Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim contains a period (.) in line 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim appears to contain a typo regarding the phrase “wherein the wherein the” in line 24. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wherein the educational service comprises teaching the first user, interacting with the first user, answering questions from the first user”. It appears the word “and” is needed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitations “other over-arching goals”, “high-level tasks”, “higher-level tasks”, and “broader set of goals”, however, the applicant’s originally filed specification does not disclose what is meant by “other over-arching goals”, “high-level tasks”, “higher-level tasks”, and “broader set of goals” for enabling one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the invention.
In support of this conclusion of non-enablement the following Wands factors were considered: A) the breadth of the claims is overly immense. It covers nearly all outcomes possible for data processing by an AI system. B) the nature of the invention is directed toward servicing visual agents, not a toward “over-arching goals”, “high-level tasks”, “higher-level tasks”, and “broader set of goals” of an AI system. C) the state of the prior art is very large, as it covers all methods of producing outcomes for AI systems. D) the level of ordinary skill in the art is hard to determine as the claims cover all methods for generating outputs for an AI system. E) the level of predictability in the art is high as there are many ways for implementing goals for an AI system. F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor is limited as the claims cover all goals for an AI system. G) the existence of working examples is unknown to the examiner. H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is unduly high because the disclosure focuses on a dual layer AI virtual agent system, but the claimed invention improperly covers a huge number of methods for generating output data for the AI system.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. After reviewing the specification there appears to be no corresponding structure for artificial intelligence agent.
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.
The claims 1-3 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice.
The term “high-level” in claims 1-3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “high-level” renders the term “task” to be indefinite since the term “high-level” is not clearly defined.
The term “higher-level” in claims 1-3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher-level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “higher-level” renders the term “task” to be indefinite since the term “higher-level” is not clearly defined.
The term “broader” in claims 1-3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “broader” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “broader” renders the term “set of goals” to be indefinite since the term “broader” is not clearly defined.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the process of monitoring and ensuring is analogous to how a teacher may use a curriculum to keep a course on track”. The metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear since the specification and claims fail to provide a standard for how a teacher may use a curriculum to keep a course on track.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the process is configured to serve as guard rails…”. This limitation is not given patentable weight since the intended use does not impose any further limitations on the claim. The intended use does not result in a structural difference of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “other overarching goals”. This limitation is unclear since the specification and claims do not clearly define what is meant by “other overarching goals”.
The term “regularly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “regularly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “regularly” renders the term “communicate their interactions” to be indefinite since the term “regularly” is not clearly defined.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the intelligence agent is configured to realize…”. This limitation is not given patentable weight since the intended use does not impose any further limitations on the claim. The intended use does not result in a structural difference of the claim.
The term “long-term” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long-term” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “long-term” renders the term “Evolution” to be indefinite since the term “long-term” is not clearly defined.
Claims 2 and 3 recite the limitation “wherein the request could be a request to be educated”. The term “could be” does not positively limit or define a type of request. Therefore rendering the limitation to be indefinite.
Claims 2 and 3 recite the limitation “wherein the leading visual agent is configured to ensure..”. This limitation is not given patentable weight since the intended use does not impose any further limitations on the claim. The intended use does not result in a structural difference of the claim.
Claims 2 and 3 recite the limitation "the field" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “artificial intelligence engine” in claims 2 and 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. After reviewing the specification there appears to be no corresponding structure for “artificial intelligence engine”. Therefore, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The examiner notes, claims 2 and 3 recite the artificial intelligence engine is coupled to the one or more processors, implying the artificial intelligence engine is not comprised of the one or more processors.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crabtree et al. (Crabtree) (US 2025/0259082) (FIG. 1, A dual-layered artificial intelligence system comprising: A leading visual agent (100) and a set of customer-facing visual agents (180)).
Makhija et al. (Makhija) (US 2025/0217753) (FIG. 4, [0009], a master agent controls a plurality of agents, [0115], agents perform compliance auditing).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights