DETAILED ACTION
This action is made FINAL in response to the amendments filed on 7/15/2026.
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 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1 -3 and 6 - 17) and an apparatus with structural components (claim 18). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claims 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining, by at least one processor, at least one domain corresponding to the loaded input data;
For example, a human can mentally determine the domain by identifying which of the input data is valid for that particular domain.
deciding, by at least one processor, at least one application model, which is an AI model that will process a task according to the determined at least one domain, wherein the deciding of the at least one application model comprises deciding at least one master model, configured to control an on-device AI agent service system configured to store and execute the on-device AI agent service;
For example, a human can mentally select a model that is linked (i.e. contextually, same environment, same subject, etc.) to the above particular domain and select said model that is the best fit for a AI agent service system
For example, a human can write down (output) the thoughts or beliefs based on their interpretations of the input data.
manifesting, by at least one processor, the generated output data based on the on-device AI agent service.
For example, a human can use their written down thoughts or beliefs to change behavior or recognize opportunities (manifesting).
wherein the at least one master model comprises at least one of a router configured to perform task allocation for each of at least one AI model included in the on-device AI agent service system based on the decided domain, or an orchestrator configured to control the router.
For example, a human determines the subject of a request and decides which expert should handle it or directs another person to make that assignment,
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations above cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (at least one processor).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
accessing, by the at least one processor, at least one memory to load input data based on the executed on-device AI agent service from the at least one memory;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
activating the at least one application model decided to process the task according to the determined at least one domain;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the activating process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim further recites:
generating, by the at least one processor, output data for the input data based on the activated at least one application model ;
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim further recites at least one processor, at least one memory, a router, and an orchestrator which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of on-device artificial intelligence (AI) agent service amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
accessing, by the at least one processor, at least one memory to load input data based on the executed on-device AI agent service from the at least one memory;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites:
activating the at least one application model decided to process the task according to the determined at least one domain;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the activating process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim further recites:
generating, by the at least one processor, output data for the input data based on the activated at least one application model ;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites at least one processor, at least one memory, a router, and an orchestrator which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of on-device artificial intelligence (AI) agent service amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the input data specifies the task according to the domain in form of at least one of text, voice, image, video, or sensing data.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the input data specifies the task according to the domain in form of at least one of text, voice, image, video, or sensing data.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the domain specifies at least one feature of data, a rule, a terminology, a problem definition, or a process for a predetermined task.
For example, a human can mentally determine the domain by identifying which of the input data is valid for that particular domain (i.e. the input data satisfies a rule)
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the deciding of the at least one application model further comprises deciding at least one secondary model, configured to perform a predetermined task under control of the at least one master model, to decide the at least one application model.
For example, a human can mentally construct and/or reference a hieratical tree structure of models in a parent (master) - child relationship to select secondary model.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the at least one secondary model comprises at least one of a small large language model (sLLM), a normal mixture of experts (MoE) model, an external model, or a specialized model.
For example, a human can mentally select what the secondary model will comprises of
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 7, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the sLLM comprises at least one AI model comprising the specialized model, which is an independently pre-trained artificial intelligence model, and the router, which is an AI module configured to control a model task.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the sLLM comprises at least one AI model comprising the specialized model, which is an independently pre-trained artificial intelligence model, and the router, which is an AI module configured to control a model task.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 7, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
comprises at least one specialized module model, which is an independently modularized specialized model, associated with specialized model feature information acquired based on learning based on the at least one artificial intelligence model comprising the at least on specialized model and the router.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the learning process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
comprises at least one specialized module model, which is an independently modularized specialized model, associated with specialized model feature information acquired based on learning based on the at least one artificial intelligence model comprising the at least on specialized model and the router.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the learning process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 9, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the sLLM comprises at least one AI model comprising the specialized module model and the router
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the sLLM comprises at least one AI model comprising the specialized module model and the router
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 11,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the deciding of the at least one secondary model comprises:
deciding the at least one secondary model optimized for task processing according to the domain based on the at least one master model.
For example, a human can mentally determine the secondary model by based on it being the best fit for that particular domain.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 12,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the deciding of the at least one application model includes deciding a plurality of secondary models based on the domain determined by at least one master model, configured to control an on-device AI agent service system configured to store and execute the on-device AI agent service, to decide the at least one application model.
For example, a human can mentally construct and/or reference a hieratical tree structure of models in a parent (master) - child relationship to select secondary model.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 13,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 12, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the decided at least one application model includes a plurality of decided application models, and the generating of the output data comprises operating the plurality of decided application models sequentially or in parallel and integrating outputs of the plurality of decided application models to generate final output data.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the decided at least one application model includes a plurality of decided application models, and the generating of the output data comprises operating the plurality of decided application models sequentially or in parallel and integrating outputs of the plurality of decided application models to generate final output data.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
As to claim 14,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 12, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the generating of the output data comprises selectively performing on-device processing for the input data using the decided to perform processing for the input data based on load of an on-device AI agent service system configured to store and execute the on-device AI agent service and/or an available resource for the task in the on-device AI agent service system.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the generating of the output data comprises selectively performing on-device processing for the input data using the decided to perform processing for the input data based on load of an on-device AI agent service system configured to store and execute the on-device AI agent service and/or an available resource for the task in the on-device AI agent service system.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
As to claim 15,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the at least one master model is configured to decompose a query into a plurality of sub-tasks in response to the query requiring compound reasoning, and decide one of the at least one secondary model as the at least one application model based on features of the decomposed plurality of sub-tasks.
For example, a human can break down a question into separate parts and decide which secondary model is a best fit for each part.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 12,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the deciding of the at least one application model includes deciding a plurality of secondary models based on the domain determined by at least one master model, configured to control an on-device AI agent service system configured to store and execute the on-device AI agent service, to decide the at least one application model.
For example, a human can mentally construct and/or reference a hieratical tree structure of models in a parent (master) - child relationship to select secondary model.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 16,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 12, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the manifesting of the generated output data based on the on-device AI agent service comprises:
inputting an output of an application model, which performed one of the plurality of sub-tasks, to another application model, which performed a next sub-task of the plurality of sub-tasks; and
synthesizing outputs of a plurality of application models which are included in the at least one application model and performed the plurality of sub-tasks to generate final output data.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the manifesting of the generated output data based on the on-device AI agent service comprises:
inputting an output of an application model, which performed one of the plurality of sub-tasks, to another application model, which performed a next sub-task of the plurality of sub-tasks; and
synthesizing outputs of a plurality of application models which are included in the at least one application model and performed the plurality of sub-tasks to generate final output data.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
As to claims 17,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the at least one application model comprises at least one of a search model configured to search for information from an external data source or an augmentation model configured to reinforce generation of a response.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim further recites an external data source which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the at least one application model comprises at least one of a search model configured to search for information from an external data source or an augmentation model configured to reinforce generation of a response.
As discussed above, the additional element of a computer to perform the process steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system which does not provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim further recites an external data source which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The newly added limitations overcome the Claim Objections and the Claim Objections have been withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The newly added limitations overcome the 112 Rejection and the 112 Rejection has been withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The newly added limitations overcome the 103 Rejection and the 103 Rejection has been withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
The Applicant respectfully disagrees with Step 2A, Prong Two of the Examiner’s office action.
MPEP §2106.05(f) notes that:
Requiring more than mere instructions to apply an exception does not mean that the claim must be narrow in order to be eligible. The courts have identified some broad claims as eligible see, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d. 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2017), and some narrow claims as ineligible see e.g., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC V. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, examiners should carefully consider each claim on its own merits, as well as evaluate all other relevant considerations, before making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is more than mere instructions to apply
an exception. For example, because this consideration often overlaps with the
improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the particular machine and particular transformation considerations (see MPEP § 2106.05(b) and (c), respectively), and the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is more than mere instructions to apply an exception.
The examiner disagrees. The applicant mentions McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., as an example but the Applicant does not explain how the cited example is relevant to the presently claimed invention to the examiner’s office action. The example is not tied to the claimed features, nor is any comparison provided demonstrating how it supports patent eligibility. It is unclear why the Applicant relies on this example.
The applicant argues:
First, MPEP §2106.04(d), subsection III states that:
In Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks. The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification. Specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept). In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of "catastrophic forgetting" encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task" reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).
Like Desjardins, by at least the limitation of claim 1 that "the at least one master model comprises at least one of a router configured to perform task allocation for each of at least one AI model included in the on-device AI agent service system based on the decided domain, or an orchestrator configured to control the router", "[t]he [orchestrator] OCT and the [router] RT are configured to operate in close coordination, thereby facilitating efficient operation of an MoE system", "the RT may distribute the given task to one or more models by taking system load into account to ensure efficient data processing", and "[t]he RT may implement efficient system control by substantially performing the allocation of the data processing task according to an instruction and/or a self-algorithm of the OCT" (paragraphs [102], [117] and [119] of the originally filed application emphasis added). Further, "unlike conventional or existing MoE methods that operate while maintaining a large-sized overall model", at least the limitation of claim 1 of "determining, by the at least one processor, at least one domain corresponding to the loaded input data; deciding, by the at least one processor, at least one application model, which is an AI model that will process a task according to the determined at least one domain, wherein the deciding of the at least one application model comprises deciding at least one master model,
configured to control an on-device AI agent service system configured to store and execute the on-device Al agent service; [and] activating the at least one application model decided to process the task according to the determined at least one domain" can "implement an MoE mechanism that utilizes small-sized models optimized for a given task, enabling efficient data processing without wasting unnecessary resources" and "support various services using an
improved MoE model that maintains the advantages of the conventional MoE method (for example, faster pre-learning speed compared to FFN, faster inference speed compared to models of the same size, and/or improved instruction tuning performance) while reducing the limitations associated with conventional MoE methods (for example, the need for a high level of VRAM and/or various challenges in a fine tuning process), and thus may improve the
performance and quality of the corresponding service" (paragraphs [192]-[193] of the originally filed application; emphasis added). Therefore, the specification of the present disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing improvements in the function of computers and to the AI technology.
The examiner disagrees. The applicant mentions Desjardins, as an example but the Applicant does not explain how the cited example is relevant to the presently claimed invention to the examiner’s office action. The example is not tied to the claimed features, nor is any comparison provided demonstrating how it supports patent eligibility. It is unclear why the Applicant relies on this example.
The arguments presented rely on limitations that are neither explicitly recited in the claims nor reasonably inferred from them. At no point in the pending claims does the applicant assert, describe, or even suggest the limitations of:
"[t]he [orchestrator] OCT and the [router] RT are configured to operate in close coordination, thereby facilitating efficient operation of an MoE system",
"the RT may distribute the given task to one or more models by taking system load into account to ensure efficient data processing", and
"[t]he RT may implement efficient system control by substantially performing the allocation of the data processing task according to an instruction and/or a self-algorithm of the OCT"
"unlike conventional or existing MoE methods that operate while maintaining a large-sized overall model",
Rather, the applicant appears to have introduced this language as part of the argument, but such a limitation cannot be read into the claims when it is not supported by the actual claim language. Without clear support in the claim language the examiner cannot give weight to arguments premised on these alleged limitations.
Although the applicant cites portions of the Specification describing router/orchestrator coordination, task allocation, load balancing, and the use of small-sized models in a MoE architecture as improving AI performance and efficiency does not correspond to the scope of the claims. The claims do not require a small-zed model, exclude a large-sized model, or recite the specific MoE implementation or control mechanisms alleged to provide the technological improvements. Rather the claims just recite determining a domain, deciding an application model, and activating the selected model to process a task. The alleged improvements are not reflected in the claimed invention and do not demonstrate an improvement functionality or AI technology.
The applicant argues:
Second, according to MPEP §2106.05(d), "[a]nother consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry". The limitation "the at least one master model comprises at least one of a router configured to perform task allocation for each of at least one AI model included in the on-device AI agent service system based on the decided domain, or an orchestrator configured to control the router" that was recited in previous claim 5 which was not rejected under §102 or 102 is incorporated into claim 1. Accordingly, at least the limitation of claim 1 that "the at least one master model comprises at least one of a router configured to perform task allocation for each of at least one AI model included in the on-device AI agent service system based on the decided domain, or an orchestrator configured to control the router" is not well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.
The examiner disagrees. Whether a limitation is novel or non-conventional under 103 is completely separate from eligibility under 101. The recited router/orchestrator just performs generic computer functions to implement the judicial exception and does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding whether the limitation is well-understood, routine, or conventional is not persuasive.
The limitations are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The applicant argues:
Third, MPEP $2106.05(b) states that:
When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B, examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. "The machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, and investigative tool" for determining whether a claim is patent eligible under § 101. Bilski V. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010).
Claim 1 is applied with or by use of a particular machine by reciting the limitation of claim 1 that "the at least one master model comprises at least one of a router configured to perform task allocation for each of at least one AI model included in the on-device AI agent service system based on the decided domain, or an orchestrator configured to control the router".
Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully asserts that claim 1 does not "recite" any abstract idea, much less the abstract ideas set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action. Therefore, the analysis of patent subject matter eligibility should end with the conclusion that claim 1 is eligible. And, the Applicant respectfully submits that arguments similar to the arguments set forth for claim 1 can be used, mutatis mutandis, to show that claim 18 is patentable under 35 U.S.C. §101 and claims 2-3 and 6-17 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. §101 at least by way of their dependencies from claim 1.
The examiner disagrees. The recited router/orchestrator, do not constitute a particular machine that meaningfully limits the judicial exception. Rather, they are generic computer components performing their ordinary functions to implement the abstract idea. Merely reciting a generic machine as the environment in which the abstract idea is performed does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights