Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/570,053

Artificial Intelligence Agent Platform with a Real-Time Security and Compliance Enforcement Layer

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Priority
Jan 08, 2024 — CIP of 12/450,570 +2 more
Examiner
KIM, TAE K
Art Unit
2496
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Intellectus Partners LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
502 granted / 672 resolved
+16.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
704
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.4%
-27.6% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 672 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION This Action is in consideration of the Applicant’s response on August 20, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 10, and 14 are amended by the Applicant. Claims 1 – 18, where Claims 1 and 10 are in independent form, are presented for examination. 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 1. Regarding Claims 1 and 10, the amendment recites “wherein constructing the prompt package comprises retrieving candidate contextual data elements from a data store…evaluating each retrieved candidate contextual data element of the plurality of candidate contextual data elements against the security decision record, and excluding from the prompt package each candidate contextual data element not authorized by the security decision record[.]” However, it is not clear how “the plurality of candidate contextual data elements” are applied within the claim. Are the plurality of candidate contextual data elements referring to the elements in the data store or the retrieved candidate contextual data elements. Likewise, it is not clearly indicated that the candidate contextual data element(s) that are excluded are from the same “retrieved candidate contextual data elements.” 2. Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation " the plurality of candidate contextual data elements " in which the plurality is not previously recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 3. Regarding Claims 1 and 10, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claims recite the broad recitation of various enforcement actions to produce a compliant output, and the claim also recites that one of the enforcement actions is to block the candidate output, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. 4. Regarding Claims 1 and 10, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claims recite “analyzing…the candidate output to detect whether the candidate output violates a security constraint, a privacy constraint, or a regulatory constraint,” and the claim also recites that “releasing…only an output that satisfies the security constraint, the privacy constraint, and the regulatory constraint,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The released output is claimed to satisfy all three (3) constraints, whereas the analyzing requires only one of the constraints. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. 5. Regarding Claims 2 – 9 and 11 – 18, the claims are rejected based on their dependency of Claims 1 and 10 and under the same rationales indicated above. 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. Contacts Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE K KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30. 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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 5712727642. 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. /TAE K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 17, 2026
Application Filed
May 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 20, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 15, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12755023
Non-Intrusive Method of Detecting Security Flaws of a Computer Program
2y 1m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12739258
Computer Network Security
3y 11m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12719906
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED CYBER SECURITY AND CONTROL MONITORING
5y 1m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12717883
IMAGING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM
3y 12m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12695607
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT PROTECTION USING STACKED DIES
3y 8m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+5.1%)
3y 6m (~2y 11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 672 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month