Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the 3/09/2026 communication(s). As per the claims filed 3/19/2024:
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 9 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures 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 their 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.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chase Hughes (US PG Pub No. 2025/0054003; Filed: 05/24/2024)(hereinafter: Hughes).
Claim 1:
As per independent claim 1, Hughes discloses a method comprising steps of:
operating an Artificial Intelligence (AI) agent system that includes an agent core connected to memory, one or more tools, and a planner [[0069] the system includes a chart generator agent that extracts information from the data returned by the AI agents and selects from a series of chart templates to generate visualizations. The chart generator agent fills the data into the selected template or uses a code interpreter agent and the Matplotlib library to generate custom charts. [0129] Referring to FIG. 5B illustrates an exemplary architecture 500B of the multi-agent framework, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. The architecture 500B is explained in conjunction with FIG. 5A. [0130] The architecture 500B may include a user interface 520, a task planner 522, an executor 524, a knowledge base 526, a summarizer 528,]
receiving a request from a user [[0127] The received user inputs required at one or more stages of provision of management consulting may then be provided to the plurality of AI agents 404A, 404B, 404C, 404D . . . 404N by the processor 122.]; and generating, via the AI agent, a response including an interactive data visualization based on the request [[0074] the data generated by the processor implementing the AI agents may be used by additional custom-generated code to generate documents in user-readable formats such as interactive and dynamic dashboards, spreadsheets, rich text format].
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Hughes discloses wherein the interactive data visualizations include any of maps, tables, charts, and graphs [[0022] the computer-implemented method further includes displaying the market research parameters including the dynamic reports with the visualizations including the charts, the graphs, and the tables to convey the analysed data.].
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Hughes discloses wherein the interactive data visualizations are interactive, allowing users to select elements within the interactive data visualizations [[0074] AI agents may be used by additional custom-generated code to generate documents in user-readable formats such as interactive and dynamic dashboards].
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, which depends claim 1, Hughes discloses wherein the steps further comprise: determining that additional information is required to generate a response; and generating and providing an interactive data visualization based thereon, the interactive data visualization allowing the user to input additional data required for generating the response [[0135] Moreover, the architecture 500B generates a series of recommended prompts based on the user's market research objective, selected competitors, and other prompts. The user can select these prompts to ask the system in a way that results in better results. This feature helps guide the user in asking the right questions to obtain the most relevant and accurate market research information.].
Claim 8:
As per independent claim 8, it recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable code stored thereon for programming one or more processors to perform steps of the method of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 9:
As per claim 9, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim 10:
As per claim 10, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Claim 14:
As per claim 14, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claim 15:
As per independent claim 15, it recites a cloud-based system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors toto perform steps of the method of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 16:
As per claim 16, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim 17:
As per claim 17, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinit Sinha et al. (US Pg Pub No. 20240364725; Filed 04/26/2024)(hereinafter: Sinha).
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Hughes discloses the interface having links and selectable content (see figs 6A-6B). However, Hughes failed to specifically disclose wherein the generating further includes generating and providing a link to an associated page within a cybersecurity platform along with the interactive data visualization.
Sinha, in the same field of AI-driven visualizations discloses this limitation in that [[0020] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a system 100 configured for collecting, managing, and using aggregated security data to address security threats. In some examples, the system 100 includes a cybersecurity platform 102 that collects or otherwise receives security data 109 from multiple security data sources 104-108 (e.g., via data interfaces 110). The cybersecurity platform 102 normalizes and/or otherwise preprocesses the received data using a data normalizer 114 and stores the normalized data in the data storage 116. An Artificial Intelligence (AI) engine 118 analyzes the stored data 117 using one or more trained models to generate security insight information that can be provided for display via the visualization layer 132 and/or used for other purposes].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the data visualizations of Hughes to provide a link to an associated page within a cybersecurity platform along with the interactive data visualization as disclosed by Sinha. The motivation for doing so would have been to process and analyze security data to detect anomalous events and to automatically perform remedial operations in response to anomalous events (0003).
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, which depends on claim 4, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above. Additionally, Hughes and Sinha disclose wherein responsive to the user selecting the link, the steps comprise navigating the user to the associated page within the cybersecurity platform. Sinha [[0044] As illustrated, the GUI 300 includes several different visualizations of the data to enable a viewer to interpret the events, incidents, and alerts data in several different ways. The visualizations include a wheel diagram that displays customer selections of different organizations, a bar diagram that illustrates events per second per customer over time, a bar diagram that illustrates alerts by severity per customer, a bar diagram that illustrates incidents by priority per customer over time, a line diagram that illustrates alerts per second per customer over time, and a bar diagram that illustrates alerts pending investigation per customer. It should be understood that, in other examples, more, less, or different information is displayed as part of the GUI 300 without departing from the description.].
Claim 11:
As per claim 11, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claim 18:
As per claim 18, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claim 19:
As per claim 19, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioannis Kozaris et al. (US Pg Pub No. 2025/0335847; Prority: 05/15/2024)(hereinafter: Kozaris).
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, which depends on claim 5, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above. Additionally, Hughes and Sinha disclose wherein responsive to navigating the user to the associated page within the cybersecurity platform Sinha [[[0020] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a system 100 configured for collecting, managing, and using aggregated security data to address security threats. In some examples, the system 100 includes a cybersecurity platform 102 that collects or otherwise receives security data 109 from multiple security data sources 104-108 (e.g., via data interfaces 110). The cybersecurity platform 102 normalizes and/or otherwise preprocesses the received data using a data normalizer 114 and stores the normalized data in the data storage 116. An Artificial Intelligence (AI) engine 118 analyzes the stored data 117 using one or more trained models to generate security insight information that can be provided for display via the visualization layer 132 and/or used for other purposes [0044] As illustrated, the GUI 300 includes several different visualizations of the data to enable a viewer to interpret the events, incidents, and alerts data in several different ways.].
Hughes and Sinha failed to specifically disclose the steps comprise providing a window within the page that highlights a conversation with the AI agent and provides access thereto to allow the user to provide additional requests while viewing the page.
Kozaris, in the same field of AI agent interfaces discloses this limitation in that [[0081] FIG. 2 illustrates an interface 200 for creating and/or modifying an AI agent, including an instruction field 210 for receiving instructions corresponding to actions to be performed by the AI agent and an instruction summary window/frame 220 that identifies previously received instructions. In one embodiment, the interface 200 includes a selectable control (e.g., selectable control 221) for adding additional instruction sets to the list of previously received instructions illustrated in window/frame 220. For example, when the selectable control 221 is selected, the add instruction set control triggers the system to display an interface window (not shown) for entering text (e.g., via user input) describing a new instruction set.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the data visualizations of Hughes and Sinha to provide a window within the page that highlights a conversation with the AI agent and provides access thereto to allow the user to provide additional requests while viewing the page as disclosed by Kozaris. The motivation for doing so would have been to generate and display interfaces for managing AI agent interactions for electronic communications that are displayed at an electronic communications interface (0057).
Claim 13:
As per claim 13, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Claim 20:
As per claim 20, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. 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.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights