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.
Claims 21 and 22 are new claims.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20-22 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 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
Applicant respectfully disagrees. A human mind cannot practically perform at least the claimed operations of storing a procedural representation of context feedback data in a procedural memory layer, using the procedural representation to configure an input parameter of a prompt, and causing the input parameter to control generation of a plan by a large language model. These and/or other portions of claim 1 recite machine operations tied to the behavior of a computer-implemented LLM system, not mental steps. The amended claim therefore does not recite a mental process under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations of memory layer and large language model are treated as additional elements and are not part of step 2A prong 1 of identifying an abstract idea. The LLM and memory layer are merely tools to carry out the abstract idea steps. For example, the LLM is used as a tool to generate a plan containing tasks. A user is able to generate a plan with tasks without the use of a computer. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application such as 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 on page 12, 15, and 16
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Amended claim 1 recites a specific technological implementation in which different layers of a multi-layer memory perform different functional roles, and output of one such layer, e.g., the procedural representation stored in the procedural layer, is used to configure an input parameter that controls plan generation by an LLM. As such, claim 1 recites a concrete technical application of memory-layered data structures to control behavior of a machine-learning model in the generation of executable plans.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. The amended claim recites a particular technical sequence including converting context feedback data to a procedural representation, storing the procedural representation in a procedural memory layer, and transforming the retrieved procedural representation into an input parameter of a prompt to control LLM-based plan generation. As such, the ordered combination of steps recited in claim I is not merely a drafting effort to apply an abstract idea on a computer. Instead, claim I is directed to a concrete technical way of controlling plan generation in an LLM-based agent system.
The claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality and in the technical field of machine learning-based agent systems.
Examiner respectfully disagrees
Generating plans and executing tasks is not a technical problem but rather a business problem. The additional elements of LLM and multi-layer memory are merely additional elements used as tools to carry out the abstract idea steps. A technical application with a technical improvement is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes.
Applicant argues on page 13
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Amended claim 1 does not simply automate prior steps. Instead, claim 1 recites a specific memory-to-model control pipeline in which context feedback is used to generate a procedural representation, which is transformed into a prompt input parameter, which is used to control LLM-based plan generation. That is not a generic automation of a mental workflow; it is a specific technical mechanism for controlling how an LLM generates a plan.
The claim is not directed to merely "generating a plan" in the abstract; it is directed to generating a plan by controlling an LLM through a prompt parameter derived from procedural memory. As such, the claim recites a meaningful technological constraint on how a result is achieved.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do not state control pipeline and the steps recited by the Applicant are still abstract idea steps such as using feedback data to generate a procedural representation and generating a plan. Generating a plan is also not a technical problem but rather a business problem of making a plan with respect to executing tasks. In addition, the LLM and memory are used as tools to carry out these steps.
Applicant argues on page 14
Applicant respectfully disagrees. The amended claim recites significantly more because it does not merely use memory to store information or an LLM as a generic tool. Instead, the claim recites that context feedback data is converted into a procedural representation, stored in a procedural layer, and used to configure an input parameter that controls generation of the plan by the LLM. As such, the claimed arrangement provides a concrete mechanism for controlling LLM behavior using structured procedural memory.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim limitations do not include the limitation of converting data. In addition, even if converting data is stated, it is merely another data manipulation step that does not require a computer. A user is able to convert data feedback to a procedural representation. Examiner advises Applicant to make the claims more technical in nature.
Applicant argues on page 14
The cited authorities do not govern the amended claim because the claim is not directed to mere storing or retrieving information from memory. Instead, claim I is directed to a specific transformation-and-control framework in which procedural memory content is used to parameterize and control LLM plan generation. This is a materially different use of memory than the generic data storage criticized in the cited cases.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Generating a plan is still an abstract idea step. The LLM and memory are mere tools to carry out these steps. In addition, the LLM is merely a black box where data is received and a plan is generated. There are no technical details of the inner workings of the LLM. The Examiner advises the Applicant to expand upon the technical details of the LLM.
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 20-22 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 20-22 are directed to non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20-22 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 15 and 18 recite the limitations of
receiving 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 …
to configure an input parameter of a first prompt to produce a context-configured… prompt
using the…prompt to generate a plan comprising one or more tasks executable… wherein the input parameter controls generation of the plan…
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…
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of receiving, determining, retrieving, presenting, configuring and generating 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, 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. The claims also recite limitations such as wherein the input parameter controls generation of the plan but this limitation is merely descriptive and does not positively recite the action of controlling. 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. 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 into 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 storing a procedural representation of the context feedback data in a procedural layer of the multi-layer memory and storing the regenerated plan in the multi-layer memory. 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. In addition, the dependent claims further state insignificant extra solution activity such as storing data as well as additional abstract idea steps such as regenerating and accessing data.
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 elements of storing a procedural representation of the context feedback data in a procedural layer of the multi-layer memory in the independent claims and storing the regenerated plan in the multi-layer memory in the dependent claims 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 20-22 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.
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
Prosecution Insights