result (defining tasks) that a person could, in theory, perform mentally or with pen and paper, even if a computer makes it more efficient. The "mission generator" itself describes a function, not a specific, non-abstract implementation. The second step is directed to the abstract ideas of organization and assigning roles. The third step is strongly directed to the abstract ideas of planning/allocation. The "multi-agent planner": This is a method of planning and optimization (e.g., efficiently planning tasks, optimizing resources). The last step reiterates and elaborates on the abstract ideas of planning and coordination, specifically regarding (coordinating a group of agents). Thus, for the “Mental Processes” category, the core logic of planning and assigning tasks can be performed by a human mentally.
Thus, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid, which in order to help perform these mental steps does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. The use of "physical aids" in implementing the abstract mental process, does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C.
That is, other than reciting (e.g., “Mission Generator (MG)” & “Mission Agent Language (MAL)” & “one or more computer processors” & “group of agents (TGPs)” & “Multi-Agent Planner (MAP)” & “each agent (TGP)”), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid.
Therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Yes, Claims 1-8 recite an abstract idea. We proceed onto analyzing the claims at step 2a prong 2.
Step 2A Prong Two: With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 1 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “Mission Generator (MG)” & “one or more computer processors” & “Mission Agent Language (MAL)” & “group of agents (TGPs)” & “Multi-Agent Planner (MAP)” & “each agent (TGP)”). These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, at step 2a prong 2, Claims 1-8 are directed to the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent Claim 1 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “Mission Generator (MG)” & “one or more computer processors” & “group of agents (TGPs)” & “Mission Agent Language (MAL)” & “Multi-Agent Planner (MAP)” & “each agent (TGP)”). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05 (f) and MPEP § 2106.05 (h). Therefore, for Independent Claim 1: Examiner notes that the additional elements of (e.g., “Mission Generator (MG)” & “group of agents (TGPs)” & “Mission Agent Language (MAL)” &“one or more computer processors” & “Multi-Agent Planner (MAP)” & “each agent (TGP)”), when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole), these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 and also secondly does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: (1) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) or (2) limiting a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to performing its assigned Mission Agent Language mission per said allocation vector factoring in all other agents in a corresponding tactical group in an advanced warfare environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent Claims 2-8 recite substantially the same or similar additional elements as addressed above and when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) with these limitations recite the same abstract idea(s) as shown in Independent Claim 1 along with further steps/details pertaining to “Mental Processes” which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments or opinions) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid. Dependent Claims 5-8 further narrow the abstract ideas, and are therefore still ineligible for the reasons previously provided in Steps 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B for Independent Claim 1. Dependent Claims 2-4: With respect to reliance on “GroupDetector (GD)” (as shown in Claim 2) & “Selector” (as shown in Claim 3) & “Tactical Group Planner (TGP)” (as shown in Claim 4) & “set of corresponding actuators” (as shown in Claim 4) as additional elements shown in Dependent Claims 2-4 when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations, these additional elements do not provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 and also do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: (1) recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions by providing the results to the user on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f)) or (2) limiting a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to performing its assigned Mission Agent Language mission per said allocation vector factoring in all other agents in a corresponding tactical group in an advanced warfare environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). With respect to Dependent Claim 3, certain/particular limitations shown recite (1) mere data gathering (e.g., “each agent is further configured to receive multiple missions (MAL)”) and (2) selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (e.g. “each agent further comprises a Selector capable of selecting a MAL mission to be performed from all received MAL missions”) wherein which each of these claim limitations reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)).
The ordered combination of elements in the Dependent Claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, under Step 2B, Claims 1-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claims 1-8 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
11. Applicant’s prior art arguments with respect to Claims 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (see Applicant’s Remarks, Pages 9-10, dated 08/17/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues that US PG Pub (US 2020/0134491 A1) hereinafter Cruise does not disclose the specific MAL-based mission planning and allocation features of the claimed invention such as Mission Agent Language (MAL) Abstraction Layer, Mission Generator (MG) Computing MAL Missions, Multi-Agent Planner (MAP) Polynomial Optimization with Correlation Order, Tactical Group Planner (TGP) Coordination per Allocation Vector and Dynamic Centralized/Distributed Switching within MAL Framework. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Mission Agent Language (MAL) Abstraction Layer” & “Multi-Agent Planner (MAP) polynomial optimization with correlation order” & “Dynamic Centralized / Distributed Switching within MAL Framework”) are not recited in the rejected claim limitations of Independent Claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Secondly, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Thirdly, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Therefore, with these factors in mind, Examiner maintains that US PG Pub (US 2020/0134491 A1) Cruise reference does anticipate under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) by teaching Claims 1-8. See mapping of Cruise for Independent Claim 1 shown below.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Cruise system for multi-agent mission planning teaches the following:
- a mission generator (MG) (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0063] & Fig. 4.) configured to compute a set of Mission Agent Language (MAL) missions (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0057] & ¶ [0094-0095] & ¶ [0117-0118]. Cruise teaches that OA Agents 61 are another information fusion agent. A single Level 1 OA agent is provided on a given platform. An exemplary force/tactical group can be defined as a set N={1, 2, . . . , n} of UxSs that each host a single OA Agent 61. A swarm includes of a set N={1, 2, . . . , n} of force/tactical groups of which a given UxS is one, each hosting a single SA Agent 71. A group's SA Agent 71 composes situation vectors from patterns of OSVs within a group-distributed OSV database 65. The n SA Agents 71 in an entire swarm of force tactical groups interact with each other to update the swarm-distributed situation vectors (SV) database 75, which is a distributed database accessible to the swarm's SA Agents 71. See also Cruise at ¶ [0117-0118]. Cruise teaches that Integrated engagement control agents take mission actions as input, undertake action decomposition or diffusion, and output patterns (aka plans) of integrated engagement sensing, fires, and platform control actions. The cohort of integrated engagement control agents aboard the entire command-guided swarm, each integrated engagement control agent hosted by one force tactical group of UxSs, participate in repeated play of a game to determine which integrated engagement control agent decomposes which mission action stored in the swarm-distributed mission plans database.)
- a group of agents (TGPs) each capable of performing at least one MAL mission (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0057] & ¶ [0060-0061]. Cruise teaches that operator infusion agents 31 enable and operate with a human-in-the-loop for interpreting/assessing processed information/data, establishing mission objectives or making engagement decisions, and interacting with CGS SoS for purposes of enabling machine learning and fusion/diffusion augmentation/refinement. See also Cruise at ¶ [0060]: Engagement Control Agents' 73 knowledge, and for mission planning with the Mission Control Agents' 91 knowledge. Operator Infusion Agent 31 has a variety of interactions. For example, multiple Operator Infusion Agents 31 share among themselves access to the human operator guiding their force/tactical group 34 such that the human operator is not cognitively overloaded; e.g., all Operator Infusion Agents 31, each aboard a different force/tactical group 34, must divide up or allocate among themselves channels of their user interface to an assigned human operator by playing a game to decide which Operator Infusion Agent 31 will access a given user interface channel for purposes of direct communication with the human operator at a given time or under a set of circumstances. See also Cruise at ¶ [0061]: Mission control (MC) SIMD agents 91 (A Sub-Class of the Control Diffusion Class 29).)
- at least one Multi-Agent Planner (MAP) adapted to receive said set of MAL missions from said MG to build an allocation vector between said MAL missions and said agents in said group (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0077] & ¶ [0085-0086] & ¶ [0101]. Cruise notes that IEC Agents 73 can request operator action decomposition preferences for formulating force/tactical group integrated engagement plan from swarm mission plan actions. MC agents 91 queries can seek human operator action decomposition preferences for formulating swarm mission plans from high level mission objectives. See also Cruise at ¶ [0077]: An IF SRL model seeks, first, to recognize a complex pattern formed among multiple feature vectors within an input feature space, and second, to output a new higher-level feature vector characterizing these patterns. The output feature vector essentially labels the pattern formed by the multiple input feature vectors. The completed output vector itself becomes a feature vector in the next higher-level feature space. See also Cruise at ¶ [0082]: The ith MC agent's utility depends upon a subset of threat vectors contained in the swarm-distributed threat vectors (TV) database, with subset members denoted Vi. This subset of threat vectors is directly relevant to the ith force/tactical group, where relevancy has been determined by the ith threat assessment (TA) agent. See also Cruise at ¶ [0085-0086]: ith IEC agent's 73 utility is higher when the MP action ai is relevant to the ith force/tactical group, and when the set a−i includes MP actions less relevant to the ith force/tactical group, considering the relevant current situation vector(s) Vi. On the other hand, if the set a−i contains MP actions more relevant to the ith force/tactical group than the MP action ai, considering the relevant current situation vector(s) Vi, then the ith IEC agent's 73 utility is lower.)
- wherein each agent (TGP) (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0150]. Cruise teaches that each IEC agent 73 in the cohort now knows which MP action to decompose into the lower-level actions of an integrated engagement plan (IEP). An integrated engagement plan describes how a single mission plan action is implemented by a specified force/tactical group of autonomous systems within the CGS. A tactical group of autonomous systems including integrated sensing, fires, and platform resources.) is further capable of performing its assigned MAL mission per said allocation vector (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0059] & ¶ [0077] & ¶ [0082]. Cruise teaches that control diffusion agents include diffusion or pattern generation of multiple action vectors (or simply actions); e.g., generate device control signals (a device signaling action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a UxS action), UxS actions (a UxS action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a force/tactical group integrated engagement action), integrated engagement actions (an integrated engagement action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a mission action). See also Cruise at ¶ [0018] & ¶ [0058]: “Task allocations followed by additional agent gaming and task allocation/interactions. Allocation of tasking out to specific engagement capabilities is performed by the control diffusion agents 29.” See also Cruise at ¶ [0077]: An IF SRL model seeks, first, to recognize a complex pattern formed among multiple feature vectors within an input feature space, and second, to output a new higher-level feature vector characterizing these patterns. The output feature vector essentially labels the pattern formed by the multiple input feature vectors. The completed output vector itself becomes a feature vector in the next higher-level feature space. See also Cruise at ¶ [0082]: The ith MC agent's utility depends upon a subset of threat vectors contained in the swarm-distributed threat vectors (TV) database, with subset members denoted Vi. This subset of threat vectors is directly relevant to the ith force/tactical group, where relevancy has been determined by the ith threat assessment (TA) agent. See also Cruise at ¶ [0085-0086]: ith IEC agent's 73 utility is higher when the MP action ai is relevant to the ith force/tactical group, and when the set a−i includes MP actions less relevant to the ith force/tactical group, considering the relevant current situation vector(s) Vi. On the other hand, if the set a−i contains MP actions more relevant to the ith force/tactical group than the MP action ai, considering the relevant current situation vector(s) Vi, then the ith IEC agent's 73 utility is lower. See also Cruise at ¶ [0140]: The force/tactical group's global objective is that the most important planned group integrated engagement actions in the group-distributed IEP database are optimally decomposed for sensing and allocated to the group's UxSs, in light of the most critical battlespace objects identified in the group-distributed OSV database.) while considering all other agents in its corresponding tactical group (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0055] & ¶ [0059-0060] & Fig. 3B. Cruise teaches that from a physical perspective, embodiments of a CGS can be divided into force or tactical groups of UxSs. These force/tactical groups are subject to integrated engagement plans that address integrated fires, integrated maneuver, and integrated posturing/positioning among the UxSs within the force/tactical group. These groups may be considered as “swarms within swarms”. See also Cruise at ¶ [0059]: UxS actions (a UxS action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a force/tactical group integrated engagement action), integrated engagement actions (an integrated engagement action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a mission action). See also Cruise at ¶ [0060] & Fig. 3B: “multiple Operator Infusion Agents 31 share among themselves access to the human operator guiding their force/tactical group 34 such that the human operator is not cognitively overloaded; e.g., all Operator Infusion Agents 31, each aboard a different force/tactical group 34, must divide up or allocate among themselves channels of their user interface to an assigned human operator by playing a game to decide which Operator Infusion Agent 31 will access a given user interface channel for purposes of direct communication with the human operator at a given time or under a set of circumstances.”).
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) (1) reference of US PG Pub (US 2020/0134491 A1) of Cruise is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
14. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
15. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub (US 2020/0134491 A1) to Cruise.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Cruise system for multi-agent mission planning teaches the following:
- a mission generator (MG) (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0063] & Fig. 4.), executed by one or more computer processors (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0063-0064]. Cruise teaches that at least one Data Storage Medium 25 is provided that stores machine instructions which operate one or more processors, systems, or controller 19 on board the UxS platform 3.) configured to compute a set of Mission Agent Language (MAL) missions (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0057] & ¶ [0094-0095] & ¶ [0117-0118]. Cruise teaches that OA Agents 61 are another information fusion agent. A single Level 1 OA agent is provided on a given platform. An exemplary force/tactical group can be defined as a set N={1, 2, . . . , n} of UxSs that each host a single OA Agent 61. A swarm includes of a set N={1, 2, . . . , n} of force/tactical groups of which a given UxS is one, each hosting a single SA Agent 71. A group's SA Agent 71 composes situation vectors from patterns of OSVs within a group-distributed OSV database 65. The n SA Agents 71 in an entire swarm of force tactical groups interact with each other to update the swarm-distributed situation vectors (SV) database 75, which is a distributed database accessible to the swarm's SA Agents 71. See also Cruise at ¶ [0117-0118]. Cruise teaches that Integrated engagement control agents take mission actions as input, undertake action decomposition or diffusion, and output patterns (aka plans) of integrated engagement sensing, fires, and platform control actions. The cohort of integrated engagement control agents aboard the entire command-guided swarm, each integrated engagement control agent hosted by one force tactical group of UxSs, participate in repeated play of a game to determine which integrated engagement control agent decomposes which mission action stored in the swarm-distributed mission plans database.)
- a group of agents (TGPs) (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0057] & ¶ [0060-0061]), each executed by one or more computer processors (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0063-0064]. Cruise teaches that at least one Data Storage Medium 25 is provided that stores machine instructions which operate one or more processors, systems, or controller 19 on board the UxS platform 3.) and capable of performing at least one MAL mission (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0057] & ¶ [0060-0061]. Cruise teaches that operator infusion agents 31 enable and operate with a human-in-the-loop for interpreting/assessing processed information/data, establishing mission objectives or making engagement decisions, and interacting with CGS SoS for purposes of enabling machine learning and fusion/diffusion augmentation/refinement. See also Cruise at ¶ [0060]: Engagement Control Agents' 73 knowledge, and for mission planning with the Mission Control Agents' 91 knowledge. Operator Infusion Agent 31 has a variety of interactions. For example, multiple Operator Infusion Agents 31 share among themselves access to the human operator guiding their force/tactical group 34 such that the human operator is not cognitively overloaded; e.g., all Operator Infusion Agents 31, each aboard a different force/tactical group 34, must divide up or allocate among themselves channels of their user interface to an assigned human operator by playing a game to decide which Operator Infusion Agent 31 will access a given user interface channel for purposes of direct communication with the human operator at a given time or under a set of circumstances. See also Cruise at ¶ [0061]: Mission control (MC) SIMD agents 91 (A Sub-Class of the Control Diffusion Class 29).)
- at least one Multi-Agent Planner (MAP) (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0077] & ¶ [0085-0086] & ¶ [0101].), executed by one or more computer processors (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0063-0064]. Cruise teaches that at least one Data Storage Medium 25 is provided that stores machine instructions which operate one or more processors, systems, or controller 19 on board the UxS platform 3.) adapted to receive said set of MAL missions from said MG to build an allocation vector between said MAL missions and said agents in said group (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0077] & ¶ [0085-0086] & ¶ [0101]. Cruise notes that IEC Agents 73 can request operator action decomposition preferences for formulating force/tactical group integrated engagement plan from swarm mission plan actions. MC agents 91 queries can seek human operator action decomposition preferences for formulating swarm mission plans from high level mission objectives. See also Cruise at ¶ [0077]: An IF SRL model seeks, first, to recognize a complex pattern formed among multiple feature vectors within an input feature space, and second, to output a new higher-level feature vector characterizing these patterns. The output feature vector essentially labels the pattern formed by the multiple input feature vectors. The completed output vector itself becomes a feature vector in the next higher-level feature space. See also Cruise at ¶ [0082]: The ith MC agent's utility depends upon a subset of threat vectors contained in the swarm-distributed threat vectors (TV) database, with subset members denoted Vi. This subset of threat vectors is directly relevant to the ith force/tactical group, where relevancy has been determined by the ith threat assessment (TA) agent. See also Cruise at ¶ [0085-0086]: ith IEC agent's 73 utility is higher when the MP action ai is relevant to the ith force/tactical group, and when the set a−i includes MP actions less relevant to the ith force/tactical group, considering the relevant current situation vector(s) Vi. On the other hand, if the set a−i contains MP actions more relevant to the ith force/tactical group than the MP action ai, considering the relevant current situation vector(s) Vi, then the ith IEC agent's 73 utility is lower.)
- wherein each agent (TGP) (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0150]. Cruise teaches that each IEC agent 73 in the cohort now knows which MP action to decompose into the lower-level actions of an integrated engagement plan (IEP). An integrated engagement plan describes how a single mission plan action is implemented by a specified force/tactical group of autonomous systems within the CGS. A tactical group of autonomous systems including integrated sensing, fires, and platform resources.) is further capable of performing its assigned MAL mission per said allocation vector (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0059] & ¶ [0077] & ¶ [0082]. Cruise teaches that control diffusion agents include diffusion or pattern generation of multiple action vectors (or simply actions); e.g., generate device control signals (a device signaling action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a UxS action), UxS actions (a UxS action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a force/tactical group integrated engagement action), integrated engagement actions (an integrated engagement action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a mission action). See also Cruise at ¶ [0077]: An IF SRL model seeks, first, to recognize a complex pattern formed among multiple feature vectors within an input feature space, and second, to output a new higher-level feature vector characterizing these patterns. The output feature vector essentially labels the pattern formed by the multiple input feature vectors. The completed output vector itself becomes a feature vector in the next higher-level feature space. See also Cruise at ¶ [0082]: The ith MC agent's utility depends upon a subset of threat vectors contained in the swarm-distributed threat vectors (TV) database, with subset members denoted Vi. This subset of threat vectors is directly relevant to the ith force/tactical group, where relevancy has been determined by the ith threat assessment (TA) agent. See also Cruise at ¶ [0085-0086]: ith IEC agent's 73 utility is higher when the MP action ai is relevant to the ith force/tactical group, and when the set a−i includes MP actions less relevant to the ith force/tactical group, considering the relevant current situation vector(s) Vi. On the other hand, if the set a−i contains MP actions more relevant to the ith force/tactical group than the MP action ai, considering the relevant current situation vector(s) Vi, then the ith IEC agent's 73 utility is lower. See also Cruise at ¶ [0140]: The force/tactical group's global objective is that the most important planned group integrated engagement actions in the group-distributed IEP database are optimally decomposed for sensing and allocated to the group's UxSs, in light of the most critical battlespace objects identified in the group-distributed OSV database.) while considering all other agents in its corresponding tactical group (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0055] & ¶ [0059-0060] & Fig. 3B. Cruise teaches that from a physical perspective, embodiments of a CGS can be divided into force or tactical groups of UxSs. These force/tactical groups are subject to integrated engagement plans that address integrated fires, integrated maneuver, and integrated posturing/positioning among the UxSs within the force/tactical group. These groups may be considered as “swarms within swarms”. See also Cruise at ¶ [0059]: UxS actions (a UxS action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a force/tactical group integrated engagement action), integrated engagement actions (an integrated engagement action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a mission action). See also Cruise at ¶ [0060] & Fig. 3B: “multiple Operator Infusion Agents 31 share among themselves access to the human operator guiding their force/tactical group 34 such that the human operator is not cognitively overloaded; e.g., all Operator Infusion Agents 31, each aboard a different force/tactical group 34, must divide up or allocate among themselves channels of their user interface to an assigned human operator by playing a game to decide which Operator Infusion Agent 31 will access a given user interface channel for purposes of direct communication with the human operator at a given time or under a set of circumstances.”)
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Cruise system for multi-agent mission planning teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Cruise further teaches the system for multi-agent mission planning comprising:
- further comprising a GroupDetector (GD) capable of identifying for each mission its set of allocated agents, based on said allocation vector (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0117-0118] & ¶ [0140] & ¶ [0148]. Cruise notes that the force/tactical group's global objective is that the most important planned group integrated engagement actions in the group-distributed IEP database are optimally decomposed for sensing and allocated to the group's UxSs, in light of the most critical battlespace objects identified in the group-distributed OSV database. Therefore, the set of all SC agent utility functions {Ui}i∈N and update policies {πi}i∈N should work together to optimize W for my force/tactical group of UxSs. See also Cruise at ¶ [0148]: Within a swarm which in turn updates the swarm-distributed high-level mission objectives (HLMO) database 89 on all UxS platforms 3 or UxS platforms within one or more designated force/tactical groups, where the mission objectives 131 include an effect on a target or targets or entities and a target or entity identification with a target or entity location or one or more patterns that can be associated with the target, targets or entities, e.g., a target image or pattern usable by a sensor for pattern matching with the target image or pattern.)
- wherein said set of agents is configured to perform a MAL mission according to said GG identification (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0117-0118] & ¶ [0148]. Cruise notes that a swarm or completed MP can include an assembly or stitching together of all individual HLMO decompositions (e.g., decomposed user defined objectives that define an action (e.g., remove or move an identified element from a location) into many MP subsets that each define MP plan actions)) produced by the swarm's MC SIMD agents 91. See also Cruise at ¶ [0117-0118]: An integrated engagement action generally will not specify which particular sensor suite, weapon suite, or platform within the force/tactical group should execute the integrated engagement action. Integrated engagement control agents take mission actions as input, undertake action decomposition or diffusion, and output patterns (aka plans) of integrated engagement sensing, fires, and platform control actions. A mission action generally will not specify which particular force/tactical group should execute the action. Mission control agents take high-level mission objectives (each objective is an action, not of the swarm, but on the environment) as input, undertake action decomposition or diffusion, and output patterns (aka plans) of mission actions.)
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Cruise system for multi-agent mission planning teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Cruise further teaches the system for multi-agent mission planning comprising:
- wherein each agent is further configured to receive multiple missions (MAL) (see at least Cruise:
¶ [0059] & ¶ [0117-0118]. Cruise teaches that functions of control diffusion agents include diffusion or pattern generation of multiple action vectors (or simply actions); e.g., generate device control signals (a device signaling action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a UxS action), UxS actions (a UxS action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a force/tactical group integrated engagement action), integrated engagement actions (an integrated engagement action set or plan is generated or decomposed from a mission action. See also Cruise at [0118]: Mission control agents take high-level mission objectives (each objective is an action, not of the swarm, but on the environment) as input, undertake action decomposition or diffusion, and output patterns (aka plans) of mission actions. The cohort of mission control agents aboard the entire command-guided swarm, each agent hosted by one force/tactical group of UxSs, participate in repeated play of a game to determine which mission control agent decomposes which high-level mission objective stored in the swarm-distributed high-level mission objectives database. A force/tactical UxS group hosts a single Level 3 mission control (MC) agent 91.)
- each agent further comprises a selector capable of selecting a MAL mission to be performed from all received MAL missions (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0117-0118] & ¶ [0140] & ¶ [0148]. Cruise notes that at Steps 811 through 819, agents determine their utility as a function of its integrated engagement action selection in relation to the determined utility of other agents in the game. At Step 819, the game has converged on a solution or equilibrium set of choices of planned integrated engagement actions at which point each SC Agent has selected or been aligned with a particular planned integrated action it is to decompose into sensor control plans. At step 821, the selected SC Agents use HTM approaches to decompose selected or designated planned integrated engagement plans into sensor control plans. See also Cruise at ¶ [0148]: Within either a designated force/tactical group comprising a plurality of the UxS platforms 3 or all of the UxS platforms 3 within a swarm which in turn updates the swarm-distributed high-level mission objectives (HLMO) database 89 on all UxS platforms 3 or UxS platforms within one or more designated force/tactical groups, where the mission objectives 131 include an effect on a target or targets or entities and a target or entity identification with a target or entity location or one or more patterns that can be associated with the target, targets or entities.)
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Cruise system for multi-agent mission planning teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Cruise further teaches the system for multi-agent mission planning comprising:
- wherein each agent and/or Tactical Group Planner (TGP) is capable of translating the agent assigned mission into high-resolution actuating commands, to be performed by a set of corresponding actuators (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0065] & ¶ [0102] & ¶ [0111-0112]. Cruise notes that from a local UxS-based sensor control plans (SCP) database 45B, the agent D_i{circumflex over ( )}SCS 42 will decompose action a_i into servo/actuator control signals for each physical sensor associated with D_i{circumflex over ( )}SCS 42. When one or more preconditions of a_i are flagged as achieved, then agent D_i{circumflex over ( )}SCS 42 will output servo/actuator control signals to a respective sensor 15 (e.g., 15A, 15B, or 15C, etc. See also Cruise at ¶ [0102]: The SC Agent 51 outputs new/updated sensor control plans that is stored in a Sensor Control Plans database 45B. Each SCS Agent 42 receives new/updated control actions 103 for its related sensor and outputs actuator and servo control signals 103 to each related sensor 15. See also Cruise at ¶ [0109]: A physical sensor 15 can be controlled by sensor servo/actuator control signaling actions (e.g., control inputs to the physical sensor 15 and its control mechanisms that can include servos or actuators). An exemplary SCA 42 can include game system played by a cohort or group of Level 0 sensor control signaling agents (e.g., FIG. 5) for extracting actions from a local sensor control plans database 45B. See also Cruise at ¶ [0111-0112]: Effector or weapon control signaling agents take effector (e.g., weapon) control actions as input, undertake action decomposition or diffusion, and output patterns (aka plans) of effector (e.g., weapon) servo/actuator control signaling actions.)
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Cruise system for multi-agent mission planning teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Cruise further teaches the system for multi-agent mission planning comprising:
- wherein the allocation of each vector is selected by computing the highest value of a k-degree polynomial that encodes a solution of all possible mappings of tactical groups to missions, said polynomial representing the effectiveness of said each allocation (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0082] & ¶ [0086] & ¶ [0117-0119]. Cruise teaches that the exemplary ith IEC agent's 73 utility function Ui(a; Vi) returns a higher value when other IEC agents 73 focus on decomposing MP actions not relevant to the ith force/tactical group, considering the relevant current situation vector(s) Vi. The relevancy of a MP action to the ith IEC agent 73 derives from the self-interest of the force/tactical group of the ith IEC agent 73. See also Cruise at ¶ [0082]: This subset of threat vectors is directly relevant to the ith force/tactical group, where relevancy has been determined by the ith threat assessment (TA) agent. Because all MC agents 91 contribute to the swarm-distributed mission plans (MP) database 79, overall swarm mission planning is accomplished as an aggregation of self-interested mission planning efforts by each individual force/tactical group. See also Cruise at ¶ [0089]: The exemplary P/S/W control plan's initial state can be set as the integrated-engagement-level action's precondition, and the plan's goal can be expressed by the integrated-engagement-level action(s). The exemplary P/S/ W control agent 52, 51, 53 searches the individual capability plan library, which contains methods for the decomposition of integrated-engagement-level actions into partial-order P/S/W control plans. See also Cruise at ¶ [0106]: Hence, the ith FA agent's utility function Ui(a) returns a higher value when other FA agents focus on updating FVs not relevant to the ith sensor. The relevancy of a FV to the ith FA agent primarily derives from the unique pixel data output of the ith sensor. See also Cruise at ¶ [0117-0119]: SIMD Situation Assessment Agent 71 (Information Fusion Agent). Situation assessment agents take object state vectors as input, undertake pattern recognition or fusion, and output situation vectors. A cohort of situation assessment agents aboard the entire command-guided swarm, each hosted by one force/tactical group of UxSs, participate in repeated play of a game to determine which situation assessment agent updates which situation vector stored in the swarm-distributed situation vector database.)
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Cruise system for multi-agent mission planning teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Cruise further teaches the system for multi-agent mission planning comprising:
- wherein the size of each tactical group is at most the correlation order of the system (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0084] & ¶ [0150-0152] & ¶ [0158-0159]. A swarm's resources are its force/tactical groups. Accordingly, a swarm mission plan (MP) describes the deployment and activities of the swarm's force/tactical groups throughout mission execution. The various HLMO decompositions are stitched together according to the ordering constraints and causal links of the original HLMOs. The MP action set may be totally or partially ordered, depending upon the ordering constraints and causal links of the HLMOs and within the HLMO decompositions. See also Cruise at ¶ [0148]: An exemplary MC SIMD agent's 91 utility function quantifies relevancy of a HLMO to the agent's force/tactical group.)
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Cruise system for multi-agent mission planning teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Cruise further teaches the system for multi-agent mission planning comprising:
- wherein the MG computes the MAL missions based on world-state input (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0117-0119]. Cruise teaches that mission control agents take high-level mission objectives (each objective is an action, not of the swarm, but on the environment) as input, undertake action decomposition or diffusion, and output patterns (aka plans) of mission actions. The cohort of mission control agents aboard the entire command-guided swarm, each agent hosted by one force/tactical group of UxSs, participate in repeated play of a game to determine which mission control agent decomposes which high-level mission objective stored in the swarm-distributed high-level mission objectives database. Integrated engagement control agents take mission actions as input, undertake action decomposition or diffusion, and output patterns (aka plans) of integrated engagement sensing, fires, and platform control actions. The cohort of integrated engagement control agents aboard the entire command-guided swarm, each integrated engagement control agent hosted by one force tactical group of UxSs, participate in repeated play of a game to determine which integrated engagement control agent decomposes which mission action stored in the swarm-distributed mission plans database.), and said world-state being a collection of data that corresponds to targets and agents (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0141] & ¶ [0148] & ¶ [0153]. Cruise teaches that the ith WC agent's utility depends also upon the choices contained in the set a−i of all the other WC agents in the force/tactical group of UxSs. Furthermore, the ith WC agent's utility depends upon a subset of ROSV, with members denoted Vi, which is a subset of object state vectors contained in the group-distributed OSV database of battlespace objects that are targets of opportunity/urgency for the weapon suite of the ith UxS. See also Cruise at ¶ [0148]: UxS platforms within one or more designated force/tactical groups, where the mission objectives 131 include an effect on a target or targets or entities and a target or entity identification with a target or entity location or one or more patterns that can be associated with the target, targets or entities, e.g., a target image or pattern usable by a sensor for pattern matching with the target image or pattern.)
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Cruise system for multi-agent mission planning teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Cruise further teaches the system for multi-agent mission planning comprising:
- wherein said MAL is an abstract language defining a set of single-agent missions (see at least Cruise: ¶ [0057] & ¶ [0117-0119]. Cruise teaches that each AI agent in an exemplary CGS SoS can be an instantiation derived from one of these three high-level abstractions or classes 27, 29, 31. An exemplary information fusion abstraction class 27 encompasses levels 0, 1, 2, and 3 of a Joint Director of Laboratory (JDL) Data Fusion Model. Embodiments of at least one exemplary control diffusion abstraction encompasses and extends JDL level 4 data fusion and resource management to include not only sensor control but also equipment, e.g., weapon, and platform control. Exemplary operator infusion agent 31 interface abstraction encompasses JDL level 5 data fusion. Cruise at ¶ [0117-0119] teaches defining a set of single-agent missions.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patents and/or US PG Pub Documents
US PG Pub (US 2019/0087529 A1) – “Decisions with Big Data”, hereinafter Steingrimsson, et. al;
US PG Pub (US 2022/0027798 A1) – “Autonomous Behaviors in a Multiagent Adversarial Scene”, hereinafter Liebman, et. al;
US PG Pub (US 2020/0410399 A1) – “Method and System for Determining Policies, Rules, and Agent Characteristics, for Automating Agents, and Protection”, hereinafter Lang, et. al.
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 DERICK HOLZMACHER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7853. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM – 6:30 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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-8853.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DERICK J HOLZMACHER/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625A
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights