DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application 18/584712 filed on February 22, 2024 in which Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which Claims 1-20 are rejected under Alice 101. Claims 16-18 are rejected under 112f. Claims 3, 8, 9, 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 112b. No prior art references have been used for this rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 21, 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on February 22, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner, with the exception of the Wang reference that was not included for review.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first domain artificial intelligence agent (AI) module, system AI agent module, machine learning model, first domain AI agent, second domain artificial intelligence (AI) module and second domain AI agent, in Claims 15-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3, 8, 9, 13 and 15-18 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 3 recites the limitation "the first available functions" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first domain query" in Lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second domain query" in Lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first domain query " in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second domain query" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first computing domain" in Lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first domain AI agent" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second domain function" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second domain AI agent" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the operation" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the second domain AI agent" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
receiving a user query configured to troubleshoot performance of a system operation having a plurality of domains
determining, by a system artificial intelligence (AI) agent using machine learning, a first domain involving the performance of the system operation
generating, by the system AI agent, a first query for receipt by a first domain AI agent of the first domain
receiving a first domain response from the first domain AI agent
generating, by the system AI agent, a second query for receipt by a second domain AI agent of a second domain based on the first domain response
receiving a second domain response from the second domain AI agent of the second domain
outputting a system response to the user query generated by the system AI agent based on the second domain response and the first domain response
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying entity to obtain data from.
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 3 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating an inquiry for data.
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating an inquiry for data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘receiving’ limitation in # 1 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses a person obtaining specific data.
The ‘receiving’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses a person obtaining specific data.
The ‘receiving’ limitation in # 6 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses a person obtaining specific data.
The ‘outputting’ limitation in # 7 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person displaying data on paper.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 2 recites:
registering the first domain AI agent and the second domain AI agent to each be one of a plurality of domain AI agents available to the system AI agent for receiving domain queries
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘registering’ limitation in # 8 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “registering” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying the entities to obtain data from.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 3 recites:
obtaining with the system AI agent a first listing of first available domain functions from the first domain including at least one first dependent system operation corresponding to each of the first available functions
obtaining with the system AI agent a second listing of second available domain functions from the second domain including at least one second dependent system operation corresponding to each of the second available domain functions
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘obtaining’ limitation in # 9 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person retrieving specific data.
The ‘obtaining’ limitation in # 10 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person retrieving specific data.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 4 recites:
the performance of the system operation is dependent on execution of a first domain function within the first domain
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
The ‘the performance of the system operation is dependent on execution of a first domain function within the first domain’ limitation in # 11 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “the performance of the system operation is dependent on execution of a first domain function within the first domain” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Claim 5 recites:
the performance of the system operation is further dependent on execution of a second domain function within the second domain
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
The ‘performance of the system operation is further dependent on execution of a second domain function within the second domain’ limitation in # 12 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “performance of the system operation is further dependent on execution of a second domain function within the second domain” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Claim 6 recites:
execution of the first domain function is dependent on execution of the second domain function
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
The ‘execution of the first domain function is dependent on execution of the second domain function’ limitation in # 13 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “execution of the first domain function is dependent on execution of the second domain function” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Claim 7 recites:
the first domain includes a first set of privileges that restrict the first domain AI agent from accessing the second domain
the second domain includes a second set of privileges that restrict the second domain AI agent from accessing the first domain
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
The ‘the first domain includes a first set of privileges that restrict the first domain AI agent from accessing the second domain’ limitation in # 14 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “the first domain includes a first set of privileges that restrict the first domain AI agent from accessing the second domain” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
The ‘the second domain includes a second set of privileges that restrict the second domain AI agent from accessing the first domain’ limitation in # 15 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “the second domain includes a second set of privileges that restrict the second domain AI agent from accessing the first domain” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Claim 8 recites:
generating the first domain query further comprises generating the first domain query for display in a user interface for the system AI agent
outputting the first domain response for display in the user interface
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 16 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating an inquiry for data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘outputting’ limitation in # 17 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person displaying data on paper.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 9 recites:
generating the second domain query further comprises generating the second domain query for display in the user interface
outputting the second domain response for display in the user interface
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 18 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating an inquiry for data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘outputting’ limitation in # 19 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person displaying data on paper.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 10 recites:
generating the system response to the user query to indicate an issue is caused by the first domain and the second domain
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 20 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person evaluating data to determine an output.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 11 recites:
generating the system response to the user query to indicate an issue is caused by the second domain and not the first domain
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 21 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person evaluating data to determine an output.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 12 recites:
formatting the user query for input to a large language model of the system AI agent
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘formatting’ limitation in # 22 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “formatting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person organizing data into a template.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 13 recites:
formatting the first domain query for input to a first large language model of the first domain AI agent
formatting the second domain query for input to second large language model of the second domain AI agent
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘formatting’ limitation in # 23 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “formatting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person organizing data into a template.
The ‘formatting’ limitation in # 24 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “formatting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person organizing data into a template.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 14 recites:
the plurality of domains are implemented in a cloud network
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
The ‘the plurality of domains are implemented in a cloud network’ limitation in # 25 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “plurality of domains are implemented in a cloud network” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Claim 15 recites:
a first domain artificial intelligence (AI) agent module trained via machine learning using first domain data associated with a first domain from a plurality of computing domains of the system to generate a first domain response to a first domain query about performance of a first domain function implemented by the first computing domain in furtherance of a system operation supported by the first domain function and at least one second domain function implemented by a second domain from the plurality of computing domains
a system AI agent module implemented by a machine learning model to generate the first domain query for receipt by the first domain AI agent to troubleshoot performance of the system operation
output a response that indicates an issue with the system operation based on the first domain response
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 26 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating an inquiry for data.
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 27 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating an inquiry for data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘outputting’ limitation in # 28 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person displaying data on paper.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Additionally, the claim recites the following additional element:
first domain artificial intelligence (AI) agent module
computing domains
first computing domain
second domain
system AI agent module
machine learning model
first domain (AI) agent
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Claim 16 recites:
a second domain artificial intelligence (AI) agent module trained via machine learning using second domain data associated with the second domain to generate a second domain response to a second domain query about performance of the second domain function in furtherance of the system operation
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 29 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person evaluating data to determine an output.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Additionally, the claim recites the following additional element:
second domain artificial intelligence (AI) agent module
second domain
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Claim 17 recites:
the system AI agent module generates the second domain query for receipt by the second domain AI agent to troubleshoot performance of the operation
outputs the response that indicates the issue with the system operation based on the first domain response and the second domain response
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 30 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating an inquiry for data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘outputting’ limitation in # 31 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person displaying data on paper.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Additionally, the claim recites the following additional element:
system AI agent module
second domain AI agent
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Claim 18 recites:
the first domain AI agent module generates the second domain query for receipt by the second domain AI agent to troubleshoot performance of the system operation
outputs the second domain response to the system AI agent module
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 32 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating an inquiry for data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘outputting’ limitation in # 33 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person displaying data on paper.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Additionally, the claim recites the following additional element:
first domain AI agent module
system AI agent module
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Claim 19 recites:
troubleshooting performance of a system operation having a plurality of domains
the troubleshooting including: determining, by a system artificial intelligence (AI) agent, which domains of the plurality of domains include domain functions in support of the system operation
generating, by the system AI agent using machine learning, queries to the determined domains based on the system operation
receiving domain responses from domain AI agents associated with the determined domains responsive to the queries, the domain responses generated based on domain data associated with respective domains
generating a system response by the system AI agent using machine learning based on the domain responses
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘troubleshooting’ limitation in # 34 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “troubleshooting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing data.
The ‘determining’ limitation in # 35 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying entity to obtain data from.
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 36 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating an inquiry for data.
The ‘receiving’ limitation in # 37 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses a person obtaining specific data.
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 38 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person evaluating data to determine an output.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Additionally, the claim recites the following additional element:
computing device
processor
computer-readable storage medium
system artificial intelligence (AI) agent
domain AI agents
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Claim 20 recites:
outputting the system response for display in a user interface
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘outputting’ limitation in # 39 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person displaying data on paper.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Additionally, the claim recites the following additional element:
user interface
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Cakir et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2024/0086445); teaches the machine learning and natural language processing-based troubleshooting system continuously updates a machine derived mapping between experience and a query-able knowledge base. The troubleshooting system employs an SoC domain-aware automated design troubleshooting methodology.
Keskin et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2024/0427683); teaches the machine learning and natural language processing-based troubleshooting system continuously may update the dynamic time window to identify component interdependencies, while additionally focusing performance data to focus analysis and other hardware and software resources. The troubleshooting system employs an IoT device domain-aware automated design troubleshooting methodology.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAI E BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3823. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/SARAI E BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
