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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to the Amendment filed July 22, 2026. Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-11 are amended. Claims 4, 8 and 12 are canceled. Claims 13-15 have been added. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 18/731,326, 18/668,137 18/656,612, 63/551,328, 18/354,658, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The Applications at least do not disclose process the query through a plurality of specialized agents; facilitate agent-to-agent interactions between the plurality of specialized agents, wherein the plurality of specialized agents transmit advertising data between themselves and to either a knowledge graph, a retrieval-augmented generation system, or both; access either the knowledge graph, the retrieval-augmented generation system, or both using a distributed computational graph which may utilize the information within the knowledge graph or retrieval-augmented generation system to retrieve information and generate a query response that includes curated advertising content; optimize the layout and appearance of the curated advertising content within the query response; collect user feedback based on how the user responds to the query response; and continuously update curated advertising content based on the user feedback.
Therefore, as the present application is a nonprovisional and continuation-in-part of the prior-filed applications, and the claims are not supported by the disclosure of the applications, the current claims, 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 of present application do not receive priority to the filing date of provisional Application No. 63/551,328 and Application Nos. 18/731,326, 18/668,137 18/656,612, 18/354,658.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In Claims 1, 5 and 9 the limitation “process the query through a plurality of specialized artificial intelligence agents,” is not described in the original disclosure. The specification states that its system for AI based tailored advertising “process the query through a plurality of specialized agents” [0008]; also “when a user submits a query, a primary agent might interact with several specialized agents to gather comprehensive information. These could include but is not limited to a product information agent, a pricing agent, and a user preference agent. The agents communicate using a standardized protocol, exchanging data and insights to construct a complete response.” [0089]. This does not describe that processing a user query is done through a plurality of specialized artificial intelligence agents. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter. Claims 2-3, 13; 6-7, 14; and 10-11, 15 by being dependents of claims 1, 5 and 9 respectively are also rejected.
In claims 13-15 the subject matter “authenticate the user query to determine whether the user query originates from a human user or from an automated artificial intelligence agent” is not supported by the specification. The specification states that “when a user submits a query through the user interface 4900. This query is first processed by a CIVEXS 4400, which authenticates the query's origin, distinguishing between human users and automated agents” [0083]. Although, this mentions distinguishing between human users and automated agents, it does not describe how it authenticates a user query to determine whether the user query originates from a human or an automated artificial intelligence agent. The claims do not satisfy the written description requirement if sufficient description of how the claimed function is to be performed are not disclosed by the specification, including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function. See MPEP 2161.01.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 9 recite the limitation “the nature of the query.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3, 13; 6-7, 14; and 10-11, 15 by being dependents of claims 1, 5 and 9 respectively are also rejected.
Claims 1, 5 and 9 recite the limitation “the layout and appearance.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3, 13; 6-7, 14; and 10-11, 15 by being dependents of claims 1, 5 and 9 respectively are also rejected.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are directed toward at least one abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below:
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a system, claim 5 is directed towards a method, claim 9 is directed towards a system, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim is nonetheless, directed toward an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth this abstract idea recite: receive a user query; embed the user query into a vector representation; process the query through a plurality of specialized agents; facilitate agent-to-agent interactions between the plurality of specialized agents, wherein the plurality of specialized agents transmit advertising data between themselves and to either a knowledge graph, a retrieval-augmented generation system, or both; access either the knowledge graph, the retrieval-augmented generation system, or both using a distributed computational graph which may utilize the information within the knowledge graph or retrieval-augmented generation system to retrieve information and generate a query response that includes curated advertising content wherein the distributed computational graph is configured to select and execute different generative artificial intelligence models based on the nature of the query and the type of response required, such that the query response reflects current advertising data transmitted by the plurality of specialized agents without requiring retraining of the different generative artificial intelligence models; optimize the layout and appearance of the curated advertising content within the query response; determine a location to insert the curated advertising content within the query response based on natural language processing and sentiment analysis of adjacent portions of the query response; broadcast the query response to a user; collect user feedback based on how the user responds to the query response; and continuously update select and place the curated advertising content based on the user feedback. These limitations, comprise commercial interactions including, advertising, marketing or sales activities and business relations, as well as managing personal behavior or interactions between people including following rules or instructions. As such, the limitations are directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to merely using a computer as a tool to apply an abstract idea, or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. In particular the claim recites the additional elements: a computing device comprising at least a memory and a processor; a plurality of programming instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computing device to; artificial intelligence; artificial intelligence; artificial intelligence; artificial intelligence; through a user interface; one or more machine learning models used to, which are recited at a high level of generality are the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply applying the abstract idea by a computer, is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim only recites additional limitations that uses the computer to apply the abstract idea. Viewing the limitations individually, the claim recites the additional elements of a computing device, a memory, a processor; artificial intelligence, a user interface, machine learning models, which do not constitute significantly more they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as an ordered combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer components, executing processing functions of a computer. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
An analysis of dependent claims 2-3, 13, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above as they do not add any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. While they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract. For instance, claim 4 utilizes AI models based on the abstract idea. Hence, the dependent claims are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 5-7, 9-11, 14-15 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1-3, 13 and are also rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the recited amendments integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea and do not provide any improvement that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Using artificial intelligence on the computer device to apply the abstract idea is merely using the AI algorithm as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Contrary to, Desjardins, where its machine learning model was found to provide a technical improvement, based its the technical description in the specification, Applicant’s claims provide no technical improvement. Applicant states that the claims reflect a specification-described improvement to the functioning of the generative artificial intelligence system because the system provides responses that remain current without requiring retraining of the underlying models. However, this appears to be inexact as Applicant’s specification states that “an agent within the marketplace computing system 923 might interact with an advertiser's agent to negotiate personalized offers based on user data and current market conditions. This allows for real-time, dynamic responses without requiring constant retraining of the underlying AI models.” [0084]. Thus, it does not describe an improvement where no retraining is required, only that constant retraining is not required. Moreover, the specification does not describe what technical improvement is achieved by not constantly retraining a model, as this rather appears to be an improvement to the abstract idea.
Applicant submits that the claims are also analogous to the first claim of SME Example 37. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims are not analogous to Claim 1 of Example 37 because they have different claim sets, different fact patterns and are directed to different abstract eligibility. In Claim 1 the additional elements recited a means of automatically displaying icons on a user interface based on an amount of usage of the icon, which resulted in a specific improvement in prior art systems of user interface for electronic devices. Thus, integrating the additional elements into a practical application of the abstract idea. Unlike Claim 1, Applicant’s additional elements do not result in the improvement of a user interface or any electronic device. Merely facilitating distribution of advertisement placement based on using AI models, does not provide such an improvement. Determining a layout and structure for advertisement is an abstract idea regardless if its facilitated by sentiment analysis, which is also an abstract idea directed to Mental Processes. Applicant states that a machine-learning feedback loop “may utilize machine learning models trained on historical data of successful ad placements to continuously refine its decision-making process.” This begs the question what does it mean to not constantly retrain the model.
Applicant contends that when viewed as an ordered combination, the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claims recite a specific, structured architecture. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Assuming arguendo, that Allowing for the inclusion of curated advertisements directly into query response generated by AI agents, provides a degree of contextualization and customization of advertisements not achievable until now, the claimed invention is still directed to an abstract idea. Moreover, because a claim discloses a specific solution to a particular problem does not automatically render it patent eligible. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 599–601 (2010) (concluding that claims fell outside § 101 notwithstanding the fact that they disclosed a very specific method of hedging against price increases); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978) (rejecting the argument “that if a process application implements a principle in some specific fashion, it automatically falls within the patentable subject matter of § 101”); and Alice v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358–60 (2014) (claims fell outside of 35 U.S.C. 101 even though they described a very specific method for conducting intermediated settlement).
Applicant submits that the new claims 13-15, solve a problem of determining human versus bot engagement, which grows exponentially more complex with each subsequent prompt and when multiple agents are conversing to generate appropriate responses. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not address whether an interaction is with a human or a bot. The claims determine whether a user query originates from a human user or from an automated artificial intelligence agent. This is fundamentally different from determining human versus bot engagement. As attested to by Applicant’s specification that when “an interaction is initiated, agent orchestration system 2232 deploys different specialized agents based on the authenticated entity type. For example, a research-focused AI agent might receive detailed technical specifications and pricing data through marketplace agent 5010, while a human user shopping directly would receive more experiential content and emotional appeals through the ad integration layer 5060.” [0112]. Thus, the claims seek to determine the content to be delivered based on if the query originates from a human user or an automated artificial intelligence agent.
As such, based on the foregoing, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571) 272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
