DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on April 18, 2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending in this action.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of generating, by LAM, executable code. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims directed to an abstract idea of generating, by LAM, executable code. The claim is drawn to process (a series of steps or acts) that similar to an idea ‘Of itself such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’.
The claim does not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine. The method does not require a particular transformation of a particular article. There is not transformation of a physical objects or data into a different state or thing. This generating, by LAM, executable code is similar to delivering user-selected media content to a portable devices found by the courts to be abstract idea (Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and also displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found by the courts to be abstract idea (Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims broadly recite the result (generating, by LAM, executable code and executing the executable code), rather than sufficiently claiming a technical means of achieving the result. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commons, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim requires the functional results ... but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”).
The claims recite a Judicial exception relating to “generating, by LAM, executable code, along with a generic LAM that simply used as tool to implement the abstract idea”. Here the claims do not change the underlying or other technology, rather the claimed techniques playing using LAM as pedagogical tool. The claimed additional elements—large action model —“merely use a computing as a tool to perform an abstract idea” or “do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., No. 2018- 2239, 2020 WL 1069742, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020) (“We have held that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.”).
Accordingly, claims 1-10 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. As the claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed to the .. . judicial exception.” Id. at 54.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic large action model. The claim amounts to no more than generating, by LAM, executable code. Taking the claimed elements either individually or as ordered combination, that transform claims into patent-eligible application, since claims merely recite use of already existing computer-based generating, by LAM, executable code, and there is no “inventive concept” in play using LAM well- understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry of teaching, since claims, at most, attempt to limit abstract idea to particular technological environment, and such limitation has been held insufficient to save claims in this context, and since dependent claims are not rendered patent-eligible by recitation of additional steps, such as video recording or document object model; demonstrations originate from user; LAM to interact with the application, even though additional limitations may narrow scope of claims. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-10, are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gandhi et al. (US 2024/0378399).
As per claim 1, Gandhi discloses, a method of emulating a user’s interactions with an application, the method comprising:
training a large action model (LAM) to interact with the application using demonstrations (Paragraph 0002, here claimed “LAM” is “LLM”);
receiving a user intention (Paragraph 0004, natural language command is “user intention”);
generating, by the LAM, executable code in response to the user intention (Paragraph 0029, executable code is generated by LLM); and
executing the executable code to initialize an agent host configured to interact with the application (Paragraph 0029).
As per claim 2, Gandhi discloses, wherein demonstrations comprise a video recording or a document object model (DOM) change stream (Paragraph 0030).
As per claim 3, Gandhi discloses, wherein the demonstrations originate from a user or an external labeling force (Paragraph 0029).
As per claim 4, Gandhi discloses, wherein training the LAM to interact with the application using the demonstrations comprises converting the demonstrations into intermediate representations (IRs) (Paragraph 0029).
As per claim 5, Gandhi discloses, wherein the IRs comprise one or more of UI definitions, classifications, and VRDs (Paragraph 0029).
As per claim 6, Gandhi discloses, wherein the user intention comprises a sequence of UI actions on the application (Paragraph 0029).
As per claim 7, Gandhi discloses, wherein the agent host comprises a containerized environment (Paragraph 0095).
As per claim 8, Gandhi discloses, wherein initializing the agent host comprises implementing the containerized environment as a Docker container or a Virtual Machine (VM) (Paragraph 0095).
As per claim 9, Gandhi discloses, wherein the containerized environment comprises a runtime environment for the executable code (Paragraph 0029).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi et al. (US 2024/0378399) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brunet et al. (US 2014/0195965).
As per claim 10, Ghandhi does not explicitly disclose, but Brunet discloses, wherein the agent host is configured to emulate the signature of a user device, the signature comprising one or more of login session, IP, and request header (Paragraph 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gandhi by including signature comprising a login session as taught by Brunet so as to system provides integrated user administration, event management and report capability (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brende et al. (US 2024/0394251) discloses, system and methods for facilitating database queries.
Watson et al. (US 2024/0319970) discloses, method and system for code generation by large language models.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
November 21, 2025
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656