DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed on 08/12/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-22, 28-30, and 36-38 have been amended.
Claims 21-40 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/12/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 21-40 have been fully considered. The Applicant argues that claim 1, as amended, is patent eligible because the claim now recites controlling the agent devices (movement of the agent devices) by controlling such motion engine. The claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and recite significantly more.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains the position that the additional elements recited in the claims and listed in Steps 2A(2) and 2B do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more because the additional elements do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or improve upon another technology. The mere control of an “agent device” (i.e. computer device) by sending an engagement decision (i.e. instruction/assignment) does not reflect an improvement in the agent device beyond its original capabilities and functions. The specification does not define what the “agent device” is beyond listing the various components, which are components that a handheld or mobile computing device could have. Also, the specification does not provide details on the control function beyond reciting the motion engine. Therefore, there is insufficient support for interpreting the additional elements as an improvement in technology or significantly more. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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 .
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, “Real Time Multiple Agent Engagement Decision System”, is directed to an abstract idea, specifically Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, without significantly more. The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually or in combination provide mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 1: Claims 21-40 are directed to a statutory category, namely a machine (claims 21-28), a manufacture (claims 29-36), and a process (claims 37-40).
Step 2A (1): Independent claims 21, 29, and 37 are directed to an abstract idea of Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity based on the following claim limitations:
“monitor a client, move, determine a location of the agent device, …; and provide,…, the location of the agent device, an agent activity, an agent status, a client location, a client activity, and a client status;… receive a number of agents devices, the agent status, agent kinematics, a number of clients, a client identification, and a client rank of the client; determine a plurality of agent/client pairs in at least one priority tier, wherein each agent/client pair, of the plurality of agent/client pairs, includes a particular agent, particular a client, and a particular client rank; wherein each agent/client pair is associated with a matrix value determined based on the client rank of the client of the agent/client pair; set the matrix value for each disallowed agent/ranked client value to a zero value, wherein a disallowed agent/client pair has an engagement capability margin that is below a defined threshold; evaluate, simultaneously, a plurality of engagement options respectively associated with the plurality of agent/client pairs, wherein each engagement option, of the plurality of engagement options, is a pair path from an agent/client pair having a highest client rank to an agent/client pair having a lowest client rank; determine candidate pair paths, wherein the pair paths having the highest initial path value are candidate pair paths; derive a final path value for the candidate pair path, of the candidate pair paths, by decreasing an initial path value of a candidate pair path based on agent/client pairs in the candidate pair path that are urgent agent/client pairs and based on agent/client pairs in the candidate pair path that are risky agent/client pairs; derive at least one engagement decision based on a best path, wherein the best path is based on the final path value for each candidate pair; and…, wherein the at least one engagement decision provides an indication…to continue on a current course without changes until a next MAEDS cycle, or an indication… to perform an action (claim 21);
receive,…, a number of agents, agent status, agent kinematics, a number of clients, a client identification, and a client rank of the client, ..: monitor a client, move, determine a location of the agent device, …; and provide,…, the location of the agent device, an agent activity, an agent status, a client location, a client activity, and a client status; determine a plurality of agent/client pairs in at least one priority tier, wherein each agent/client pair, of the plurality of agent/client pairs, includes a particular agent, particular a client, and a particular client rank; wherein each agent/client pair is associated with a matrix value determined based on the client rank of the client of the agent/client pair; set the matrix value for each disallowed agent/ranked client value to a zero value, wherein a disallowed agent/client pair has an engagement capability margin that is below a defined threshold; evaluate simultaneously a plurality of engagement options respectively associated with the plurality of agent/client pairs, wherein each engagement option is a pair path from an agent/client pair having a highest client rank to an agent/client pair having a lowest client rank with each pair path having an agent/client pair for each client in the at least one priority tier; determine candidate pair paths by determining pair paths having a highest initial path value, wherein the pair paths having the highest initial path value are candidate pair paths; decrease the initial path value of the candidate pair path based on agent/client pairs in the candidate pair path that are urgent agent/client pairs and based on agent/client pairs in the candidate pair path that are risky agent/client pairs to derive a final path value for the candidate pair path; derive at least one engagement decision based on a best path, wherein the best path is based on the final path value for each candidate pair; and.., wherein the at least one engagement decision provides an indication to …continue on a current course without changes until a next MAEDS cycle or an indication to… perform an action (claim 29).
receiving,…, a number of agents, agent status, agent kinematics, a number of clients, a client identification, and a client rank of the client, …: monitor a client, move, determine a location of the agent device, …; and provide,…, the location of the agent device, an agent activity, an agent status, a client location, a client activity, and a client status; determining,…, a plurality of agent/client pairs in at least one priority tier, wherein each agent/client pair, of the plurality of agent/client pairs, includes a particular agent, particular a client, and a particular client rank; wherein each agent/client pair is associated with a matrix value determined based on the client rank of the client of the agent/client pair; setting,…, the matrix value for each disallowed agent/ranked client value to a zero value, wherein a disallowed agent/client pair has an engagement capability margin that is below a defined threshold; evaluating,…, simultaneously a plurality of engagement options respectively associated with the plurality of agent/client pairs, wherein each engagement option is a pair path from an agent/client pair having a highest client rank to an agent/client pair having a lowest client rank with each pair path having an agent/client pair for each client in the at least one priority tier; determining,…, candidate pair paths by determining pair paths having a highest initial path value, wherein the pair paths having the highest initial path value are candidate pair paths; decreasing,…, the initial path value of the candidate pair path based on agent/client pairs in the candidate pair path that are urgent agent/client pairs and based on agent/client pairs in the candidate pair path that are risky agent/client pairs to derive a final path value for the candidate pair path; deriving,…, at least one engagement decision based on a best path, wherein the best path is based on the final path value for each candidate pair; and … wherein the at least one engagement decision provides an indication… to continue on a current course without changes until a next MAEDS cycle or an indication… to perform an action (claim 37).
These claim limitations describe a process of evaluating and scoring agent/client pairing assignments based on priority, rank, and engagement options to derive an engagement decision and communicate results. Dependent claims 22-28, 30-36, and 38-40 further describe the evaluation and scoring of agent/client pair process, the engagement decision process, and the performance of the engagement decision. Determining a matrix value for agent/client pairs, computing engagement capability parameter, evaluating engagement options, computing an initial and final path value, determining a highest initial path value, determining a best path based on the final path value, and deriving an engagement decision that directs/determines the agents’ next actions are considered concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind with pen and paper (i.e. mental processes). Determining and evaluating agent/client pairs and deriving an engagement decision that facilitates agent/client interactions are considered activities related to scheduling and/or managing resources (i.e. fundamental economic principles or practices). The pairing of agents and clients and deciding on the type of engagement that occurs between them are considered acts of managing the behavior and interaction between a person (i.e. client) and a computer (i.e. agent). Based on the claim limitations, the client can be interpreted as a human person. Therefore, these limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the abstract groupings of Mental Processes which include concepts performed in the human mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity which includes fundamental economic principles or practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Mental Processes include claims directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity can encompass the activity of a single person (e.g. a person following a set of instructions), activity that involve multiple people (e.g. a commercial interaction), and certain activity between a person and a computer (e.g. a method of anonymous loan shopping). Therefore, claims 21-40 as a whole are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Step 2A (2): The claims as a whole do not integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, claims 21-23, 27, 29-31, 35, and 37-39 recite additional elements of “A system, comprising: an agent device, of a plurality of agent devices, configured to: communicate information to the system based on at least one of a sensor system, a navigation system, a guidance control component, a motion engine, or an agent communication system included in the agent device; a multiple agent engagement decision system (MAEDS); the MAEDS comprising one or more processors configured to; control the agent device, of the plurality of agent devices, in the best path based on the at least one engagement decision, by controlling the motion engine of the agent device based on the at least one engagement decision (claim 21); moving to another location using at least one of the navigation system, the guidance control component, and the motion engine of the agent device; and performing an engagement action using at least one of the sensor system, the navigation system, the guidance control component, the motion engine, and the agent communication system (claims 22, 30, and 38); wherein the MAEDS is incorporated in a vehicle (claims 23, 31, and 39); wherein the MAEDS comprises: a network interface and transceiver circuitry configured to provide uplink and downlink radio communications with the plurality of agent devices (claims 27 and 35); A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to; an agent device of a plurality of agent devices; communicate information to the system based on at least one of a sensor system, a navigation system, a guidance control component, a motion engine, or an agent communication system included in the agent device; a multiple agent engagement decision system (MAEDS); and control the agent device in the best path based on the at least one engagement decision, by controlling the motion engine of the agent device based on the at least one engagement decision (claim 29); a device and from an agent device of a plurality of agent devices; communicate information to the system based on at least one of a sensor system, a navigation system, a guidance control component, a motion engine, or an agent communication system included in the agent device; …by the device; controlling, by the device, the agent device in the best path based on the at least one engagement decision, by controlling the motion engine of the agent device based on the at least one engagement decision (claim 37).
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not recite (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field and (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself and (c) implementing the abstract idea with or by use of a particular machine, (d) effecting a particular transformation or reduction of an article, or (e) applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The steps of (1) monitor a client, move, determine a location of the agent device, and communicate information to the system based on at least one of a sensor system, a navigation system, a guidance control component, a motion engine, or an agent communication system included in the agent device; and provide, to a multiple agent engagement decision system (MAEDS), the location of the agent device, an agent activity, an agent status, a client location, a client activity, and a client status; and (2) the MAEDS comprising one or more processors configured to: receive/receiving, by a device and from an agent device a plurality of agent devices, a number of agents, the agent status, agent kinematics, a number of clients, a client identification, and a client rank of the client; are considered insignificant extra-solution activities as they reflect pre-solution data gathering steps for use in the claimed primary process. The control/controlling the agent device step is interpreted as sending the engagement decision instructions to perform an action (i.e. assignment/task). These additional elements evaluated individually and in combination are viewed as computing devices and mere instructions that are used to perform the abstract ideas recited in Step 2A(1). Limitations that recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea are not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, claims 21-40 as a whole do not include individual or a combination of additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and thus are not patent eligible.
Step 2B: The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 21-23, 27, 29-31, 35, and 37-39 recite additional elements of “A system, comprising: an agent device, of a plurality of agent devices, configured to: communicate information to the system based on at least one of a sensor system, a navigation system, a guidance control component, a motion engine, or an agent communication system included in the agent device; a multiple agent engagement decision system (MAEDS); the MAEDS comprising one or more processors configured to; control the agent device, of the plurality of agent devices, in the best path based on the at least one engagement decision, by controlling the motion engine of the agent device based on the at least one engagement decision (claim 21); moving to another location using at least one of the navigation system, the guidance control component, and the motion engine of the agent device; and performing an engagement action using at least one of the sensor system, the navigation system, the guidance control component, the motion engine, and the agent communication system (claims 22, 30, and 38); wherein the MAEDS is incorporated in a vehicle (claims 23, 31, and 39); wherein the MAEDS comprises: a network interface and transceiver circuitry configured to provide uplink and downlink radio communications with the plurality of agent devices (claims 27 and 35); A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to; an agent device of a plurality of agent devices; communicate information to the system based on at least one of a sensor system, a navigation system, a guidance control component, a motion engine, or an agent communication system included in the agent device; a multiple agent engagement decision system (MAEDS); and control the agent device in the best path based on the at least one engagement decision, by controlling the motion engine of the agent device based on the at least one engagement decision (claim 29); a device and from an agent device of a plurality of agent devices; communicate information to the system based on at least one of a sensor system, a navigation system, a guidance control component, a motion engine, or an agent communication system included in the agent device; …by the device; controlling, by the device, the agent device in the best path based on the at least one engagement decision, by controlling the motion engine of the agent device based on the at least one engagement decision (claim 37)”.
The data gathering steps of (1) monitor a client, move, determine a location of the agent device, and communicate information to the system based on at least one of a sensor system, a navigation system, a guidance control component, a motion engine, or an agent communication system included in the agent device; and provide, to a multiple agent engagement decision system (MAEDS) (i.e. computer), the location of the agent device, an agent activity, an agent status, a client location, a client activity, and a client status; and (2) the MAEDS comprising one or more processors configured to: receive/receiving, by a device and from an agent device a plurality of agent devices, a number of agents, the agent status, agent kinematics, a number of clients, a client identification, and a client rank of the client; include well-known and well-understood components found in conventional computer systems with functions of collecting and transmitting information as shown in the arts of Julia et al. (US 7,036,128) “Using a Community of Distributed Electronic Agents…” and Sierhuis et al. (US 2016/0180222 A1) “Intelligent Personal Agent Platform”. As per MPEP 2106.05(g), the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the sensor system, navigation system, guidance control, motion engines, communication system, and processor is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. The control/controlling the agent device step is considered supplying mere instructions to a computing device. Therefore, these additional elements evaluated individually and in combination are viewed as mere instructions to apply or implement the abstract idea on a computer. Applying an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For these reasons, claims 21-40 as a whole do not include individual or a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and thus are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ayanna Minor whose telephone number is (571)272-3605. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights