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 .
Response to Remarks
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s remarks and amendments have been fully considered and have been determined to be unpersuasive, therefore the 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that firstly,” the pending claims recite various elements that cannot reasonably be considered mere mental activity. For example, claim 1 recites "an interpreter of an interactive agent platform" "prompting one or more language models." This necessarily involves hardware, and a human cannot prompt a language model with their mind alone. Claim 1 further recites the interpreter "matching [] one or more representations of f] one or more detected user actions with content associated with one or more interrupted sequences of instructions that were interrupted at one or more event matchers" and "resuming execution of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions from the one or more event matchers," and "caus[ing] presentation of a rendering of the one or more responsive agent actions or the one or more responsive scene actions." These elements necessarily involve hardware, as well, and a human cannot practically perform this in their mind. As such, these elements should not be interpreted as mere mental activity”
However, the involvement of hardware does not preclude claim elements from being directed to mental activities. The “interpreter of an interactive agent platform” and language model described were identified as additional elements in the previous action. Additionally, matching a user’s action against content in the middle of a series of instruction does not necessitate hardware as a human can wait to see of a user’s action matches an expectation and continue a series of actions afterwards. Additionally presenting the result of an action performed is an activity a human can perform.
Further applicant argues that “the claimed technique results in a number of bonafide technological benefits” including “improvements to the control, explainability, development, and deployment of human-machine interactions and interactive AI” as “Using an LM in this manner also "make the designer's life easier by providing an intuitive way to specify human-machine interactions and events to be matched or triggered, reducing their cognitive load in developing an interactive system, while protecting against unintended content generation.”
However, the stated benefits are directed to improvements to the mental process of designing. An improvement to the mental process cannot be considered as an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to the technology itself.
35 USC § 102/3
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) elements which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as explained below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained below.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites one or more processors comprising processing circuitry to:
receive, by an interpreter of an interactive agent platform, one or more representations of one or more detected user actions
generate one or more representations of one or more responsive agent or scene actions based at least on the interpreter prompting one or more language models (LMs)
matching the one or more representations of the one or more detected user actions with content associated with one or more interrupted sequences of instructions that were interrupted at one or more event matchers
resuming execution of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions from the one or more event matchers;
and cause presentation of a rendering of the one or more responsive agent actions or the one or more responsive scene actions.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are
presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Receive one or more representations of one or more detected user actions. A human can receive one or more representations of a user’s actions
generate one or more representations of one or more responsive agent or scene actions. A human can generate an action based on a condition
matching the one or more representations of the one or more detected user actions with content associated with one or more interrupted sequences of instructions that were interrupted at one or more event matchers. A human can determine if there is a match between a user’s action and content related to a series of instructions the human was performing.
resuming execution of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions from the one or more event matchers; A human can continue the series of actions they were performing after the determination made before
and cause presentation of a rendering of the one or more responsive agent actions or the one or more responsive scene actions. A human can present the result of their actions
Additional elements recited are processor comprising processing circuitry, interpreter of an interactive agent platform, LM.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory
category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim is directed to a machine, which falls within one of the statutory
categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a
judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception
when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As discussed above, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of limitations (a)-(e) is that those limitations fall within the mental process
groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including
observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2),subsection III.
Limitation (a) is directed to a mental step as a human can receive a representation of a user’s actions. Limitation (b) is directed to a mental step as a human mind can generate an action to take based on a conditional. Limitation (c) is directed to a mental step as a human can make a determination of a match. Limitation (d) is directed to a mental step as a human can resume the series of actions they were performing before. Limitation (e) is directed to a mental step as a human can present the results of their action. Hence, these steps can be performed by a human, using “observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion,” because they involve making determinations and identifications, which are mental tasks humans routinely do,' ” and thus can practically be performed in the human mind, In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Therefore, these limitations are considered together as an abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the
claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether
there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating
those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole
integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Additional elements recited
are processor comprising processing circuitry, interpreter of an interactive agent platform, LM.
The processor comprising processing circuitry, interpreter of an interactive agent platform and
LLM disclosed provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a
generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for
determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an
equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the
claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to
significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of
additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
At Step 2A the additional elements recited are processor comprising processing circuitry,
interpreter of an interactive agent platform, and LLM were found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. Mere
instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Further, one or more images of
physical environment captured using the one or more cameras was found to be insignificant extra
solution activity. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity
in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. Even when considered
in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or
other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an
inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
As such Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Analysis analogous is applicable to Claims 10 and 19.
Claims 2,11 adds the limitations that the evaluation step further involves generating a natural
language description using an LM. A human mind can generate a natural language description of code
and use that to evaluate for a match. The LM is a generic computer component recited at a high level
of generality.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, analysis analogous to that of Claim 2 is applicable.
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, a human can determine whether a user’s actions match one of their own instructions.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, analysis analogous to that of Claim 2 is applicable
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, a human can think of a new instruction based on the description of their existing sequence of instructions.
Regarding Claims 9, 18,20 analysis analogous to that of Claim 1 is applicable.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuskovic(US PGPub 20250069595) in view of Yue(US Pat 11500694).
Regarding Claim 1, Vuskovic teaches one or more processors comprising processing circuitry to:
receive, by an interpreter of an interactive agent platform, one or more representations of one or more detected user actions(the customer may provide an input[0048]);
Generate one or more representations of one or more responsive agent or scene actions based at least on the interpreter prompting(These instructions may take the form of prompts that provide contextual information, commands to perform actions, or logic regarding conditional requirements for one or more instructions[0027]) one or more language models (LMs) matching the one or more representations of the one or more detected user actions(Upon receiving this input via the runtime manager, the LLM may determine that the condition for instruction 316e is satisfied[0048]) with content associated(“bill details” [Figure 3]) with one or more event matchers(mapped to conditional within playbook(sequence of instructions))
and cause presentation of a rendering of the one or more responsive agent actions or the one or more responsive scene actions(“show the balance for each account and ask which account the customer wants to pay”. In executing this instruction, the LLM may provide an output to the runtime manager that includes a particular message to be transmitted to the customer[0038], Text,Voice,Gui [Figure 1]).
Vuskovic does not explicitly teach sequences of instructions that were interrupted at one or more event matchers nor resuming execution of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions from the one or more event matchers.
However, Yue teaches sequences of instructions that were interrupted at one or more event matchers and resuming execution of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions from the one or more event matchers(In some embodiments, the selected sequence of operations may include operations that require user input. For example, an operation may require the user to enter a password. In such cases, operation configuration module 270 may include instructions for operating system 103 to render certain necessary operations and wait for user input to resume execution.[Col 18 Line 26-32]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with the teachings of Vuskovic to further incorporate the interruption and resuming of Yue because it would make the process of completing all the tasks more efficient (Yue Col 35 Line 35-36).
Claims 10 and 19 recite similar limitations to Claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 3, Vuskovic teaches the matching(conditional requirements for one or more instructions[0027]) the one or more representations of the one or more detected user actions is with one or more event specifiers(Figure 2208 Plugin ) of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions(instruction to call a plugin[0031]), at least one of one or more parameters or one or more parameter values of the one or more event specifiers generated based at least on the interpreter prompting the one or more LMs(The call to the plugin may include a particular conversational context to set parameters of the plugin call. Data received from the plugin may be provided to the LLM, including by dynamically updating one or more parameters identified within playbook 200[0031]).
Claim 12 recites similar limitations to Claim 3 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 4, Vuskovic teaches the prompting of the one or more LMs comprises the
interpreter prompting the one or more LMs to determine whether the one or more representations of
the one or more detected user actions match one or more natural language descriptions (subset of the
instructions are in a natural language format[0003], Within instruction 312a, a natural-language
description is provided[0039]) of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions.
Claim 13 is recites similar limitations to Claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 5, Vuskovic teaches the prompting of the one or more LMs comprises
the interpreter prompting the one or more LMs to determine(LLM may determine that the condition
for instruction 316e is satisfied[0048]) whether the one or more representations of the one or more
detected user actions match(Instruction 316e is a conditional instruction in which it is determined
whether the customer has asked about bill details[0045]) one or more specified instruction lines of one
or more interrupted sequences of instructions that represent one or more target user intents(LLM may call for
the runtime manager to execute the “BillExplanation” playbook[0048]).
Claim 14 recites similar limitations to Claim 5 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 9, Vuskovic teaches the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of: a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs)( In addition, as discussed herein, one or more LLMs may be running multiple playbooks in connection with performing an overall task [0020]);
Claims 18 and 20 recite similar limitations to Claim 9 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuskovic(US PGPub 20250069595) in view of Yue(US Pat 11500694) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown(US PGPub 20240281600).
Regarding Claim 2, neither Vuskovic nor Yue does not teach the matching of the one or more representations of the one or more detected user actions is with one or more natural language descriptions of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions, the one or more natural language descriptions generated based at least on the interpreter prompting the one or more LMs.
However, Brown teaches the one or more natural language descriptions generated based at
least on the interpreter prompting the one or more LMs(This review can be aided by an English
description of the code generated by an LLM [0219]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to incorporate the idea of a natural language description of code with the
teachings of Vuskovic and Yue because it would aid in human review(Brown 0219).
Claim 11 recites similar limitations to Claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuskovic(US PGPub 20250069595) in view of Yue(US Pat 11500694) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weider(US PGPub 20110231182).
Regarding Claim 6, Vuskovic teaches the prompting of the one or more LMs(playbook 300 may
include additional instructions in the form of a prompt that specifies the goal to be achieved by the
execution of playbook[0037]) and one or more natural language descriptions of one or more
interrupted sequences of instructions (subset of the instructions are in a natural language format[Vuskovic 0003], Within instruction 312a, a natural-language description is provided[0039]).
Neither Vuskovic nor Yue teach determining whether one or more unmatched events that represent the one or more detected user actions semantically match.
However, Weider teaches determining whether one or more unmatched events that represent
the one or more detected user actions semantically match(According to another embodiment of the
invention, if a match is not found, or only a partial match is found, between the text message and
active grammars, then a knowledge-enhanced speech recognition system may be used to semantically
broaden the search[0120]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to incorporate the idea of a semantic match with the teachings of
Vuskovic and Yue because it would broaden the match(Weider 0120).
Claim 15 recites similar limitations to Claim 6 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7-8, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuskovic(US PGPub 20250069595) in view of Yue(US Pat 11500694) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davelaar(US PGPub 20250095808).
Regarding Claim 7, Vuskovic teaches responsive agent flows implementing one or more
responsive agent intents in response to determining that the one or more detected user actions do not
match any the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions (For example, if it is determined that a particular user account does not exist, conditional action 207c could cause the LLM to indicate this
failure with the runtime manager, and provide a prompt that seeks confirmation from the user that
the correct account number has been provided [0030]).
Neither Yue nor Vuskovic does not teach the prompting of the one or more LMs comprises the interpreter prompting the one or more LMs to generate one or more instruction lines of one or more responsive agent flows.
However, Davelaar does teach the prompting of the one or more LMs comprises the
interpreter prompting the one or more LMs to generate one or more instruction lines of one or more
responsive agent flows(The second step of the two-step approach is for the LLM 616 to generate an
execution plan 610 based on the input prompt 627 [0169]. The execution plan 610 includes an ordered
list of agents and/or actions that can be used and/or executed to sufficiently respond to the request
such as the additional query 638. For example, and as illustrated in FIG. 6, the execution plan 610 can
be an ordered list that includes a first agent 642a capable of executing a first action 644a via an
associated asset[0173]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to incorporate the idea of generating instructions lines with the teachings of Vuskovic and Yue because it allows the LLM 616 to capture complex patterns and dependencies in the input prompt(Davelaar 0170).
Claim 16 recites similar limitations to Claim 7 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 8, Vuskovic as modified by Davelaar teaches the prompting of the one or more
LMs comprises the interpreter prompting the one or more LMs to generate one or more instruction
lines of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions (The second step of the two-step approach is for the LLM 616 to generate an execution plan 610 based on the input prompt 627 [0169]. The execution plan 610 includes an ordered list of agents and/or actions that can be used and/or executed to sufficiently respond to the request such as the additional query 638. For example, and as illustrated in FIG. 6, the execution plan 610 can be an ordered list that includes a first agent 642a capable of executing a first action 644a via an associated asset[0173] ) based on at least one of one or more specified flow names or one or more natural language descriptions of the one or more interrupted
sequences of instructions (subset of the instructions are in a natural language format[Vuskovic 0003], Within instruction 312a, a natural-language description is provided[0039]).
Claim 17 recites similar limitations to Claim 8 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rebedea(NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Rails) teaches flows with high level natural language code.
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 ARJUN R SWAMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9763. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571) 272-6338. 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.
/ARJUN SWAMY/Examiner, Art Unit 2654 /Richa Sonifrank/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights