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 .
This office action is in response to the claimed amendment filed on March 02, 2026, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 10, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method
Claims 11-20 are directed to a system.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial exception recited)
The limitation “selecting, by an orchestrator based on pre-processed input generated from an initial input by the orchestrator, a plurality of different agents, wherein the orchestrator uses one or more multimodal models that includes at least the transformer-based model” in claims 1 and 11, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with a pen and pencil select a plurality of different agents.
The limitation “generating a first natural language summary of the data records from the unstructured dataset and a visualization based on the additional data records from the structured dataset” in claims 1 and 11, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with a pen and pencil generate a first natural language summary of the data records.
The limitation “generating, by the orchestrator, a second natural language summary based on the first natural language summary and the visualization” in claims 1 and 11, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with a pen and pencil generate a second natural language summary based on the first natural language summary and the visualization.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integrated into a practical application):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “training, in real-time, a transformer-based model " the above identified mental processes above being performed "using the transformer-based model " is at best generally linking the abstract idea to the particular field of use or technological environment of machine learning (see MPEP 2106.05(h), and/or akin to using transformer-based model as a mere tool (2106.05(f)). No specific type of transformer-based model processing or techniques are recited in the claim itself, the steps performed in this "training" are entirely mentally performable processes as explained above.
The limitation “retrieving, by the selected plurality of different agents, data records from an unstructured dataset and additional data records from a structured dataset” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “transmitting the second natural language summary as a response to the pre-processed input” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The limitation “one or more processor and memory” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B (claim provides an inventive concept):
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "training…" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334; i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
With respect to the "retrieving ….." identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “transmitting …” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
With respect to the “one or more processors and memory” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claim 11 falls short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the transformer-based model comprises a large language model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for using transformer-based model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same analysis applied to claim 12.
Claim 3 recites “wherein a particular agent of the plurality of different agents comprises one or more other multimodal models, and an additional agent of the plurality of different agents comprises one or more additional multimodal models”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity. This additional element is directed to a field of use and does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same analysis applied to claim 13.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the particular agent implements an iterative generative artificial intelligence process using one or more unstructured data retrieval tools to retrieve the data records from the unstructured dataset”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity. This additional element is directed to a field of use and does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same analysis applied to claim 14.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the additional agent implements a non-iterative generative artificial intelligence process using one or more structured data retrieval tools to retrieve the additional data records from the structured dataset”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for using one or more structured data retrieval tools to retrieve the additional data records from the structured dataset. This additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same analysis applied to claim 15.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the particular agent instructs the one or more unstructured data retrieval tools based upon embeddings in a vector store”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for instructing the one or more unstructured data retrieval tools based upon embeddings in a vector store. This additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same analysis applied to claim 16.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the particular agent instructs the one or more unstructured data retrieval tools based upon embeddings in a vector store”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for instructing the one or more unstructured data retrieval tools based upon embeddings in a vector store. This additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same analysis applied to claim 17.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the selecting, by the orchestrator based on the pre-processed input generated from the initial input by the orchestrator, the plurality of different agents, further comprises generating intermediate input based on a first portion of the pre-processed input and routing the intermediate input to the particular agent”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. The same analysis applied to claim 18.
Claim 9 recites “generating a third input based on a second portion of the pre-processed input and routing the third input to the additional agent”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. The same analysis applied to claim 19.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the particular agent and the additional agent execute in parallel and perform retrievals in parallel”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for executing and performing retrievals in parallel. This additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same analysis applied to claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,657,212 (involved in providing systems, methods, and computer-readable storage media that support generative artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted analytics of structured data sets. For example, a system may receive a prompt that includes information associated with a structured data set which includes at least some numerical data. The system may provide the prompt as input to an agent orchestrator to select one or more generative AI agents to perform analytics tasks corresponding to the information. The agent orchestrator includes a trained AI classifier configured to select the one or more generative AI agents from a plurality of generative AI agents. The system may execute an ensemble model to generate a response to the prompt based on the structured data set. The ensemble model includes the one or more generative AI agents. The system may output a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes one or more elements based on the response).
US 12,499,145 (involved in a multi-agent framework that includes a plurality of language model (LM) agents that each perform a respective Natural Language Processing (NLP) task to analyze content having natural language text. An LM agent may execute a language model to perform its respective NLP task. For example, to identify target information within content, a first LM agent in the multi-agent framework may generate a summary of the content along with the target information, a second LM agent may extract, independently from the first LM agent, the target information and output reasoning that explains why the target information was extracted, and a third LM agent may verify that the target information was correctly identified based on the output of the first and second LM agents).
US 12,499,318 (involved in using natural language processing for visual analysis of a dataset, in a messaging application. The method includes receiving a first natural language (NL) input directed to a data source, in a messaging application. The first NL input includes at least one underspecified or ambiguous utterance. The method also includes parsing the first NL input into tokens based on a grammar and the data source. The method also includes generating and displaying an intermediate NL response, based on the tokens. In response to receiving a user input to provide missing information in the at least one underspecified or ambiguous utterance, the method includes generating an input query based on the user input and querying the data source using the input query, to obtain a result set. The method also includes generating and displaying a first NL output and a snapshot of a data visualization based on the result set.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights