Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 8/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US 2025/0300899) in view of Joty et al. (US 2026/0228103 hereinafter Joty).
Regarding claim 1, Fan discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors to (FIG. 11):
receive, from a requesting entity, a request to credential an artificial intelligence (AI) agent, the request comprising a deployment agent fingerprint for the AI agent and a credential identifier for the AI agent (FIG. 4-5, ¶ [0180]-[0198]; i.e. receiving from the AI/ML Management and Exposure functions a request to verify and certify the AI/ML model wherein the request includes AI/ML ID, Application type/ID, certification parameters, etc.);
verify, using the deployment agent fingerprint, an identity of the AI agent and that an instance of the AI agent as deployed matches a declaration of components of the AI agent (FIG. 4-5, ¶ [0199]-[0204]; i.e. verifying and certifying the trained model at model inventory at least using the certification parameters);
generate a verifiable credential based on the evaluation satisfying the rubric, the verifiable credential stored in a credential registry (FIG. 4-5, ¶ [0199]-[0204]; i.e. generating a certification for the AI/ML model based on the descriptive information of the AI/ML model);
transmit the verifiable credential to the requesting entity (FIG. 4-5, ¶ [0199]-[0204]; i.e. transmitting the certification to the AI/ML Management and Exposure functions).
Fan does not explicitly disclose select, based on the credential identifier, one or more tests for the AI agent, the one or more tests defining at least one evaluation component for at least one of bias detection, safety response, or performance accuracy; generate one or more prompts indicated by the one or more tests, the one or more prompts comprising at least one of a text-based query, a structured data input, or an application programming interface (API) call; communicate the one or more prompts to the verified instance of the AI agent; receive, from the AI agent, one or more responses corresponding to the one or more prompts; evaluate the one or more responses according to a rubric of the one or more tests; the verifiable credential comprising a listing of identifiers of the one or more tests and a machine-readable record of the evaluation linked to the one or more responses from the AI agent.
However, Joty discloses select, based on the credential identifier, one or more tests for the AI agent, the one or more tests defining at least one evaluation component for at least one of bias detection, safety response, or performance accuracy (FIG. 1-3, ¶ [0026], [0030]); generate one or more prompts indicated by the one or more tests, the one or more prompts comprising at least one of a text-based query, a structured data input, or an application programming interface (API) call (FIG. 4-5 &11, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]); communicate the one or more prompts to the verified instance of the AI agent (FIG. 4-5 & 11, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]); receive, from the AI agent, one or more responses corresponding to the one or more prompts (FIG. 4-5 & 11, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]); evaluate the one or more responses according to a rubric of the one or more tests (FIG. 4-5, 9 & 12-13AB, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]); the verifiable credential comprising a listing of identifiers of the one or more tests and a machine-readable record of the evaluation linked to the one or more responses from the AI agent (FIG. 4-5, 9 & 12-13AB, ¶ [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fan and Joty in order to ensure that AI models not only perform well on benchmarks but also behave reliably in real world applications (Joty, ¶ [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Fan in view of Joty discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are to verify that the instance of the AI agent as deployed matches the declaration of components of the AI agent based on at least one of stochastic probing of the instance of the AI agent as deployed or validation of a manifest represented by one or more components of the AI agent (Joty, FIG. 4-5, 9 & 12-13AB, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Fan in view of Joty discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the rubric of the one or more tests corresponds to at least one of an accuracy, a precision, an F1 score, or a bias score of the one or more responses (Fan, ¶ [0318]-[0320]; Joty, FIG. 9 & 12, ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 4, Fan in view of Joty discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are to generate the one or more prompts based on prompt templates and evaluation criteria for each test of the one or more tests (Joty, FIG, 13A-B, ¶ [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Fan in view of Joty discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are to generate a numeric score based on evaluating the one or more responses based on the rubric and generate the verifiable credential based on determining that the numeric score satisfies an accuracy threshold (Fan, ¶ [0318]-[0320]; Joty, FIG. 4-5, 9 & 12-13AB, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Fan in view of Joty discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are to generate a text description of a performance of the AI agent based on the evaluation of the one or more responses (Fan, ¶ [0199]-[0204]; Joty, FIG. 13A-B, ¶ [00184]).
Regarding claim 11, Fan discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, from a requesting entity, a request to credential an artificial intelligence (AI) agent, the request comprising a deployment agent fingerprint for the AI agent and a credential identifier for the AI agent (FIG. 4-5, ¶ [0180]-[0198]; i.e. receiving from the AI/ML Management and Exposure functions a request to verify and certify the AI/ML model wherein the request includes AI/ML ID, Application type/ID, certification parameters, etc.);
verifying, using the deployment agent fingerprint, an identity of the AI agent and that an instance of the AI agent as deployed matches a declaration of components of the AI agent (FIG. 4-5, ¶ [0199]-[0204]; i.e. verifying and certifying the trained model at model inventory at least using the certification parameters);
generating a verifiable credential based on the evaluation satisfying the rubric, the verifiable credential stored in a credential registry (FIG. 4-5, ¶ [0199]-[0204]; i.e. generating a certification for the AI/ML model based on the descriptive information of the AI/ML model); and
transmitting the verifiable credential to the requesting entity (FIG. 4-5, ¶ [0199]-[0204]; i.e. transmitting the certification to the AI/ML Management and Exposure functions).
Fan does not explicitly disclose selecting, based on the credential identifier, one or more tests for the AI agent, the one or more tests defining at least one evaluation component for at least one of bias detection, safety response, or performance accuracy; generating one or more prompts indicated by the one or more tests, the one or more prompts comprising at least one of a text-based query, a structured data input, or an application programming interface (API) call; communicating the one or more prompts to the verified instance of the AI agent; receiving, from the AI agent, one or more responses corresponding to the one or more prompts; evaluating the one or more responses according to a rubric of the one or more tests; the verifiable credential comprising a listing of identifiers of the one or more tests and a machine-readable record of the evaluation linked to the one or more responses from the AI agent.
However, Joty discloses selecting, based on the credential identifier, one or more tests for the software, the one or more tests defining at least one evaluation component for at least one of bias detection, safety response, or performance accuracy (FIG. 1-3, ¶ [0026], [0030]); generating one or more prompts indicated by the one or more tests, the one or more prompts comprising at least one of a text-based query, a structured data input, or an application programming interface (API) call (FIG. 4-5 &11, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]); communicating the one or more prompts to the verified instance of the software (FIG. 4-5 & 11, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]); receiving, from the software, one or more responses corresponding to the one or more prompts (FIG. 4-5 & 11, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]); evaluating the one or more responses according to a rubric of the one or more tests (FIG. 4-5, 9 & 12-13AB, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]); the verifiable credential comprising a listing of identifiers of the one or more tests and a machine-readable record of the evaluation linked to the one or more responses from the software (FIG. 4-5, 9 & 12-13AB, ¶ [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fan and Joty in order to ensure that AI models not only perform well on benchmarks but also behave reliably in real world applications (Joty, ¶ [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Fan in view of Joty discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising verifying that the instance of the AI agent as deployed matches the declaration of components of the AI agent based on at least one of stochastic probing of the instance of the AI agent as deployed or validation of a manifest represented by one or more components of the AI agent (Joty, FIG. 4-5, 9 & 12-13AB, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 13, Fan in view of Joty discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the rubric of the one or more tests corresponds to at least one of an accuracy, a precision, an F1 score, or a bias score of the one or more responses (Fan, ¶ [0318]-[0320]; Joty, FIG. 9 & 12, ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, Fan in view of Joty discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising generating the one or more prompts based on a prompt template and evaluation criteria for each test of the one or more tests (Joty, FIG, 13A-B, ¶ [0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Fan in view of Joty discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising generating a numeric score based on evaluating the one or more responses based on the rubric and generate the verifiable credential based on determining that the numeric score satisfies an accuracy threshold (Fan, ¶ [0318]-[0320]; Joty, FIG. 4-5, 9 & 12-13AB, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 17, Fan in view of Joty discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising generating a text description of a performance of the AI agent based on the evaluation of the one or more responses (Fan, ¶ [0199]-[0204]; Joty, FIG. 13A-B, ¶ [00184]).
Regarding claim 19, Fan discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors to (FIG. 11):
receive, from a requesting entity, a request to credential an artificial intelligence (AI) agent, the request comprising a fingerprint for the AI agent and a credential identifier for the credential (FIG. 4-5, ¶ [0180]-[0198]; i.e. receiving from the AI/ML Management and Exposure functions a request to verify and certify the AI/ML model wherein the request includes AI/ML ID, Application type/ID, certification parameters, etc.);
verify, using the fingerprint, that the AI agent as deployed matches a declaration of components of the AI agent (FIG. 4-5, ¶ [0199]-[0204]; i.e. verifying and certifying the trained model at model inventory at least using the certification parameters);
responsive to determining that the one or more responses satisfy, generate a verifiable credential based on the evaluation satisfying the rubric, the verifiable credential comprising an identifier of the evaluation and a machine-readable record of the evaluation (FIG. 4-5, ¶ [0199]-[0204]; i.e. generating a certification for the AI/ML model based on the descriptive information of the AI/ML model).
Fan does not explicitly disclose select, based on the credential identifier, an evaluation for the AI agent, the evaluation defining at least one evaluation component for at least one of bias detection, safety response, or performance accuracy; communicate one or more prompts representing the evaluation to the AI agent, the one or more prompts comprising at least one of a text-based query, a structured data input, or an application programming interface (API) call; receive, from the AI agent, one or more responses corresponding to the one or more prompts; determine whether the one or more responses corresponding to the evaluation satisfy a score threshold based on a rubric for evaluating the AI agent; and responsive to determining that the one or more responses satisfy the score threshold, generate certification.
However, Joty discloses select, based on the credential identifier, an evaluation for the software, one or more tests for the software, the evaluation defining at least one evaluation component for at least one of bias detection, safety response, or performance accuracy (FIG. 1-3, ¶ [0026], [0030]); communicate one or more prompts representing the evaluation to the software, the one or more prompts comprising at least one of a text-based query, a structured data input, or an application programming interface (API) call (FIG. 4-5 &11, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]); receive, from the software, one or more responses corresponding to the one or more prompts (FIG. 4-5 & 11, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]); determine whether the one or more responses corresponding to the evaluation satisfy a score threshold based on a rubric for evaluating the software (FIG. 4-5, 9 & 12-13AB, ¶ [0042], [0050]-[0053]); and responsive to determining that the one or more responses satisfy the score threshold, generate certification (FIG. 4-5, 9 & 12-13AB, ¶ [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fan and Joty in order to ensure that AI models not only perform well on benchmarks but also behave reliably in real world applications (Joty, ¶ [0002]-[0005]).
Claims 5, 8-10, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US 2025/0300899) in view of Joty et al. (US 2026/0228103 hereinafter Joty) and further in view of Zmijewski et al. US 2022/0108005 hereinafter Zmijewski).
Regarding claim 5, Fan in view of Joty discloses the system of claim 1.
Fan in view Joty does not explicitly disclose wherein, for each test of the one or more tests, the one or more processors are to generate a cryptographic hash based on an output of evaluating the one or more responses and append the cryptographic hash to a record for the verifiable credential.
However, Zmijewski discloses wherein, for each test of the one or more tests, the one or more processors are to generate a cryptographic hash based on an output of evaluating the one or more responses and append the cryptographic hash to a record for the verifiable credential (FIG. 1-3, ¶ [0028]-[0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fan, Joty and Zmijewski in order to prevent malicious attacks on the various elements of the software supply chain (Zmijewski, ¶ [0014]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Fan in view of Joty discloses the system of claim 1.
Fan in view Joty does not explicitly disclose wherein the verifiable credential comprises a cryptographic hash of the one or more responses.
However, Zmijewski discloses wherein the verifiable credential comprises a cryptographic hash of the one or more responses (FIG. 1-3, ¶ [0028]-[0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fan, Joty and Zmijewski in order to prevent malicious attacks on the various elements of the software supply chain (Zmijewski, ¶ [0014]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Fan in view of Joty discloses the system of claim 1.
Fan in view Joty does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are to generate a second request to credential the AI agent based on generating a cryptographic hash of the declaration of components and determining that the cryptographic hash does not match a previous cryptographic hash associated with the AI agent.
However, Zmijewski discloses wherein the one or more processors are to generate a second request to credential the AI agent based on generating a cryptographic hash of the declaration of components and determining that the cryptographic hash does not match a previous cryptographic hash associated with the AI agent (FIG. 1-3, ¶[0014]-[0015], [0022], [0028]-[0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fan, Joty and Zmijewski in order to prevent malicious attacks on the various elements of the software supply chain (Zmijewski, ¶ [0014]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 10, Fan in view of Joty discloses the system of claim 1.
Fan in view Joty does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are to assign a digital signature to the verifiable credential.
However, Zmijewski discloses wherein the one or more processors are to assign a digital signature to the verifiable credential (FIG. 1-3, ¶ [0028]-[0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fan, Joty and Zmijewski in order to prevent malicious attacks on the various elements of the software supply chain (Zmijewski, ¶ [0014]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 15, see claim 5 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 9 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 20, Fan in view of Joty discloses the system of claim 19.
Fan in view Joty does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are to trigger verification of the AI agent based at least on detection of a change in the components of the AI agent.
However, Zmijewski discloses wherein the one or more processors are to trigger verification of the AI agent based at least on detection of a change in the components of the AI agent (FIG. 1-3, ¶[0014]-[0015], [0022], [0028]-[0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fan, Joty and Zmijewski in order to prevent malicious attacks on the various elements of the software supply chain (Zmijewski, ¶ [0014]-[0015]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI D NGUY whose telephone number is (571)270-7311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/C.D.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights