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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial office action based on the application filed on June 26th, 2024, which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claims 1, 8, and 15 are presented in independent form.
Internet E-mail
A written authorization by Applicant is required for the Examiner to respond via
internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the
confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U3.0. 122, such as proposed Examiner’s
Amendments or interview agenda items (MPEP 502.03; See Internet Usage Policy, 64
PR 33056 (June 21, 1999)). To authorize e-mail communications from the Examiner
(e.g. proposed Examiner’s Amendments), the Applicant must place a written
authorization in the record. Applicant may authorize electronic and email communication
by the Examiner via PTO Automated Interview Request web service. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AER) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each configured” in line 11. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading -- wherein each agent of the plurality agents configured -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each agent” in lines 12 and 26. They should be -- each agent of the plurality agents -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an LLM” in line 13. It should be -- [[an]] a second LLM -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the agents” in line 13. They should be -- the plurality of agents -- for the purpose of further examination
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an LLM” in lines 15-16. It should be -- [[an]] a third LLM -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an LLM” in line 19. It should be -- [[an]] a fourth LLM -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an LLM” in line 23. It should be -- [[an]] a fifth LLM -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the functionality” in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading -- [[the]] functionality -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the generated project plans” in line 3. It should be -- the generated comprehensive project plans -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 2-7: are dependent on claim 1 but not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are also objected to for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the limitation “each with a large language model (LLM) and a system prompt that specifies its role within the system” in lines 3-4 and 6-7, respectively. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading -- wherein each agent of the plurality of specialized agents with a large language model (LLM) and a system prompt that specifies [[its]] role of each agent of the plurality of specialized agents within the system -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the limitation “this task” in lines 6 and 9, respectively. It should be -- [[this]] the user-specified task -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 8 and 15 recite the limitation “the plan” in lines 8 and 11, respectively. It should be -- the initial plan -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 8 and 15 recite the limitation “the approved software code” in lines 13 and 16, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading -- [[the]] approved software code -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the limitation “the prompts” in lines 17 and 20, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading -- [[the]] prompts -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the limitation “the information” in lines 17 and 20, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading -- [[the]] information -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 9 and 16 recite the limitation “one or more agents” in line 3. It should be -- the one or more agents -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 10 and 17 recite the limitation “the generated project plan on the user interface” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading -- [[the]] generated project plan on [[the]] user interface -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 11 and 18 recite the limitation “the generated code…ensuring that the code” in lines 5-6. It should be – the generated software code…ensuring that the generated software code -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 12 and 19 recite the limitation “Autogen…the specialized agents” in lines 2-3. It should be -- the Autogen…the plurality of specialized agents -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 13 and 20 recite the limitation “the software development outputs” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading -- [[the]] software development outputs -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 9-14 and 16-20: are dependent on claims 8 and 15, respectively, but not cure the deficiencies of those claims. Accordingly, they are also objected to for the same reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 2 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the limitation “feedback” in lines 4, 3, and 3, respectively. It is unclear which feedback is referred to, e.g., semi-adversarial feedback (See claim 1, line 6) or feedback (See claim 1, line 22), therefore, it renders the claims indefinite. Clarification and appropriate correction are required.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the limitation “their operations … their outputs” in lines 17-18 and 19-20, respectively. It is unclear whose/which operations and outputs the claims refer to, therefore, the claim language is vague and renders the claims indefinite. Clarification and appropriate correction are required.
Claims 9-14 and 16-20: are dependent on claims 8 and 15, respectively, but not cure the deficiencies of these claims. Accordingly, they are also rejected for the same reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 8-14 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 15-20 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 8 and 15: recite the limitations of “
implementing a plurality of specialized agents, each with a large language model (LLM) and a system prompt that specifies its role within the system for tasks including planning, critiquing, executing, and revising both project plans and software code;
receiving a user-specified task and routing this task to a Planner Agent to generate an initial plan;
dynamically routing the initial plan to a Critic Agent to critique the plan;
returning the critiqued plan to the Planner Agent for revisions;
upon approval of the revised plan, routing the revised plan to an Executor Agent to execute the revised plan and generate or revise software code;
routing the generated or revised software code to the Critic Agent for critique; and
committing the approved software code to a code repository, ensuring version control and maintenance within a collaborative software development environment;
wherein a context window for each agent's operation is enhanced by using a MemGPT agent to retrieve and incorporate relevant embeddings from an embedding storage into the prompts provided to each agent, thereby enriching the information basis for their operations and improving accuracy and relevance of their outputs.”
Step 2A Prong 1:
Steps (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 8 and 15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - “computer-implemented system,” “agent-based framework,” “large language model,” “software code” “code repository,” “collaborative software development environment,” “embedding storage,” “software development workflow,” “at least one processor,” and “at least one memory storage device”, which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, steps (g) and (h) are merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 8 and 15 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 8 and 15: The additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 8 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claims recite additional element recitations of “wherein the embedding storage is configured to store vector representations of code snippets and application documentation, and the method further comprises updating the embedding storage based on feedback from one or more agents to refine the stored vector representations and improve contextual accuracy for future operations of the agents” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 9 and 16 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 9 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 9 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the claims recite additional element recitations of “receiving input from a user via the user interface module regarding project goals and parameters; displaying the generated project plans on the user interface for user review and approval; upon user approval, routing the approved project plan to an Engineer Agent for task execution” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 10 and 17 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 10 and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 10 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the claims recite additional element recitations of “managing interactions between the Engineer Agent and the version control system through a version control interface module; committing the generated code by the Engineer Agent to a code repository via the version control system, ensuring that the code is properly version-controlled and stored” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 11 and 18 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 11 and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 11 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the claims recite additional element recitation of “utilizing Autogen to manage and coordinate interactions and data flow between the specialized agents” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 12 and 19 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 12 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 12 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the claims recite additional element recitation of “incorporating user feedback into a semi-adversarial analysis performed by the Critic Agent; enhancing precision of the critiques provided by the Critic Agent based on real-world user interactions and responses, thereby aligning the software development outputs more closely with user expectations and requirements” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 13 and 20 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 13 and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 13 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 14: the claim recites additional element recitations of “testing the generated software code under various conditions by simulating different operating environments; ensuring compatibility of the software code across multiple platforms before its final approval and deployment, thereby reducing risk of deployment failures and enhancing adaptability of the generated software code to diverse operational conditions” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim14 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 14 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are objected. Resolving the claim Objections and 35 USC 112, second paragraph rejection would put the case in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Palanisamy et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0231991) discloses a software update manager that instantiates an error resolution system upon occurrence of an error during a software modification operation. The software update manager includes an issue analyzer that is configured to analyze the reported issue and search knowledge base article database(s) to determine if the reported issue is a known issue or a previously unknown issue. When the reported issue is a known issue, the software update manager retrieves a known workaround and applies the known workaround on the system to resolve the reported issue and continue the planned software modification operations. When the reported issue is a previously unknown issue, the software update manager identifies the correct engineering team responsible for responding to the reported issue and generates a bug fix request that is submitted to a software bug tracking system.
Goodsitt et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0114043) discloses monitoring execution of a code to detect an error in the code. An error resolution process is initiated to identify contributors to address the error. Data including information associated with the error, revision history for the code from a version control system, and a predetermined list of contributors associated with the code, task management statistics information for the predetermined list of contributors is received from a task management system. The data is analyzed to determine the identified contributors to address the error. An error report is generated for the error. The error report is transmitted to the identified contributors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 October 13th, 2026
