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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 5/27/2025. Currently claims 1-20 are pending and claims 1, 11 are independent. Priority to provisional application 63/651,585 filed 5/24/2024 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted appears to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
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 1-20 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), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-20, following the guidance for 101 rejection contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-10) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 11 and its dependent claims (claims 12-20) are directed to a statutory category, namely a method.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1, 11, which are substantially similar claims to one another, are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental processes”, or more particularly, “Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to evaluate a system and determine a plan for solving an issue. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that a route planner would perform for a mass transit system. The abstract elements of claims 1, 11, recite in part “Form planner…Configure planner…Parse data…Configure hypertune planer…Generate tuning parameter…Transmit parameter…”. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Configure extractor…include access…Update data…Provide structured representation…Generate explanation…Generate explanation types…Evaluate feature…Describe relevance…Quantify relationship…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 11.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1, 11, which are substantially similar claims to one another, do not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Files…Planner…Hypertune planner…Storage unit…System architecture…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-10, 12-20 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 11, which are substantially similar claims to one another, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Files…Planner…Hypertune planner…Storage unit…System architecture…”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (evaluate a system and determine a plan for solving an issue) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-10, 12-20 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botea et al. (US 20200012954 A1) in view of Friedman et al. (US 20220165007 A1)
Regarding claims 1, 11, Botea discloses a planning ontology system (Botea ¶4 - Various embodiments are provided for integrating multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system for a user in a computing environment by a processor) comprising: a system architecture comprising: at least one domain file; at least one problem file; at least one planner to which the at least one domain file and the at least one problem file are introduced to form at least one planner configuration; the at least one planner configuration sent to at least one hypertune planner; at least one data storage unit, which is in communication with the at least one hypertune planner, for holding at least one data comprising: at least one plan storage; at least one planner improvement ontology(Botea Fig. 1, 4, 7); the at least one hypertune planner utilizes the at least one planner improvement ontology to generate at least one tuning parameter for the at least one planner configuration (Botea ¶88 - An executor 710 component may work in conjunction with and/or assist in performing one or more operations for the dialog client 704, the problem formulator 706, and/or the planner 708 {i.e. hypertuner}. The executor 710 may also return one or more solutions such as, for example, system responses 730, to a user); and the at least one hypertune planner transmits the at least one tuning parameter to at least one executor which executes the at least one tuning parameter (Botea ¶90 - A solution {tuning parameter} may be provided to the user for the one or more problem instances, as in block 808).
Botea lacks the at least one data storage unit parses the at least one data to at least one metadata extractor, wherein the at least one metadata extractor is in communication with the at least one hypertune planner.
Friedman, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the at least one data storage unit parses the at least one data to at least one metadata extractor, wherein the at least one metadata extractor is in communication with the at least one hypertune planner (Friedman ¶4 - Provenance, as referred to herein, is a form of metadata (or data about data), that records the origin (or origins) of data, the insights developed from that data, and/or the agents involved in the procurement or development of such data Friedman Fig. 4 – Friedman ¶70 - Provenance data store 204 can provide storage for activity records 220. Activity record 220 can represent or store information regarding a particular instance of an activity or operation that was executed on the system to produce a datum 40).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the problem solving methodology/system of Botea by including the plan analysis techniques of Friedman because Friedman discloses “the provenance-based approach treats the plan as a tripartite dependency graph that helps explain the foundations, reliability, impact, and sensitivity of the information that comprises the plan's states and actions (Friedman ¶135)”. Additionally, Botea further details “multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system (Botea ¶1)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional plan analysis techniques that Friedman discloses because it would help with the understanding of the planning system in Botea.
Regarding claims 2, 12, Botea in view of Friedman discloses a planning ontology system (Botea ¶4 - Various embodiments are provided for integrating multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system for a user in a computing environment by a processor).
Friedman further teaches the at least one metadata (Friedman ¶4 - Provenance, as referred to herein, is a form of metadata (or data about data), that records the origin (or origins) of data, the insights developed from that data, and/or the agents involved in the procurement or development of such data) extractor includes: at least one macro; at least one goal ordering structure; at least one optimal heuristic structure; and at least one plan summary (Friedman Fig. 4 – Friedman ¶70 - Provenance data store 204 can provide storage for activity records 220. Activity record 220 can represent or store information regarding a particular instance of an activity or operation that was executed on the system to produce a datum 40).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the problem solving methodology/system of Botea by including the plan analysis techniques of Friedman because Friedman discloses “the provenance-based approach treats the plan as a tripartite dependency graph that helps explain the foundations, reliability, impact, and sensitivity of the information that comprises the plan's states and actions (Friedman ¶135)”. Additionally, Botea further details “multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system (Botea ¶1)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional plan analysis techniques that Friedman discloses because it would help with the understanding of the planning system in Botea.
Regarding claims 3, 13, Botea in view of Friedman discloses a planning ontology system (Botea ¶4 - Various embodiments are provided for integrating multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system for a user in a computing environment by a processor).
Friedman further teaches at least one external data source (Friedman ¶68 - A data entry datum can be an external data entry that can represent or store axiomatic information that is provided to data source connectors 400 from external sources 402 such as databases, sensor feeds, news outlets, or the like).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the problem solving methodology/system of Botea by including the plan analysis techniques of Friedman because Friedman discloses “the provenance-based approach treats the plan as a tripartite dependency graph that helps explain the foundations, reliability, impact, and sensitivity of the information that comprises the plan's states and actions (Friedman ¶135)”. Additionally, Botea further details “multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system (Botea ¶1)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional plan analysis techniques that Friedman discloses because it would help with the understanding of the planning system in Botea.
Regarding claims 4, 14, Botea in view of Friedman discloses a planning ontology system (Botea ¶4 - Various embodiments are provided for integrating multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system for a user in a computing environment by a processor).
Friedman further teaches the at least one external data source provides at least one data update to the at least one metadata extractor (Friedman ¶72 - Ingest (or ingestion) operations can be performed by agents 302 to process one or more external data sources 402 to generate one or more datum records 206. For example, a Wikidata Agent can be configured to ingest a data source structured according to a WIKIBASE data model to create datum record 206 for each of a set of keywords).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the problem solving methodology/system of Botea by including the plan analysis techniques of Friedman because Friedman discloses “the provenance-based approach treats the plan as a tripartite dependency graph that helps explain the foundations, reliability, impact, and sensitivity of the information that comprises the plan's states and actions (Friedman ¶135)”. Additionally, Botea further details “multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system (Botea ¶1)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional plan analysis techniques that Friedman discloses because it would help with the understanding of the planning system in Botea.
Regarding claims 5, 15, Botea in view of Friedman discloses the planning ontology system provides at least one structured representation disclosing extraction of domain, problem and planner properties provided to the at least one planner (Botea ¶85 - When the problem instance is constructed using the problem formulator 706, a problem solver 708 (e.g., planner) may be used. The problem instance, which may include the instance and the domain knowledge, may be passed as input to problem solver 708. In one aspect, the domain knowledge may be domain-independent planning (e.g., Fast Downward) or domain-specific solvers (e.g., a specialized journey planning engine). It should be noted that a domain-independent planner (e.g., Fast Downward) may be a system that can solve different types of problems (as opposed to being specialized on one type of problem). In domain-independent planning, there may be generic input language, such as planning domain definition language (“PDDL”). As long as a problem can be expressed in PDDL, the problem may be approached, attacked, and/or solved with a domain-independent planner).
Regarding claims 6, 16, Botea in view of Friedman discloses he planning ontology system generates at least one plan explanation for the executor executing the at least one tuning parameter (Botea ¶79 - Thus, as in block 608, the interactive dialog system can provide insights, evidence, and/or justifications to the user explaining one or more responses {tuning parameter}).
Regarding claims 7, 17, Botea in view of Friedman discloses a planning ontology system (Botea ¶4 - Various embodiments are provided for integrating multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system for a user in a computing environment by a processor).
Friedman further teaches the planning ontology system employs at least one semantic web technology to generate multiple explanation types via encoding domain knowledge, action semantics, and plan structures within the planning ontology system (Friedman ¶95 - FIG. 8A depicts a search screen 310, enabling a user to enter a search string and, in embodiments, receive the results of a semantic search).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the problem solving methodology/system of Botea by including the plan analysis techniques of Friedman because Friedman discloses “the provenance-based approach treats the plan as a tripartite dependency graph that helps explain the foundations, reliability, impact, and sensitivity of the information that comprises the plan's states and actions (Friedman ¶135)”. Additionally, Botea further details “multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system (Botea ¶1)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional plan analysis techniques that Friedman discloses because it would help with the understanding of the planning system in Botea.
Regarding claims 8, 18, Botea in view of Friedman discloses the planning ontology system evaluates at least one feature of at least at least one planning domain of a second planner (Botea ¶4 - One or more problem instances may be defined for multiple domains according to a problem instance template, identified user intent, links to one or more problem solvers associated with the multiple domains, or a combination thereof).
Claims 9-10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botea et al. (US 20200012954 A1) in view of Friedman et al. (US 20220165007 A1) further in view of Ben David et al. (US 11875123 B1)
Regarding claims 9, 19, Botea in view of Friedman discloses a planning ontology system (Botea ¶4 - Various embodiments are provided for integrating multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system for a user in a computing environment by a processor).
Botea in view of Friedman lacks he planning ontology system quantifies a relevance relationship between at least one planning domain and the planner via indicating the relevance relationship of the planner to the planning domain.
Ben David, from the same field f endeavor, teaches the planning ontology system quantifies a relevance relationship between at least one planning domain and the planner via indicating the relevance relationship of the planner to the planning domain (COL 3 ROW 21 Relevant data is gathered from the user, including their current financial state, financial reports, and necessary transactional data. This data is input into the LLM and forms the basis for the personalized advice. Output from the LLM is analyzed by a classification model to characterize the user's intent within a known ontology - Ben David COL 7 ROW 3 - At Step 330, the intent is classified by the advice planner into a domain corresponding to the intent. In some embodiments, the advice planner comprises classification model).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the problem solving methodology/system of Botea by including the advice generation techniques of Ben David because Ben David discloses “This feedback loop enables continuous improvements of the system's performance while ensuring that the advice remains up-to-date and relevant (Ben David COL 3 ROW 32)”. Additionally, Botea further details “multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system (Botea ¶1)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional advice generation techniques that Ben David discloses because it would help improve the output of the planning system in Botea by making sure solutions are current.
Regarding claims 10, 20, Botea in view of Friedman further in view of Ben David discloses a planning ontology system (Botea ¶4 - Various embodiments are provided for integrating multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system for a user in a computing environment by a processor).
Ben David further teaches the relevance relationship is quantified as: low where the relevance relation is below 35%; medium when the relevance relation is between 35% to 70%; and high when the relevance relation is above 70% (COL 3 ROW 21 Relevant data is gathered from the user, including their current financial state, financial reports, and necessary transactional data. This data is input into the LLM and forms the basis for the personalized advice. Output from the LLM is analyzed by a classification model to characterize the user's intent within a known ontology - Ben David COL 7 ROW 3 - At Step 330, the intent is classified by the advice planner into a domain corresponding to the intent. In some embodiments, the advice planner comprises classification model).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the problem solving methodology/system of Botea by including the advice generation techniques of Ben David because Ben David discloses “This feedback loop enables continuous improvements of the system's performance while ensuring that the advice remains up-to-date and relevant (Ben David COL 3 ROW 32)”. Additionally, Botea further details “multiple domain problem solving in a dialog system (Botea ¶1)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional advice generation techniques that Ben David discloses because it would help improve the output of the planning system in Botea by making sure solutions are current.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Basson et al. (US 20160162538 A1)
GKOUNTOUVAS et al. (WO 2022226435 A1)
and
Muppasani, Bharath, et al. "A Planning Ontology to Represent and Exploit Planning Knowledge for Performance Efficiency." arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13549 (2023) [online], [retrieved on 2026-06-27]. Retrieved from the Internet <https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13549>
These pieces of prior art are cited because they all disclose variations on using a planner to solve issues.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM EST.
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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights