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 .
1. in response to the Office Action dated 03/24/2026, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: none
Claims canceled: none
Claim newly added: none
Claims pending; 1-20
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification…
Examiner respectfully disagreed with the applicant’s argument. The claim language recite a high level of generalization concept. The determining step is a mental process with determining a domain agent for each query portion.
Applicant argues “even if some limitations are directed to a mental process, for at least the reasons given above, claim 1 integrates the alleged exception into a practical application and is therefore patent-eligible…”
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. Claim language is high level concept of generalization the generate a result from determining step is a mental result of an mental process.
Double Patenting
3. The E-Td filed on 06/17/2026 has been received and placed in the application.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a system and a tangible non-transitory computer readable medium which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims recite "determining one or more query portions based on the query; and determining a domain agent for each query portion of the one or more query portions, wherein each domain agent is configured to determine execution steps for one or more executors to cause the one or more executors to generate a response to the query portion; and "generating the response using the response portion" which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims recite the processor and instruction stored in non-transitory which processing component. These are generic computer components and program which use to perform mental process.
The additional limitations:
"receiving, from a client device, a query" " is insignificant extra-solution activity. This limitation recited as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) or at most selecting a particular data source (i.e. the record) to be manipulate (i.e. by a transaction). This does not provide integration into a practical application.
"providing first information about the one or more query portion and the determined execution steps to the respective determined domain agents" II is insignificant extra-solution activity. This limitation recited as providing information for further processing. This does not provide integration into a practical application.
"receiving, from the one or more domain agent, response to portion" " is insignificant extra-solution activity. This limitation recited as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) or at most selecting a particular data source (i.e. the record) to be manipulate (i.e. by a transaction). This does not provide integration into a practical application.
“Outputting, to the client device, the response to the query" " is insignificant extra-solution activity. This limitation recited outputting is a way providing information. This does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)-Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claims 2 and 12, the limitation "wherein the query is a natural language query" is defined what query language is and significantly more, rather information are entered by the user.
As to claims 3, 13 and 18, the limitation "determining the one or more query portions is further based on one or more capabilities of one or more respective available domain agents" which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, the limitation "at least one of the available domain agents is a large language model ("LLM") configured to respond to query portions relating to a particular domain" is defined what domain agent is and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 5, 14 and 19, the limitation "the one or more executors determined by each domain agent are based on one or more capabilities of one or more respective available executors" which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, "a first execution step of the execution steps determined by a first domain agent involves a database query to a first database; the first execution step is a natural language instruction to query the first database ; and at least one of the available executors is an LLM configured to execute the database query against the first database do not include additional element to amount to significantly more, rather the set of the operations include transmitting a data packet including the received information to a client which are computer routines" are additional limitations which insignificantly to amount significant more.
As to claim 7, the limitation "a first execution step of the execution steps determined by a first domain agent involves a database query to a first database; the first execution step is the database query written in a database query language used by the first database; and at least one of the available executors is the first database" which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claims 8, 15 and 20, the limitation "responsive to receiving, from a first domain agent, a first response portion corresponding to a first query portion, determining additional execution steps for the one or more executors to cause the one or more executors to generate a second response portion to the first query portion based on the first response portion; providing second information about the first query portions and the determined additional execution steps to the first domain agent; and receiving, from the first domain agent, the second response portion corresponding to the first query portion" are additional element which are insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claims 9 and 16, the limitation "generating, by an organizer component, a query context corresponding to the query; and wherein generating the response using the response portions comprises: ordering the response portions according to the query context; and collating the response portions according to the query context" are the additional elements which provide information and ordering these information and insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 10, the limitation "the response is a natural language response generated using an LLM" is only further defined what response is such as natural language and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
Conclusion
5. 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 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 BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights