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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
In communications filed on 6/3/2026, claims 1, 4-9, and 26 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 26 are independent.
Amended claim(s): 1, 8-9, 26.
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 6/3/2026, with respect to claim(s) rejected under prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Lang explicitly discloses AI policy guidelines including behavior and operational guidelines (Lang: Figs. 14, 16, 17, 22, ¶59-¶77, ¶81-¶89, ¶370-¶381, i.e., the policy guidelines for ops and behavior stored in a data store/database)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190258953 A1 (hereinafter ‘Lang’) in view of US 20150178876 A1 (hereinafter ‘Kapadia’) in view of US 20250045256 A1 (hereinafter ‘Gottlob’).
As regards claim 1, Lang (US 20190258953 A1) discloses: A system for metadata-guided AI agent operation with compliance monitoring, comprising: one or more processors configured to: (Lang: Fig. 1, ¶13, ¶14, ¶17, i.e., method and system of instaautomation agent)
maintain a database containing agent operational guidelines…, wherein each agent operational guideline defines compliance rules for AI agent operations, the compliance rules comprising permitted actions for the Al agent, operational parameters for executing the permitted actions, and behavioral constraints governing agent decision-making processes (Lang: Figs. 14, 16, 17, 22, ¶59-¶77, ¶81-¶89, ¶370-¶381, i.e., the policy guidelines for ops and behavior stored in a data store/database)
However, Lang does not explicitly teach associated with a user account.
In analogous art, Kapadia (US 20150178876 A1) teaches an automated IDM software associated with user account for managing resources for the user wherein the IDM manages compliance features, policy configuration management (Kapadia, ¶12)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lang to include an automated IDM software associated with user account for managing resources for the user wherein the IDM manages compliance features, policy configuration management as taught by Kapadia with the motivation to provide management of user accounts (Kapadia, ¶4, ¶12)
Lang et al combination further teaches: receive input requesting performance of an action (Lang: Fig. 16, ¶59, i.e., input for an agent to perform an action), responsively instantiate an AI agent configured to process the input according to the agent operational guidelines, (Lang: Figs. 14, 16, 17, 22, ¶59-¶77, ¶81-¶89, i.e., input for an agent to perform an action and loading an agent from memory. See also, Kapadia, ¶12, ¶30, i.e., installation of IDM software)
cause the AI agent to evaluate the input against the compliance rules to determine whether the requested action violates any compliance rule, (Lang: ¶57, ¶61, i.e., the agent determines if the action is compliant with the rules to determine whether to execute or prevent execution of the action)
prevent execution of the requested action when the evaluation determines a compliance rule violation, and (Lang: ¶57, ¶61, i.e., the agent determines if the action is compliant with the rules to determine whether to execute or prevent execution of the action)
when no compliance rule violation is determined, cause the AI agent to: generate a response to the input, (Lang: ¶14-¶16, ¶57, ¶61, ¶74, i.e., a response to the input is generated)
However, Lang et al do not but in analogous art, Gottlob (US 20250045256 A1) teaches: evaluate the generated response against the compliance rules, and (Gottlob: Fig. 7, ¶823-¶828, ¶907, ¶932, Claim 26, i.e., checking the response for compliance and enhancing the response by making changes to the response per the compliance evaluation)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lang et al to include checking the response for compliance and enhancing the response by making changes to the response per the compliance evaluation as taught by Gottlob with the motivation to check AI responses for compliance (Gottlob: Fig. 7, ¶823-¶828, ¶907, ¶932, Claim 26)
Lang et al combination further teaches: produce a compliant response by modifying the generated response to eliminate any identified compliance rule violations before providing the compliant response to the user account. (Gottlob: Fig. 7, ¶823-¶828, ¶907, ¶932, Claim 26, i.e., checking the response for compliance and enhancing the response by making changes to the response per the compliance evaluation. See, also Kapadia, ¶4, ¶12)
Claim 26 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 1 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale.
As regards claim 4, Lang et al combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the agent operational guidelines are integrated into a context window of the Al agent for real-time compliance evaluation, and wherein the Al agent suggests alternative actions when compliance violations are detected. (Lang: ¶57, ¶61, ¶234, i.e., the agent determines in real-time if the action is compliant with the rules to determine whether to execute or prevent execution of the action wherein the agent provides adaptive guidance regarding the action)
As regards claim 5, Lang et al combination teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the alternative actions are generated by analyzing user intent from the input and mapping the intent to permitted actions that achieve equivalent functional outcomes within the compliance rules, enabling the Al agent to accomplish user objectives without violating compliance requirements. (Lang: Fig. 16, ¶61-¶65, i.e., given user/admin prompt, the action determination model determines, using rules, an action to execute or select an action relative to the current action or independent action i.e., alternate action. See also, Gottlob: ¶80-¶82, i.e., given user request, based on constraints, the system generates adapted prompts (i.e., alternative) actions based on the intended relationships i.e., mapping)
As regards claim 6, Lang et al combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the Al agent processes third-party data sources by selectively incorporating compliant data portions while excluding violating data portions. (Gottlob: Fig. 7, ¶71-¶90, ¶430, i.e., excluding data sources/LLMs that are not relevant and using sources/LLM that best fit/relevant to the query/response)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lang et al to include checking the response for compliance and enhancing the response by making changes to the response per the compliance evaluation as taught by Gottlob with the motivation to check AI responses for compliance (Gottlob: Fig. 7, ¶823-¶828, ¶907, ¶932, Claim 26)
As regards claim 7, Lang et al combination teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the selective incorporation comprises parsing third-party data to identify compliant segments, extracting the compliant segments for inclusion in the response, and omitting violating segments without indicating to the user that data has been filtered. (Gottlob: Fig. 7, ¶823-¶828, ¶907, ¶932, Claim 26, i.e., checking the response for compliance and enhancing the response by making changes to the response per the compliance evaluation)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lang et al to include checking the response for compliance and enhancing the response by making changes to the response per the compliance evaluation as taught by Gottlob with the motivation to check AI responses for compliance (Gottlob: Fig. 7, ¶823-¶828, ¶907, ¶932, Claim 26)
As regards claim 8, Lang et al combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein modifying the generated response comprises identifying a data source associated with a violating content portion and replacing the violating content portion with the identified alternative compliant content from retrieved from the identified data source while maintaining semantic equivalence. (Lang: ¶57, ¶61, ¶234, i.e., the agent determines in real-time if the action is compliant with the rules to determine whether to execute or prevent execution of the action wherein the agent provides adaptive guidance regarding the action. See also, Gottlob: Fig. 7, ¶823-¶828, ¶907, ¶932, Claim 26, i.e., checking the response for compliance and enhancing the response by making changes to the response per the compliance evaluation)
As regards claim 9, Lang et al combination teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the replacement process preserves original formatting characteristics of the violating content portion including text length, visual layout, font characteristics, spacing relationships, and visual element positioning such that the modified response is visually indistinguishable from an unmodified response with respect to said formatting characteristics. (Lang: ¶57, ¶61, ¶234, i.e., the agent determines in real-time if the action is compliant with the rules to determine whether to execute or prevent execution of the action wherein the agent provides adaptive guidance regarding the action. See also, Gottlob: Fig. 7, ¶823-¶828, ¶907, ¶932, Claim 26, i.e., checking the response for compliance and enhancing the response by making changes to the response per the compliance evaluation)
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 SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights