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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination filed on 12/19/2025. Claims 1, 12, and 27 are amended. Claims 7,8,9,17 and 18 were previously cancelled. Claims 11 and 20 were previously withdrawn. Claim 30 is newly added. Consequently, claims 1-6, 10, 12-16, 19 and 21-30 are pending examination.
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 1-6, 10, 12-16, 19 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A-Prong One, the claims are examined to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites a method comprising: receiving a prompt from a user to complete a task interaction with another user account, transmitting a message to the recipient account, intercepting the message based on metadata, gaining permission to respond through AI assistant, receiving a response from the recipient AI assistant, and completing the task on behalf of the sender. These operations represent fundamental business or interpersonal practices such as task delegation, message exchange, communication management and permission handling, which are automated processes which fall under Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity (delegating tasks, granting permissions, coordinating responses) OR Mental Processes (interpreting user instructions, deciding on actions, determining implied permission). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A- Prong Two, Integration into a practical application.
The claims do not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality or a technical solution to a technical problem. The AI assistant instances are used as generic automated agents performing routine functions such as message handling, user interaction and action execution. The claimed features such as intercepting messages through metadata or sampling tokens from distribution are described at a high level and rely or conventional computing technology. The claims do not improve the operation of AI system, message delivery mechanism or any underlying computing architecture. The claims merely use computing components such as AI agents, apps, memory and user interface to carry out the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B- Inventive step. The steps recited in the claims both individually o in combination involve conventional compute functions. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or any technological filed. The claims do not add significantly more to the abstract ide and lack inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/19/ 2026 regarding 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1. Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A of the Alice analysis.
Response. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to mediating communications, summarizing information, requesting permission, and coordinating task completion between parties using AI assistance. Such concepts fall within the category of organizing human activity and information processing which are abstract ideas under the 2019 PEG. Although the claims recite AI assistant instances and generative response engines, the claims do not recite specific improvement to computer technology itself, but rather use AL components as tools to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Argument 2- The applicant argues that the claims cannot be practically performed by the human mind and therefore do not constitute a mental process.
Response. The examiner notes that a claim maybe directed to an abstract idea even if it cannot be practically performed entirely in the human mind. The claims steps of receiving messages, summarizing content, requesting permission, and generating responses represent conceptual mental activities that are traditionally performed by humans, even if implemented here using computer systems. The use of AI assistants to automate these steps does not render the concept non-abstract.
Argument 3- The applicant argues that the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application, citing McRo and BASCOM.
Response. This argument is not persuasive. In McRo, the claims recited specific rules, algorithms, or architecture that improve computer functionality. IN BASCOM, the claims recited a specific non-conventional arrangement of filtering components. In contrast, the current claims do not recite specific technical rules, algorithms or architectures that improve computer functionality. Rather the claims broadly recite functional results such as generating messages, summarizing information, and requesting permission, without specifying a particular technical implementation. Accordingly, the examiner does not find that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a particular application as those of McRo or BASCOM.
Argument 4- The applicant asserts that the amended claims is not directed to organizing human activity.
Response. The claims recite a workflow in which messages are exchanged between parties, summaries are presented, permissions are requested, and tasks are completed on behalf of users. This coordination and mediation of interactions between users represents organizing human activities, even when implemented through AI assistants. The claims do not recite a technical mechanism that changes how computers operate, but instead describe a process of managing interaction between users.
Argument 5- The applicant asserts that the amended claims recite significantly more than the alleged judicial exception.
Response. The additional elements relied upon by applicant, including Ai assistant instances, token sampling, summaries, and permission interactions, are considered generic computer components performing routine functions. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, these elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not satisfy Step 2B of the Alice analysis.
Argument 6- The applicant argues that new claim 30 provides a technical improvement by learning permission boundaries based on user interactions.
Response. The examiner has considered claim 30 but finds the argument unpersuasive. Claim 30 recites learning permission boundaries in subsequent interactions. This limitation is interpreted as adaptive decision making based on past user behavior, which is a form of abstract idea analysis and rule refinement. The claim does not recite how such learning is technically implemented, not does it describe an improvement to the functioning of a computer, network, or AI system itself. Instead, the claim describes the use of past interactions to inform future permissions, which is an abstract concept. Accordingly, claim 30 does not overcome the 101 rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443