DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-20, received 11 August 2026. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-20 is as follows:
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 August 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “evaluate, using an AI-based agent set configured to semi-autonomously or autonomously select one or more actions using an output of an artificial intelligence model”, however, it is unclear whether the claim indicates the use of output of a model to make a determination or training an agent with a model’s output.
Claims 7 and 14 rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding the dependent claims, the claims depend on independent claims 1, 7 and 14 such that the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 7 and 14 and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “evaluate, using an AI-based agent set configured to semi-autonomously or autonomously select one or more actions using an output of an artificial intelligence model”, however, the examiner is unable to find support for said feature. After careful review of applicant’s specification, the examiner finds support for “automatically authorizes….via agentic models…..evaluate the request against the retrieved policy” (applicant’s specification [0039]), “evaluate, using an AI-based agent set (semi-autonomous or autonomous), the request against the access policy set” (applicant’s specification [0111]). There appears to be no teaching, suggestion or mention of selecting one or more actions using an output of an artificial intelligence model.
Claims 7 and 14 rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding the dependent claims, the claims depend on independent claims 1, 7 and 14 such that the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 7 and 14 and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1, 4, 7, 8, 10-12, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 117614677 A, hereafter referred to Xu) in view of Aiello et al (US 20230230075 A1, hereafter referred to as Aiello).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a system comprising:
at least one hardware processor (Xu [0019]); and at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions (Xu [0019]), which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (Xu [0019]), cause the system to:
obtain, from a first computing device of a first entity, a request to authorize usage of data associated with a second entity (Xu [0077] teaches a request to the server to use training data uploaded by a particular training provider [0051]), wherein the request includes (a) an identifier of the data (Xu [0078]) and (b) a requested access set associated with one or more requested interactions between the first entity and the data (Xu [0078] teaches the usage request includes access permission to the training data);
access, from a distributed database, a digital record linked to the identifier described in the request, wherein the digital record indicates a policy set that describes a series of permitted interactions between the first entity and the data (Xu [0082] teaches accessing a table from the contract state based on the data identifier of the training data and determines whether the training party has the requested access rights based on the authorization information);
evaluate, using an AI-based agent set configured to semi-autonomously or autonomously select one or more actions using an output of an artificial intelligence model (Xu [0080] teaches a permission determination function of a smart contract which returns information (“output”) [0084] based on a contract state [0082]), the request against the policy set by linking the one or more requested interactions of the request to one or more policies within the policy set (Xu [0082] teaches determining whether the training party has the requested access rights based on the authorization information);
cause generation of, using the AI-based agent set, one or more permitted interactions between the first entity and the data that satisfies the policy set (Xu [0082] teaches determining whether the training party has the requested access rights based on the authorization information wherein a determination is made the training device has the necessary permissions [0088]).
However, Xu does not explicitly teach maintain, within the distributed database, an artifact that includes a linkage of the one or more permitted interactions to the request.
Aiello, in an analogous art, teaches maintain, within the distributed database, an artifact that includes a linkage of the one or more permitted interactions to the request (Aiello [0134 and 0137] teaches updating a NFT linked with the access rights and storing the updated NFT and access rights on a blockchain for future reference).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to modify Xu in view of Aiello in order to configure the one or more permitted interactions that satisfies the policy set, as taught by Xu, to be maintained within the distributed database in an artifact including a linkage of the one or more permitted actions, as taught by Aiello.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order eliminate fraudulent content, to allow for transparency and traceability and permit secure and transparent record-keeping (Aiello [0125-0126]).
Regarding claim 4, Xu-Aiello teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Xu-Aiello teaches the system wherein the system is further caused to: encode information into the data by adjusting one or more portions of the data to embed a watermark (Xu [0092] teaches calculating a digital watermark and embedding the digital watermark in to relevant data); and associate the watermark with the artifact in the distributed database (Xu [0074] teaches watermarks are uploaded to the blockchain system after training is completed).
Regarding claim 7, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above regarding claim 1.
Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Xu-Aiello teaches the limitations of claim 7, as rejected above.
Additionally, Xu-Aiello teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium wherein the system is further caused to: cause the AI-based agent set to execute the one or more permitted interactions between the first entity and the data (Xu [0087-0088] teaches upon a determination a trainee has permission to use the service, providing training data to the training device).
Regarding claim 10, Xu-Aiello teaches the limitations of claim 7, as rejected above.
Additionally, Xu-Aiello teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium wherein the artifact is associated with a unique identifier (Xu [0084] teaches generating a receipt for the transaction which is stored in the blockchain [0085].
Regarding claim 11, Xu-Aiello teaches the limitations of claim 10, as rejected above.
Additionally, Xu-Aiello teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium wherein the system is further caused to: associate the artifact with a smart contract (Xu [0032] teaches a smart contract on a blockchain system, wherein the contract generate a receipt for transaction [0084]) configured to automatically execute one or more computer-implemented commands associated with the one or more permitted interactions (Xu [0087] teaches upon a determination the trainee has permission to use the service, pushing information indicating such).
Regarding claim 12, Xu-Aiello teaches the limitations of claim 7, as rejected above.
Additionally, Xu-Aiello teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium wherein the data represents one or more of: a patent, a copyright, or operational data associated with the second entity (Xu [0004, 0040] teaches training data associated with a training party).
Regarding claim 14, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above regarding claim 1.
Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues:
“First, as the parties discussed during the Interview, Xu fails to disclose evaluating, using an AI-based agent set (as opposed to a smart contract), the request against the policy set by linking the one or more requested interactions of the request to one or more policies within the policy set……Thus the cited portions of Xu fail to disclose the recited features of claim 1 as amended. Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection” Remarks pg 8-9
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner understands the claimed feature “evaluate, using an AI-based agent set configured to semi-autonomously or autonomously select one or more actions using an output of an artificial intelligence model” to indicate based upon broadest reasonable interpretation, in view of applicant’s specification, evaluating and automatically authorizing a request against a [retrieved] access policy set. Xu teaches automatically authorizing a request against a [retrieved] access policy set (Xu [0080] teaches a permission determination function of a smart contract which returns information (“output”) [0084] based on a contract state [0082]).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 14 and the dependent claims, applicant argues:
“Second, Aiello does not cure the deficiencies of Xu.……Accordingly, since the cited portions of Xu and Aiello fail to disclose these features as recited in claim 1 as amended, and described in Applicant's Specification, it is respectfully requested that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of independent claim 1 and each claim that depends therefrom be withdrawn. Independent claims 7 and 14 recite similar limitations and are patentable for at least the same reasons.” Remarks pg 9
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1, of which claims 7 and 14 have similar arguments and from which the dependent claims inherit.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11 August 2026 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed 11 August 2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9, 13, 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights