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 Amendment
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed on 01/07/2026
Claims 7-16 and 18-28 pending and claims 1-6 and 17 are cancelled. Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered and addressed. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims were fully considered and are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Objection
Claim 14 is objected to because the limitation “and an Al model; and; at least one processor coupled with the memory in each of the two or more nodes, the at least one processor”. The semicolon after the second and is misplaced.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 7-10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bell et al (hereinafter Bell) US Publication No 20240406166 in view of Andrade et al (hereinafter Andrade) US Patent No 11704313.
As per claim 7, Bell teaches:
A system comprising: two or more nodes, each node of the two or more nodes comprising:
a memory; (Paragraph [0067]) and at least one processor coupled with the memory in each of the two or more nodes, the at least one processor (Paragraph [0067]) is configured to:
receive, by the node of the two or more nodes, a prompt via an interface of the node,
(Paragraphs [0054], [0057], [0110], wherein the agent builder/node receives the query)
generate, using an Al model local to the node, a plurality of tasks to respond to the prompt,
(Paragraphs [0054], [0057], [0084]-[0085], [0110], [0194] and [0198])
using the Al model local to the node and one or more ontologies local to the node, a subset of the two or more nodes to perform a task of the plurality of tasks, each task being associated with at least one node of the subset of the two or more nodes,
(Abstract and paragraphs [0085], [0089], [0111], [0184] and [0219], wherein the receiving node is interpreted to be the same node of the subset of the two or more nodes)
communicate the plurality of tasks to the identified subset of the two or more nodes,
(Abstract Paragraphs [0084]-[0085], [0089]-[0090], [0207] and [0241])
receive one or more responses from the identified subset of the two or more nodes,
(Paragraphs [0055] and [0157])
Bell teach summarized response (Paragraph [0280]) but does not explicitly teach generate a summary response based on the one or more responses, however in analogous art of data retrieval Andrade teaches:
generate a summary response based on the one or more responses, and communicate the summary response via the interface of the node that received the prompt.
(Column 22, lines 31-67 and Column 30, lines 1-38)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Bell and Andrade by incorporating the teaching of Andrade into the method of Bell. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the data retrieval of Andrade into the system of Bell for the purpose of providing a summarization engine that analyzes report and improves data visualization.
As per claim 8, Bell and Andrade teach:
The system of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive a task of the plurality of tasks;
(Abstract and paragraphs [0085], [0089], [0111], [0184])(Bell) and (Fig. 8A, 9A and column 7, lines 5-11 and column 55, lines 51-60)( Andrade)
and execute the task to generate a response of the one or more responses.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0085], [0089], [0111], [0184])(Bell) and (Column 22, lines 31-67 and Column 30, lines 1-38)( Andrade)
As per claim 9, Bell and Andrade teach:
The system of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify, using an Al model local to the node, the subset of the two or more nodes based on one or more of node capability, node schedule, or node subject matter area.
(Paragraphs [0084] and [0120]-[0121])(Bell) and (Column 53, lines 13-31)( Andrade)
As per claim 10, Bell and Andrade teach:
The system of claim 9, wherein to identify the subset comprises to access an ontology that relates nodes with one or more capabilities, one or more schedules, and one or more subject matter areas.
(Paragraph [0108])(Bell) and (Column 53, lines 13-31)( Andrade)
Claim 22 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 7 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bell and Andrade in view of Stetson et al (hereinafter Stetson) US Publication No. 20170221240.
As per claim 11, Andrade teaches ontology but does not explicitly teach ontology is stored in a graph database in which edges relate the nodes with the one or more capabilities, the one or more schedules, and the one or more subject matter areas, however in analogous art of data retrieval, Stetson teaches:
ontology is stored in a graph database in which edges relate the nodes with the one or more capabilities, the one or more schedules, and the one or more subject matter areas.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0081] and [0086])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Bell and Andrade and Stetson by incorporating the teaching of Stetson into the method of Bell and Andrade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the data retrieval of Stetson into the system of Bell and Andrade for the purpose of augmenting search result accuracy.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bell and Andrade in view of Patil et al (hereinafter Patil) US Publication No. 20250192980.
As per claim 12, Bell and Andrade teach ontology but does not explicitly teach analyze the prompt using natural language processing to (1) identify key topics or context in which the task is to be performed and (2) decompose the prompt into the plurality of tasks based on one or more of the identified topics and context, however in analogous art of data retrieval, Patil teaches:
generate the plurality of tasks comprises to pass the prompt to an artificial intelligence (Al) model configured to analyze the prompt using natural language processing to (1) identify key topics or context in which the task is to be performed and (2) decompose the prompt into the plurality of tasks based on one or more of the identified topics and context.
(Paragraph [0124])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Bell and Andrade and Patil by incorporating the teaching of Patil into the method of Bell and Andrade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the data retrieval of Patil into the system of Bell and Andrade for the purpose of augmenting query execution by leveraging knowledge graph.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bell and Andrade in view of Mohammed et al (hereinafter Mohammed) US Publication No. 20240403112.
As per claim 13, Bell and Andrade do not explicitly teach Al model is configured to generate a task plan organizing the plurality of tasks to correspond to an acyclic graph with interdependencies between tasks, however in analogous art of data retrieval, Mohammed teaches:
Al model is configured to generate a task plan organizing the plurality of tasks to correspond to an acyclic graph with interdependencies between tasks.
(Paragraphs [0013] and [0124]-[0138])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Bell and Andrade and Mohammed by incorporating the teaching of Mohammed into the method of Bell and Andrade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the data retrieval of Mohammed into the system of Bell and Andrade for the purpose of planning task execution and identifying tool suitable for performing the task.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 14, 20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bell et al (hereinafter Bell) US Publication No 20240406166.
As per claim 14, Bell teaches:
A system comprising:
two or more nodes, each node of the two or more nodes comprising:
a memory storing1 one or more ontologies that associate one or more nodes of the two or more nodes with one or more domains of data, each node of the two or more nodes being associated with at least one domain of the one or more domains of data; and an Al model;
and; at least one processor coupled with the memory in each of the two or more nodes, the at least one processor (Paragraph [0067]) is configured to:
receive, by a node of the two or more nodes, via an interface of the node, a query requesting data from the one or more domains of data,
(Paragraphs [0054], [0057], [0110], wherein the agent builder/node receives the query)
identify, via the using the Al model and one or more ontologies local to the node, a subset of the two or more nodes storing the data,
(Abstract and paragraphs [0085], [0089], [0111], [0184] and [0219], wherein the receiving node is interpreted to be the same node of the subset of the two or more nodes)
retrieve the data from the subset of the two or more nodes,
(Fig. 10A and paragraphs [0010], [0055] and [0157])
generate a response to the query based on the data, and communicate a response via the interface of the node that received the query.
(Fig. 10A and paragraphs [0010], [0055], [0109] and [0157])
As per claim 20, Bell teaches:
The system of claim 14, wherein to retrieve the data comprises to determine whether the data is private data or public data.
(Paragraph [0130])
As per claim 24, Bell teaches:
The system of claim 14, wherein:
each node of the two or more nodes is configured to operate according to a security schedule;
(Paragraph [0120])
and the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether data retrieval requests are in compliance with the security schedule for each node of the two or more nodes.
(Paragraph [0120])
Claim 23 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 14 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 14.
Claims 15-16, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Harald Pehl (hereinafter Pehl) US Publication No. 20230094137.
As per claim 15, Bell teaches ontology but does not explicitly teach identify the subset comprises to traverse one or more graph databases storing the one or more ontologies, however in analogous of query management, Pehl teaches:
identify the subset comprises to traverse one or more graph databases storing the one or more ontologies.
(Paragraphs [0064])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Bell and Pehl by incorporating the teaching of Pehl into the method of Bell. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the data retrieval of Pehl into the system of Bell for the purpose of enabling identifying node characteristic.
As per claim 16, Bell and Pehl teach:
The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more ontologies comprise one or more of a subject matter ontology, a geospatial ontology, geofence ontology, a capability ontology, or an availability ontology.
(Paragraph [0108])(Bell) and (Paragraphs [0064])(Pehl)
As per claim 18, Bell and Pehl teach:
The system of claim 16, wherein:
the one or more ontologies comprise the geospatial ontology; and the geospatial ontology relates nodes with geospatial information.
(Paragraphs [0065] and [0108])(Bell)
As per claim 19, Bell and Pehl teach:
The system of claim 14, wherein:
the query is a first query;
(Paragraphs [0057], [0090] and [0115] and [0223])(Bell)
and to retrieve the data comprises to communicate a second query based on the first query to the subset of the two or more nodes.
(Paragraphs [0057], [0090] and [0115] and [0223])(Bell)
As per claim 21, Bell and Pehl teach:
The system of claim 19, wherein a node of the subset of the two or more nodes receiving the second query is configured to:
analyze the second query using an artificial intelligence (Al) model;
(Paragraphs [0084] and [0120]-[0121])(Bell)
identify, using the Al model and a data storage ontology local to the node of the subset of the two or more nodes, one or more data stores local to the node of the subset of the two or more nodes that are relevant to the second query, the data storage ontology relates the one or more data stores with subject matter areas;
(Paragraphs [0084] and [0120]-[0121])(Bell)
and retrieve data from the identified one or more data stores.
(Fig. 10A and paragraphs [0010], [0055], [0109] and [0157])(Bell)
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Parimal et al (hereinafter Parimal) US Publication No 20190334705.
As per claim 25, Bell does not explicitly teach and to retrieve the data comprises communicating with the data security subsystem to decrypt the data using a security key associated with each node of the two or more nodes, however in analogous of query management, Parimal teaches:
each node of the two or more nodes comprises a data security subsystem;
(Abstract and paragraphs [0035] and [0039])
and to retrieve the data comprises communicating with the data security subsystem to decrypt the data using a security key associated with each node of the two or more nodes.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0035] and [0039])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Bell and Parimal by incorporating the teaching of Parimal into the method of Bell. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the data retrieval of Parimal into the system of Bell for the purpose of protecting node communication and data exchange.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Rane et al (hereinafter Rane) US Publication No 20160182222.
As per claim 26, Bell does not explicitly teach receive a request from the other subsystem to decrypt target data; determine whether the target data is public data or private data; and decrypt the target data if the target data is public data, however in analogous of query management, Rane teaches:
a node of the subset of the two or more nodes comprises a data security subsystem and at least one other subsystem;
(Paragraphs [0010], [0023], [0031]-[0030], [0035] and [0037])and the data security subsystem is configured to:
receive a request from the other subsystem to decrypt target data;
(Paragraphs [0039]-[0040] and [0051])
determine whether the target data is public data or private data;
(Paragraphs [0039]-[0040] and [0051])
and decrypt the target data if the target data is public data.
(Paragraphs [0039]-[0040] and [0051]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Bell and Rane by incorporating the teaching of Rane into the method of Bell. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the data retrieval of Rane into the system of Bell for the purpose of protecting node communication and data exchange.
As per claim 27, Bell and Rane teach:
The system of claim 26, wherein to decrypt the target data comprises decrypting target data identified via a vector embedding representing multi-modal data, the vector embedding being stored as plaintext.
(Paragraphs [0039]-[0040] and [0051])(Rane)
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Sinchak et al (hereinafter Sinchak) US Patent No 9477825.
As per claim 28, Bell teaches:
a node of the subset of the two or more nodes comprises a data security subsystem and at least one other subsystem;
(Paragraph [0120])
Bell does not explicitly teach the data security subsystem is configured to: receive a request from the other subsystem to decrypt target data; determine whether the target data is public data or private data; and deny decryption of the target data if the target data is private data, however in analogous of query management, Sinchak teaches
(Column 6, lines 36-40)
and the data security subsystem is configured to:
receive a request from the other subsystem to decrypt target data;
(Column 6, lines 36-40)
determine whether the target data is public data or private data;
(Column 6, lines 36-40
and deny decryption of the target data if the target data is private data.
(Column 6, lines 36-40)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Bell and Sinchak by incorporating the teaching of Sinchak into the method of Bell. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the data retrieval of Sinchak into the system of Bell for the purpose of control access to sensitive data.
Conclusion
As necessitated by amendment, 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 extension fee 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 Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 3/23/2026