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 . Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tran et al (hereinafter Tran) US Patent No 12373897.
As per claim 1, Tran teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that include stored thereon computer-executable instructions that when executed by at least a processor of a computing system cause the computing system to:
generate, by a generation agent executed by the computing system, an event narrative draft based at least in part on case data associated with alerted interactions from a monitoring system, wherein the case data includes interaction records, alert highlights, and entity information;
(Column 4, lines 24-67 and Column 5, lines 1-45 and Column 24, lines 40-49)
parse, by a pattern detector agent executed by the computing system, the event narrative draft to automatically identify one or more candidate statements that aggregate or generalize the case data in the event narrative draft;
(Column 5, lines 30-38 and Column 16, lines 25-33 and Column 20, lines 39-65 and Column 27, lines 32-53 and Column 45, lines 21-39)
distribute, by a master evaluator agent executed by the computing system, the one or more candidate statements to one or more pattern checking agents that correspond to the one or more patterns for evaluation for correctness;
(Column 5, lines 30-38 and Column 16, lines 25-33 and Column 20, lines 39-65 and Column 27, lines 32-53 and Column 45, lines 21-39)
execute, by the one or more pattern checking agents executed by the computing system, a programmatic validation of individual candidate statements against the interaction records to classify the individual candidate statements as consistent with or inconsistent with the interaction records;
(Column 4, lines 24-67 and Column 5, lines 1-45 and Column 24, lines 40-49)
and combine, by the master evaluator agent executed by the computing system, the validated statements from the one or more pattern checking agents into a final event narrative based on the corrected statements, wherein the final event narrative exhibits improved factual reliability relative to the event narrative draft.
(Column 5, lines 30-38 and Column 20, lines 39-65 and Column 27, lines 32-53 and Column 45, lines 21-39)
As per claim 2, Tran teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, further comprising instructions that when executed by at least the processor cause the computing system to combine, by a case report generation agent, the final event narrative with a plurality of other final event narratives into a case report providing a machine-generated explanation of system alerts.
(Column 3, lines 32-67 and Column 4, lines 1-23 and Column 26, lines 4-12 and Column 28, lines 27-36)
As per claim 3, Tran teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the interactions monitored by the interaction monitoring system are one of financial transactions, computer security event, clinical event, sensor event, grid event, call detail record, or package scan or location event.
(Column 4, lines 24-67 and Column 5, lines 1-45 and Column 24, lines 40-49)
As per claim 4, Tran teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, further comprising instructions that when executed by at least the processor cause the computing system to:
generate, using a deterministic auxiliary tool executed by the processor, analytics of the case data;
(Abstract and Column 3, lines 32-67 and Column 4, lines 24-67 and Column 5, lines 1-37 and Column 23, lines 46-54 and Column 40, lines 12-40)
exclude, by the generation agent, the analytics output from the deterministic auxiliary tool from the candidate statements;
(Abstract and Column 3, lines 32-67 and Column 4, lines 24-67 and Column 24, lines 40-49)
and verify inclusion of the analytics in the final event narrative.
(Abstract and Column 3, lines 32-67 and Column 4, lines 24-67 and Column 24, lines 40-49)
As per claim 5, Tran teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions for distributing the one or more candidate statements to one or more pattern checking agents when executed by at least the processor further cause the master evaluator agent to transmit the one or more candidate statements to a plurality of pattern checking agents operating in parallel.
(Abstract and Column 3, lines 32-67 and Column 4, lines 24-67 and Column 5, lines 21-36 and Column 13, lines 60-67 and Column 14, lines 1-18 and Column 20, lines 39-65 and Column 31, lines 42-67 and Column 32, lines 1-2 and Column 45, lines 21-39)
As per claim 7, Tran teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein an LLM used by one of the pattern detector agent, master evaluator agent, and pattern checking agents has model parameters that are distinct from a LLM used by the generation agent, wherein the model parameters include a temperature setting that is higher than that used by the generation agent.
(Abstract and Column 3, lines 32-67 and Column 4, lines 24-67 and Column 5, lines 21-36 and Column 13, lines 60-67 and Column 14, lines 1-18 and Column 20, lines 39-65 and Column 22, lines 16-29 and Column 31, lines 42-67 and Column 32, lines 1-2 and Column 45, lines 21-39 and Column 35, lines 23-47, wherein each agent from the multi-agents is a specialized AI agent and the master agent oversees/coordinates data from all agents and wherein the coordinator/master is global model)
Claims 8 and 10-12 are method claims respectively corresponding to non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 1 and 3-5 and they are rejected under the same rational as claims 1 and 3-5.
Claims 15-16 and 18-20 are system claims respectively corresponding to non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7 and they are rejected under the same rational as claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7.
As per claim 9, Tran teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising:
combining, by a case report generation agent, the final event narrative with a plurality of other final event narratives into a case report that provides a machine-generated explanation of system alerts;
(Column 3, lines 32-67 and Column 4, lines 1-23)
and including in the case report additional non-alerted interactions associated with the entity.
(Column 2, lines 23-34 and Column 12, lines 4-19 and Column 46, lines 1-15)
As per claim 17, Tran teaches:
The computing system of claim 15, wherein the interactions monitored by the interaction monitoring system are computer security events.
(Column 2, lines 23-47 and Colum 4, lines 24-46 and Column 22, lines 16-29)
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.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Alexandra Iovine (hereinafter Iovine) US Publication No. 20260179425.
As per claim 6, Tran does not explicitly teach majority voting procedure further causes the computing system to execute additional evaluations of candidate statements classified as incorrect and apply majority voting to the additional evaluations, however in analogous art of data analysis, Iovine teaches:
majority voting procedure further causes the computing system to execute additional evaluations of candidate statements classified as incorrect and apply majority voting to the additional evaluations.
(Abstract and Paragraphs [0011], [0013], [0027], [0033], [0037] and [0105])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Tran and Iovine by incorporating the teaching of Iovine into the method of Tran. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Iovine into the system of Tran for the purpose of accurately handle conflict resolution.
Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 6 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 9/25/2026
