DETAILED ACTION
This action is made FINAL in response to the amendments filed on 7/29/2026.
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 – 20 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 system with structural components (claims 1 - 6), non-transitory computer readable medium (claims 7 - 13), and a computer-implemented method (14 – 20). 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:
wherein each agent is a software entity that corresponds to (a) a task set configured for execution by the agent, and (b) an agent-specific routing data structure that identifies one or more tasks of the task set and, for each identified task, a task condition set and an operational signature identifying a software portion of a condition set
For example, a human can assign a specific task for each agent to specialize in based on its relatability to the task at hand and select an optimal agent dating structure for completing said task. .
for one or more portions of the input, identify, using the AI model set, a candidate agent set from the agent set based on a comparison between (a) one or more output parameters of the portion with (b) one or more operational parameters of each agent within the agent set;
For example, a human can compare data with known agents and select the best agent for the situation.
select, using the AI model set, one or more tasks from the task set by determining that the one or more output parameters of the respective portion satisfy the task condition set for each selected task
For example, a human can select a specific task for each agent to specialize in based on its ability to be able to perform the task at hand.
synthesize one or more respective agent-specific response sets of one or more respective identified candidate agents of the one or more portions into an overall response set.
For example, a human can summarize or each agent-specific response sets in to one overall response set.
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 judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
obtain an input for generation of an output based on one or more agents of an agent set coupled to an AI model set,
for one or more identified candidate agents of the candidate agent set identified for a respective portion of the one or more portions access the agent-specific routing data structure associated with the identified candidate agent;
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:
autonomously execute, using the identified candidate
agents, the operational signature for each selected task to generate an agent-specific response set;
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 a hardware processor and a non-transitory memory 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)).
The recitation of one or more agents and data structure 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:
obtain an input for generation of an output based on one or more agents of an agent set coupled to an AI model set,
for one or more identified candidate agents of the candidate agent set identified for a respective portion of the one or more portions access the agent-specific routing data structure associated with the identified candidate agent;
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:
autonomously execute, using the identified candidate
agents, the operational signature for each selected task to generate an agent-specific response set;
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”).
The claim further recites a hardware processor and a non-transitory memory 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)).
The claim further recites a 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)).
The recitation of one or more agents and data structure 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 in part:
generate an audit record that identifies one or more of: an agent identifier, the selected one or more tasks, an execution timestamp of the selected one or more tasks, or the agent-specific response set.
For example, a human can determine if the if the agent passes an assessment and determine if the agent is appropriate for the task at hand.
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 or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claims 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
detect a change in one or more environmental signals using one or more AI models within the AI model set;
For example, a human can detect the change in the temperature dropping.
modify the respective agent-specific routing data structure of one or more agents based on the detected change in the one or more environmental signals.
For example, a human can organize information differently based on the detected change in the environmental signal.
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 judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein a first candidate agent at a first level of the hierarchal agent structure is configured to communicate with a second candidate agent at a second level of the hierarchal agent structure to generate one or more portions of the agent-specific response.
which 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, these 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 a first candidate agent at a first level of the hierarchal agent structure is configured to communicate with a second candidate agent at a second level of the hierarchal agent structure to generate one or more portions of the agent-specific response.
the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. 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)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the one or more identified candidate agents are configured to maintain a hierarchical agent structure,
For example, a human can organize the agents using hierarchical agent structure to enhance decision making with the most important agent being at the top of the hierarchy.
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 judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein a first candidate agent at a first level of the hierarchal agent structure is configured to communicate with a second candidate agent at a second level of the hierarchal agent structure to generate one or more portions of the agent-specific response.
which 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, these 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 a first candidate agent at a first level of the hierarchal agent structure is configured to communicate with a second candidate agent at a second level of the hierarchal agent structure to generate one or more portions of the agent-specific response.
the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. 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)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to 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 one or more agents in the agent set are autonomous agents
which 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, these 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 one or more agents in the agent set are autonomous agents
the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. 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)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to 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 one or more agents in the agent set are semi-autonomous agents
which 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, these 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 one or more agents in the agent set are semi-autonomous agents
the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. 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)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Claim 7 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to 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:
the respective routing data structure is an ontology data structure that includes one or more of: a machine-readable representation of a domain set, an attribute set of each domain-specific category in the domain set, or one or more relationships among the domain set and the attribute set
which 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, these 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:
the respective routing data structure is an ontology data structure that includes one or more of: a machine-readable representation of a domain set, an attribute set of each domain-specific category in the domain set, or one or more relationships among the domain set and the attribute set
the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. 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)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to 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 a first candidate agent at a first level of the hierarchal agent structure is configured to communicate with a second candidate agent at a second level of the hierarchal agent structure to generate one or more portions of the agent-specific response .
the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. 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)).
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 a first candidate agent at a first level of the hierarchal agent structure is configured to communicate with a second candidate agent at a second level of the hierarchal agent structure to generate one or more portions of the agent-specific response.
the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. 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)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 11,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to 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:
maintain a representation of the audit record in a database
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 a database 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:
maintain a representation of the audit record in a database
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 a database 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.
As to claim 12,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 11, 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 database is a distributed ledger
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 a distributed ledger 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:
the database is a distributed ledger
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 a distributed ledger 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.
As to claims 13,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
each candidate agent is configured to generate an agent-specific confidence score for a corresponding portion of the agent-specific response set, and wherein the instructions further cause the system to:
generate an overall confidence score by weighting portions of the agent-specific response set in accordance with the agent-specific confidence score generated by a respective candidate agent.
For example, a human evaluates outputs from multiple agents, assigns each a confidence weight based on the reliability and mentally combine the weighted inputs to form a single decision.
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 or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
Claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 18,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 14, 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 one or more identified candidate agents are configured to autonomously execute the one or more tasks from the task set to generate the agent-specific response set.
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 one or more identified candidate agents are configured to autonomously execute the one or more tasks from the task set to generate the agent-specific response set.
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.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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:
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant respectfully submits that the claim 1 as amended highlights technical improvements and does not merely describe an environment to apply any alleged abstract idea. Specifically, the amendments emphasize a technological improvement within the technical field of multi-agent AI orchestration, e.g., for coordinating distributed software agents. For example, the technological improvement is accomplished by accessing an agent-specific routing data structure corresponding to each identified candidate agent, selecting tasks by determining that the input portion's output parameters satisfy the task condition set stored for each task, and executing the operational signature that identifies the software operation invoked to perform the selected task.
As indicated in the originally-filed Specification, conventional approaches relied on hard-coded, rule-based routing architectures, in which requests are segmented and routed to designated agents according to pre-set rules. Further, in conventional systems, static routing is unable to adapt to changes in data topology, user roles, or other access policies. For example, conventional mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures are implemented as single, monolithic models in which all experts share the same context window and underlying access to incoming data. As opposed to conventional systems, the claims, as amended, seek to address these technical challenges by maintaining, for each agent, an agent-specific routing data structure that identifies the agent's available tasks and, for each task, both a task condition set governing when that task applies and an operational signature identifying the software operation the agent invokes to perform it.
Even assuming arguendo that the recitations of claim 1 as amended relate to an abstract idea, these recitations integrate a practical application because they recite, with particularity, a technical improvement in the field and do not merely provide an environment to implement an abstract idea. Specifically, the technical improvement relates to orchestrating software agents that independently execute tasks, invoke APIs, and/or interact with external systems, by evaluating input portion parameters against per-task condition sets to determine which software operations each agent invokes. This resolves the inflexibility and lack of contextual awareness in conventional static routing and monolithic model architectures.
The examiner disagrees. The claimed agent-specific routing data structures, task condition sets, and operational signatures merely organize information and establish rules for determining which task software operation should be selected and executed. The claims do not recite an improvement of an operation of a computer network or the software-agent technology itself. Rather, the alleged improvement results from using the abstract decision making/routing process in a computer environment.
Further, evaluating input parameters against stored task conditions to determine an appropriate task is itself a rule-based evaluation and selection process. Merely maintaining different rules or information for different agents does not transform that process into a technological improvement. The selection of software operation merely applies the result of the determination using generic computing functionality.
The Applicant’s argued advantages of increased flexibility and contextual awareness amount to improvements in the logic used to select route tasks, rather than an improvement in computer functionality itself. Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018))
It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
The applicant argues:
Furthermore, the recitations of the amended claim 1 are similar, for the purpose of this analysis, to the claim in Example 37 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. The claim in Example 37, which disclosed automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage, was found to be patent eligible and integrated into a practical application because the claim addressed a computer-centric problem. The problem only existed because of how computers work, and the solution addressed a limitation inherent to computer technology. Similarly, the claimed technology addresses a computer-centric problem that arises specifically because autonomous AI agents operate as independent, persistent software entities that execute tasks, invoke APIs, and/or interact with external systems without inherent coordination (a problem that has no analog in manual or mental processes). The agent-specific routing data structure provides the technical mechanism that enables the AI model set to select tasks for each identified candidate agent. One of skill in the art will appreciate that, unlike conventional systems where agents are invoked through static keyword matching or pre-mapped domain routing, the claimed technology orchestrates the operations in a
particular manner to enable dynamic coordination across independently operating autonomous agents. Accordingly, the aforementioned recitations of claim 1 "improve[s] computer capabilities," rather than "invoke[] computers merely as a tool," as required in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I).
The examiner disagrees. The applicant mentions Example 37 of the ‘USPTO July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples’ as an example but the Applicant does not explain how the cited example is relevant to the presently claimed invention. 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.
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