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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 9 and 19 are cancelled.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are pending.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 3/10/2026.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 11-12
Specifically, independent claim 1 particularly recites, "retrieving first context data from at least one first memory layer of a multi-layer memory," "causing the context feedback data to be stored in at least one second layer of the multi-layer memory," and "configuring a first prompt to produce a context-configured prompt." A human mind cannot physically interface with a multi-layer memory architecture to retrieve and store data in specific distinct memory layers, nor can it formulate and configure programmatic prompts to be executed by a machine learning model. In view of SRI Int 'l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., the human mind is not equipped to perform these operations. Accordingly, the computer structures and computer implemented operations recited in claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the human mind and thus do not fall into the "Mental Process" category.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation multi-layer memory is treated as an additional element by the Examiner. Additional elements are not analyzed in Step 2A prong one. Additional elements are analyzed in step 2A prong 2 and step 2B. For example, the limitation and storing the regenerated plan in the multi-layer memory is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.
Applicant argues on page 12
Further regarding Step 2A, Prong One, the Examiner alleges that generating a plan falls under the abstract idea grouping of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations)." Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has failed to interpret the claim terms as required by MPEP 2111. Generating a computational plan comprising tasks executable by an automated artificial intelligence agent is a technical orchestration process. It does not relate to fundamental economic principles, commercial interactions, or managing personal behavior as strictly defined by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims and Specification recite generating a plan with respect to tasks and workflows as seen in para 0081-0085. The Specification also states optimizing plans with respect to accomplishing an objective as seen in para 0079 and 00130. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations). In addition, the Applicant’s Specification in para 0075 talks about managing personal behavior of the user such as predicting user behavior.
Applicant argues on page 13
The claims reflect these and/or other improvements by reciting technical steps of, e.g., retrieving context data from a first memory layer of a multi-layer memory, storing context feedback data in a second layer of the multi-layer memory, and using the context data to configure a prompt, which causes a machine learning model to generate a plan. As such, claim I achieves a technical benefit of condensing and persisting learning in a layered memory system to dynamically adapt language models without resource-intensive fine-tuning. Thus, like controlling case law such as Desjardins and Enfish, the claims are directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are not providing a technical improvement. The claims are merely using additional elements such as LLM, automated agent, and multilayer memory to carryout abstract idea steps such as making determinations about a supervision level and a threshold. Further abstract idea steps include executing tasks and generating/regenerating a plan. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application which include merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues Berkheimer on page 13, Applicant states
Here, for at least the reasons discussed in Step 2A, Prongs I and 2 above, claim I as a whole amounts to significantly more than well understood, routine, and conventional activity under Step 2B. Additionally, the Examiner has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim I as a whole is directed to well understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is not clear what limitations the Applicant calls that are significantly more than well understood, routine, and conventional. The Applicant merely restates the entire independent claim. In addition, Examiner provided Berkheimer evidence as seen here,
The additional element of causing the context feedback data to be stored in at least one second layer of the multi-layer memory and storing the regenerated plan in the multi-layer memory for a subsequent instance of the automated agent is merely insignificant extra-solution activity since this is merely storing data. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, these functions include 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.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/10/2026, with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner withdraws 35 USC 13 rejection.
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 1-8, 10-18, and 20 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 than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are directed to non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 15 and 18 recite the limitations of
receiving at least one input…using the at least one input, determining an objective of an entity…retrieving first context data… causing the first context data to be presented…determining context feedback data in response to the first context …configuring a first prompt to produce a context-configured prompt; using the context-configured…prompt…generating a plan comprising one or more tasks executable…and causing the plan to be presented…determining a supervision level that indicates a level of supervision…determining whether the supervision level meets or exceeds a threshold supervision level; responsive to the supervision level meeting or exceeding the threshold supervision level ,requesting plan feedback, receiving plan feedback, and using the plan feedback to… execute at least one task of the one or more tasks of the plan… regenerating the plan based on the plan feedback…
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of receiving, determining, retrieving, presenting, configuring and generating/regenerating data. The claims also state requesting and executing data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, the claim language encompasses simply receiving an input, determining an objective, retrieving first context data, presenting first context data, determining context feedback data, configuring a first prompt, generating a plan, and presenting the plan. The claims further recite determining a supervision level and determining if it meets or exceeds a threshold. The claims further recite requesting data such as plan feedback and regenerating the plan based on the feedback. The claims also state executing tasks. These steps are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. For example, these steps can be done by a human who receives and determines data in order to make a plan and present that plan. A human is also capable of configuring a prompt and regenerating a plan based on new data (i.e. feedback data). In addition a computer is not needed to determine a supervision level and see if that level meets or exceeds a threshold. This is mere evaluation of data and corresponds to a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)).
The claims also recite generating a plan and the specification states a plan with respect to tasks and workflows as seen in para 0081-0085. The specification also states optimizing plans with respect to accomplishing an objective as seen in para 0079 and 00130. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations). In addition, the Applicant’s specification in para 0075 talks about managing personal behavior of the user such as predicting user behavior. It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components do not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of device, multi-layer memory, automated agent, conversational dialog element, large language model, system, processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable storage medium. The claims also recite limitations that are insignificant extra solution activity such as causing the context feedback data to be stored in at least one second layer of the multi-layer memory and storing the regenerated plan in the multi-layer memory for a subsequent instance of the automated agent. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe additional steps such as determining a preference and mapping that preference. The dependent claims further recite additional variables such as probability distributions that comprise historical interactions.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method, however method is not considered an additional element, however claim 1 further recites device, multi-layer memory, automated agent, large language model (LLM)
Claim 15 recites system, processor, memory, device, multi-layer memory, automated agent, large language model (LLM)
Claim 18 recites non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, device, multi-layer memory, automated agent, large language model (LLM).
Claims 1, 15, and 18 further recite conversational dialog element.
The additional element of causing the context feedback data to be stored in at least one second layer of the multi-layer memory and storing the regenerated plan in the multi-layer memory for a subsequent instance of the automated agent are merely insignificant extra-solution activity since this is merely storing data. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, these functions include 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.
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 00597
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 00597. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Bellot (20240126945) Discloses methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for selecting actions for an agent in a target environment.
Higgins (US20220086108A1) Discloses bot supervision with respect to a threshold level of confidence.
Jones (US10049332B2) Discloses resource feedback with respect to tasks being handled
Asahara (US11914950B2) Discloses teaches draft templates.
Ni (US20190012198A1) Discloses separate agent modules with respect to subtasks.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625