DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed on 06/18/2026 has been received and fully considered.
3. Claims 1-8 are presented examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s assertions that: “Step 2A, Prong One - The Amended Claims Recite Limitations That Cannot Practically Be Performed in the Human Mind. The examiner characterizes "stores thoughts as vector representations in a thought cache" and
"enters periodic sleep states for memory consolidation," among other limitations, as a "mental
process." This is precisely the over-extension the Kim Memorandum cautions against. The
Memorandum instructs that "claim limitations that encompass AI in a way that cannot be
practically performed in the human mind do not fall within this grouping," and that examiners
must "not expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot
practically be performed in the human mind." See also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).”, the Examiner respectfully notes that the rejection makes clear where each limitation fall and that the Examiner did not map the storing step as mental, contrary to applicant’s assertions. As per applicant’s assertions that: “As amended, the independent claims recite operations the human mind is not equipped to perform: Representing thoughts as vector embeddings in a high-dimensional space organized in a short-term cache and a long-term embedded vector store. A person cannot, in the mind or with pen and paper, compute or store high-dimensional vector embeddings. Sleep-state consolidation and tier-based pruning of co-activated vector representations such that retrieval latency is maintained as the number of stored representations grows across runs. This is a machine memory-management operation defined by a measurable
computational property (latency), not a human evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Serializing the thought cache and executive-core state into a snapshot and deserializing it to restore the instance after a system restart. Serialization/deserialization of program state has no analog in the human mind. State-synchronizer enforcement of role-specific information boundaries across multiple software instances. Gating and blocking state propagation between concurrent machine
instances is not a thought process. Furthermore, the "calculate probabilistic outcomes" limitation, which the Office grouped as a "mathematical concept," as amended recites a particular weighted resolution keyed to physical simulation variables (force composition, terrain, supply-line state). Under the Memorandum's own Example 39 / Example 47 distinction, a limitation that does not "set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols" does not recite a mathematical-concept exception. The amended limitation recites no formula by name and is therefore not within the grouping. Because the amended claims do not set forth or describe any of the enumerated groupings, they do not recite a judicial exception, and the analysis ends at Prong One. At most the claims involve evaluation as one input among many machine operations, which the Memorandum confirms is insufficient to trigger further analysis.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims, as a whole, are clearly directed to an abstract idea e.g. a mental process and/or could otherwise fall to a mathematical concept, as constructed, and do not recite anything that goes beyond the judicial exception, contrary to applicant’s assertions. With regards to applicant’s assertions that: “Step 2A, Prong Two - The Claims Integrate Any Exception Into a Practical Application That Improves the Functioning of the Computer. Even assuming arguendo that a judicial exception is recited, the claims as a whole integrate the
alleged exception into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d) and Desjardins.
The claims recite a specific improvement to how the machine operates. The disclosed
improvements are concrete: Maintained retrieval efficiency as the data store grows. The sleep-state consolidation of co-activated representations and tier-based pruning of low-relevance representations are recited "such that a retrieval latency of the thought cache is maintained as a quantity of stored vector representations increases across successive simulation runs." The
specification describes this very benefit-that the platform "becomes more effective over
time rather than becoming cluttered or inefficient as it accumulates experiences" (I 0241;
see also IT 0229, 0237). This is an improvement to the operation of a computer memory
subsystem, directly analogous to the self-referential data structure in Enfish. Continuity of machine state across restarts. The serialize-snapshot-deserialize-restore limitation provides a particular mechanism by which the instance resumes its pre-restart cognitive state (II 0060, 0108-0116, 0222), rather than resetting-an improvement in how the computing system preserves and recovers its own working state”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims do not in any way provide any improvement to a technological field, as asserted by the Applicant. In fact, there absolutely no way to improve the functionality of the general processor by performing the steps set forth by the claims nor recite anything that sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and do not integrate the recited abstract to a practical application. The Examiner further notes that
to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 101 USPQ2d at 1965. Furthermore, none of the cited cases by the Applicants are applicable to the instant case; the fact patterns do not match. In reference to the enfish case, the Examiner respectfully notes that the fact pattern in the instant case is completely different from the fact pattern in the Enfish decision. In Enfish there was a data structure that allowed for faster access to data in a database, the claimed embodiments in Applicants case do not in any manner improve data access by making take less time in the manner that the claims in the Enfish do. Therefore, the claims are abstract, contrary to applicant’s assertions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
5.1 Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a system and method, comprising: The step of: “initialize multiple persistent cognitive machine instances with language and reasoning capabilities for strategic simulation applications”, “wherein each instance stores thoughts as vector representations in a thought cache comprising a short-term cache and a long-term cache having an embedded vector store, and enters periodic sleep states during which the instance consolidates, into the long-term cache, vector representations that are co-activated across multiple simulation contexts and prunes, to a lower storage tier, vector representations that fail a relevance criterion, such that a retrieval latency of the thought cache is maintained as a quantity of stored vector representations increases across successive simulation runs”; “establish communication protocols between the instances and enforce, by a state synchronizer, role-specific information boundaries that admit a state update to a given instance only within an authorized scope assigned to that instance and block propagation of a state update associated with an opposing role”; “monitor a plurality of simulation states across multiple operational domains”; “validate a plurality of participant actions against established rules and operational constraints”; “generate a plurality of strategic insights through pattern analysis across multiple simulation runs”, “serialize the thought cache and an executive-core state of each instance into a point- in-time snapshot stored on a non-volatile storage tier, and, upon a restart of the computer system, deserialize a most recent valid snapshot to restore each instance to a pre-restart cognitive state, thereby maintaining continuity of the vector representations stored in the thought cache across the restart”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under mental process and/or a mathematical concept. Likewise, the step of: “calculate probabilistic outcomes and resolve conflicts between the plurality of participant actions by applying a weighted probabilistic resolution that is a function of at least a force composition, a terrain advantage, and a supply-line state associated with the conflicting actions”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation falls under a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “a hardware memory”, “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “software instructions”, and “one or more processors”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para 0305-0324, and fig.26) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para 0309) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “stores thoughts as vector representations in a thought cache”, “store simulation outcomes and extracted strategic concepts in the thought”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under post-solution activities” are also well-known, routine and conventional activities to store data in a memory and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “a hardware memory”, “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “software instructions”, and “one or more processors”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para 0305-0324, and fig.26) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para 0309) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “stores thoughts as vector representations in a thought cache”, “store simulation outcomes and extracted strategic concepts in the thought”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under post-solution activities” are also well-known, routine and conventional activities to store data in a memory and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
5.2 Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8 merely include limitations pertaining to further mathematical computations (claims 2, 6), “wherein the plurality of assigned roles includes a neutral referee role, and the software instructions further configure the computer system to: assign one of the multiple persistent cognitive machine instances to the neutral referee role for strategic wargaming exercises between human teams”; “receive the plurality of participant actions from opposing human teams through the established communication protocols”; “validate the plurality of participant actions using the established rules and operational constraints”; and “generate comprehensive analytical reports containing the plurality of strategic insights for educational purposes” (mental process). (claims 3, 7); “wherein the plurality of assigned roles includes collaborative assistant roles and autonomous opponent roles, and the software instructions further configure the computer system to: assign a first subset of the multiple persistent cognitive machine instances to collaborative assistant roles supporting human commanders; assign a second subset of the multiple persistent cognitive machine instances to autonomous opponent roles representing adversary forces; coordinate the plurality of participant actions between human decisions and actions generated by the persistent cognitive machine instances assigned to the autonomous opponent roles; and adapt assistance provided by the persistent cognitive machine instances assigned to the collaborative assistant roles based on observed human decision-making patterns stored in the thought cache” (mental process); (claims 4, 8); “wherein the plurality of assigned roles includes opposing autonomous strategic roles, and the software instructions further configure the computer system to: assign the multiple persistent cognitive machine instances to the opposing autonomous strategic roles with diverse strategic doctrines; generate the plurality of participant actions autonomously from the multiple persistent cognitive machine instances without human intervention; repeat strategic scenarios with systematic variations using the multiple persistent cognitive machine instances to comprehensively explore strategic possibility spaces; extract recurring patterns from the simulation outcomes stored in the persistent memory structures; and synthesize the plurality of strategic insights into novel strategic concepts for military doctrine development” (mental process), all of which further amount to further mental process and/or mathematical concept similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
6.1 Cohen (USPG_PUB No. 20250068791) teaches a system and method for cognology and cognometrics includes influencer actions.
7. Claims 1-8 are rejected and 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 June 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights