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
This is a reply to the application filed on 9/29/2025, in which, claims 1-26 are pending. Claims 1 and 26 are independent.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
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.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/29/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure filed on 9/29/2025 is accepted.
Response to Arguments
In communications filed on 1/26/2026, claims 1-26 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 26 are independent.
Amended claim(s): 1 and 26.
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 1/26/2026, with respect to Restriction requirements have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The species restriction is based on patentably distinct and non-overlapping scope of dependent claims. For example, Group I, pertains to each agent operational guideline comprises structured metadata defining permitted actions for the AI agent, operational parameters for executing the permitted actions, and behavioral constraints governing agent decision-making processes. Whereas Group II species pertains to 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. Whereas Group III species pertains to comprising cross-context action replication functionality, wherein the system monitors and records specific actions performed by the Al agent within a first operational environment and enables adaptive application of those actions across different operational environments, subject to logging permissions defined in the agent operational guidelines. Whereas Group IV species pertains to comprising isolated memory management, wherein the Al agent designates information as distinct memory repositories separate from collaborative knowledge bases, enabling storage of confidential information that remains inaccessible to other system users. Whereas Group V species pertains to wherein action template management comprises decomposing complex actions into atomic operations that can be individually validated against compliance rules defined in the agent operational guidelines, and storing the atomic operations as reusable templates with variable placeholders that comply with data handling parameters specified in the agent operational guidelines. Whereas Group VI species pertains to comprising natural language-driven interaction with integrated compliance validation, wherein a natural language processing interface enables users to communicate with the Al agent using conversational prompts that are processed within operational boundaries defined in the agent operational guidelines. Whereas Group VI species pertains to comprising real-time compliance monitoring during content generation, wherein the system analyzes draft communications and content creation for compliance violations including prevention of message transmission about restricted topics based on recipient analysis and content sensitivity assessment performed according to restrictions defined in the agent operational guidelines. Clearly the scope of Group I species, defining operational guidelines in terms of behavioral constraints is patentably distinct and non-overlapping in scope from Group II species that integrates operation guidelines in terms of real-time compliance evaluation and suggests alternative course of action when violations are detected. Groups I and II are similarly patentably distinct and non-overlapping in scope with each other and Group III pertaining to cross-context action replication functionality. Similarly, each of the identified species from Group I through Group VII are patentably distinct and non-overlapping in scope from each other.
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 1, 26, 4-9 species is noted. Non-elected Groups are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 26 recite: “receive input requesting an AI agent to perform an action, instantiate an AI agent configured to process the input according to the agent operational guide.” It is not clear how an AI agent is being requested to perform an action before the AI agent gets instantiated (i.e., created), rendering the claim scope unclear. Dependent claims 4-9 are rejected for incorporating the above-mentioned deficiency of base claim 1.
Claims 8-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the same data source". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim recites the limitation "wherein the replacement process preserves original formatting characteristics including text length, visual layout, font characteristics, spacing relationships, and visual element positioning such that content replacement operations are transparent to the user and the modified response appears visually identical to an unmodified response". It is not clear how the “modified response” “appears visually identical” “to an unmodified response” when the content itself is modified/replaced as recited in the claim, rendering the claim scope unclear.
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, 4-8, 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, (Lang: Fig. 22, ¶370-¶381, i.e., the policy guidelines for ops 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 an AI agent to perform an action (Lang: Fig. 16, ¶59, i.e., input for an agent to perform an action), instantiate an AI agent configured to process the input according to the agent operational guidelines, (Lang: Fig. 16, ¶17, ¶59, i.e., input for an agent to perform an action. 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 replacing violating content portions with alternative compliant content from the same 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)
Conclusion
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