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 communication is in response to: Application filed on August 30th, 2024
Claims 1-20 are pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes, US PG PUB# 2025/0054003 A1 in view of Bever et al., US PG PUB# 2022/0215343.
As for independent claim 1:
Hughes discloses a system for resolving conflicts between agents for generating multi-agent reports for electronic documents, the system comprising:
processing circuitry; and computer readable media comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to: generate, based on a first agent for a first persona and content of an electronic document, first feedback information for the first persona (0080, 0094, Hughes discloses multi agent frame work, document processing agent that extracts document and files, see 0080, see synthetic focus group that simulates persona in 0093, 0098);
generate, based on the updated first feedback information for the first persona, a multi-agent report for the electronic document (0098, 0120-0122, Hughes discloses personal agent are synthesis into a report by a separate agent, see dashboard and report visualization by utilizing agents);
output the multi-agent report (see reports in 0120-0122);
Hughes does not disclose based on a determination that the first feedback information for the first persona indicates a first value for an attribute of the electronic document that causes a conflict with second feedback information for a second persona and that a second value for the attribute of the electronic document has been selected to resolve the conflict, generate, based on the first agent for the first persona, the second value for the attribute, and the content of the electronic document, updated first feedback information for the first persona. Bever discloses based on a determination that the first feedback information for the first persona indicates a first value for an attribute of the electronic document that causes a conflict with second feedback information for a second persona and that a second value for the attribute of the electronic document has been selected to resolve the conflict, generate, based on the first agent for the first persona, the second value for the attribute, and the content of the electronic document, updated first feedback information for the first persona in 0019, 0084, 0086 .In the cited sections, Bever discloses detecting conflict by the collaborating contributor defined by inconsistent or incompatible features. Bever further discloses selecting conflict avoidance strategy in 0084, 0086. Both Hughes and Bever disclose multi-contributor system that coordinated work across agents/collaborators. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of use of agents by Hughes to incorporate the teaching of conflict detection and resolution as taught by Bever, thus resolve inconsistent values and differences across personas by utilizing collaboration system (Bever, 0016).
As for dependent claim 2:
Hughes – Bever discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to: determine the second value for the attribute of the electronic document to resolve the conflict based on a set of rules to resolve conflicts (Bever, see resolving conflict in 0056 and conflict rules in 0086).
As for dependent claim 3:
Hughes – Bever discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to: determine, with one or more machine learning models, the second value for the attribute of the electronic document to resolve the conflict based on an agent for resolving conflicts, the first value, and the second value (Bever, ML model and reinforcement learning loop in 0090, 0058).
As for dependent claim 4:
Hughes – Bever discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to: determine whether a set of rules to resolve conflicts indicate a resolution to the conflict, wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to determine, with the one or more machine learning models, the second value to resolve the conflict based on the agent for resolving conflicts is in response to the determination that the set of rules do not indicate a resolution to the conflict (0055, 0089, Bever discloses machine learning models and conflict rules).
As for dependent claim 5:
Hughes – Bever discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to: generate a profile for resolving conflicts based on revision information of a rule of a plurality of playbook documents, the rule specifying a standard value for the attribute; and generate the agent for the resolving conflicts based on the profile for resolving conflicts and a set of playbook documents of the plurality of playbook documents (0055, 0089, Bever discloses machine learning models and conflict rules and conflict strategy selection in 0093).
As for dependent claim 6:
Hughes – Bever discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to: based on a determination that a change to a playbook document of the plurality of playbook documents is associated with the attribute of the electronic document, determine the revision information based on the change (Hughes, 0120-0122, see document and report)
As for dependent claim 7:
Hughes – Bever discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to: receive, from a user device, a user input data; and determine the second value for the attribute of the electronic document to resolve the conflict based on the user input data received from the user device (Bever, 0093, 0099, discloses selecting strategy to resolve conflict).
As for dependent claim 8:
Hughes – Bever discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to: based on a determination that the second value for the attribute of the electronic document has been selected to resolve the conflict, generate, based on a third agent for a third persona, the second value for the attribute, and the content of the electronic document, third feedback information for the third agent, wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to generate the multi-agent report for the electronic document based on the updated first feedback information for the first persona and further based on the third feedback information for the third persona (Hughes, 0074, 098, discloses agent’s output feeding another and synthesized into a single report).
As for dependent claim 9:
Hughes – Bever discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to: generate, based on a second agent for the second persona and the content of the electronic document, the second feedback information for the second persona, wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to generate the multi-agent report for the electronic document based on the updated first feedback information for the first persona and further based on the second feedback information for the second persona (Hughes, 0094, 0098, see report and feedback information).
As for dependent claim 10:
Hughes – Bever discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first persona comprises a legal persona, a technical persona, a financial persona, or a performance metrics personas (.Hughes, 0093, 0094, see personas and metrics).
As for dependent claim 11:
Hughes – Bever discloses the system of claim 1, wherein to generate the multi-agent report, the instructions cause the processing circuitry to generate data for a user interface configured to display an indication of the multi-agent report; and wherein to output the multi-agent report, the instructions further cause the processing circuitry to output, to a user device, the data for the user interface to cause the user device to display the user interface configured to display the indication of the multi-agent report (Hughes, see report and visualization in 0120-0122, Bever conflict strategy in 0093).
As for independent claims 12 and 20:Claims 12 and 20 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 13-:19Claims 13-19 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 2-8 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 PM.
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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights