Application/Control Number: 09/225,198
`Art Unit: 2126
`
`Page 13
`
`As to claim 64-69, refer to claims 15-25 for rejection.
`
`As to claim 70, MARTIN1 teaches the agent registry (agent library / list of agent
`
`capabilities) is a database accessible to all electronic agents (pg. 5, A collection of
`
`agents satisfies requests from users, or other agents... one or more facilitators."; "An
`
`agent satisfying a request may require supporting information.., requesting data from
`
`other agents or from the user.").
`
`As to claim 72, refer to claim 48 for rejection.
`
`As to claims 73 and 74, refer to claims 49 and 50 for rejection.
`
`As to claims 75-78, refer to claims 51-54 for rejection.
`
`As to claims 79-83, refer to claims 54-60 for rejection.
`
`As to claims 84 and 85, MARTIN2 teaches that facilitator engines (broker agents)
`
`are distributed across at least two computer processes (multiple broker agents in an
`
`architecture) (pg 7, pg. 16) wherein each stores a planning component (schema
`
`mapping rules) (pg. 8).
`
`It would be obvious that since the broker performs the
`
`delegation that it also has an execution component and therefore each broker agent has
`
`an execution component.
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 590
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1751
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/225,198
`Art Unit: 2126
`
`Page 14
`
`As to claim 87, MARTIN1 teaches a representation of a request for service in the
`
`inter-agent language from a first agent (client agent sending a query) to a second agent
`
`(facilitator) (pg. 5). It would be obvious and well known in the art that one skilled in the
`
`art would generate program code on a data wave carrier that would entail the method of
`
`MARTIN 1 and thereby obvious that the method can be entailed in a data wave carrier.
`
`As to claim 88, MARTIN1 teaches a representation of a goal dispatched to an
`
`agent for performance from a facilitator agent (every agent can request solutions for a
`
`set of goals / facilitator is responsible for breaking them down and for distributing sub-
`
`requests to the appropriate agent) (pg. 5). It would be obvious and well known in the art
`
`that one skilled in the art would generate program code on a data wave carrier that
`
`would entail the method of MARTIN 1 and thereby obvious that the method can be
`
`entailed in a data wave carrier.
`
`As to claim 89, It is well known in the art to one skilled in the art that an agent
`
`can send back a response after processing the request. It would be obvious and well
`
`known in the art that one skilled in the art would generate program code on a data wave
`
`carrier that would entail the method of MARTIN1 and thereby obvious that the method
`
`can be entailed in a data wave carrier.
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 591
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1752
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/225,198
`Art Unit: 2126
`
`Page 15
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`4.
`
`Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-89 have been considered but are
`
`moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Lewis A. Bullock, Jr. whose telephone number is (703)
`
`305-0439. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00
`
`pm.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Alvin E. Oberley can be reached on (703) 305-9716. The fax phone
`
`numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703)
`
`746-7239 for regular communications and (703) 746-7238 for After Final
`
`communications.
`
`Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or
`
`proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-
`
`0286.
`
`lab
`February 21, 2003
`
`ALVIN OBERLEY
`SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMNR
`TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2100
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 592
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1753
`
`

`

`Notice of References Cited
`
`Document Number
`Country Code-Number-Kind Code
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY
`
`Application/Control No. 9
`
`09/225,198
`Examiner
`Examiner
`
`Lewis A. Bullock, Jr.
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Name
`
`A US-5,802,396
`
`B US-5,638,494
`
`09-1998
`
`Gray, Thomas A.
`
`06-1997
`
`Pinard et al.
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination
`CHEYER ET AL.
`A
`Art Unit
`
`2126
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`Classification
`
`710/20
`
`709/202
`
`C Us-
`
`o
`
`US-
`
`E US-
`
`F
`
`US-
`
`G US-
`
`H US-
`I US-
`
`J
`
`US-
`
`K US-
`
`L US-
`
`M US-
`
`*
`
`Document Number
`Country Code-Number-Kind Code
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY
`
`Country
`
`Name
`
`Classification
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
`Include as applicable: Author, Tite Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
`
`N 0 P Q R S T
`
`U
`
`V
`
`w
`
`X
`
`*
`
`*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
`Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001)
`
`Notice
`
`f R ference,
`
`sCited
`
`Part of Paper No. 8
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 593
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1754
`
`

`

`Application Number
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`Confirmation Number
`to STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`Filing Date
`C Form PTO-1449 (Modified)
`First Named Inventor
`(UeGroup
`Art Unit
`'(Use several sheets if necessary)GruAtUnt25
`Examiner Name
`Attorney Docket No.
`
`1
`
`of
`
`PLETE IF KNOWN
`09/225,798
`
`January 5, 1999
`Cheyer
`25
`
`Unassigned
`-
`59501-8016.USO1
`
`,
`
`-
`
`-"
`
`(0.
`-
`
`/
`
`,
`
`2
`
`"C>
`
`1 1 3
`
`Z
`
`t
`
`U.S. Patent or Application
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Examiner
`Injtials
`'L"
`
`Cite
`No.
`1
`
`NUMBER
`5,197,005
`
`Kind Code
`(if known)
`
`Name of Patentee or Inventor
`of Cited Document
`Schwartz et al.
`
`5,386,556
`2
`3
`5,434,777
`5,519,608
`4
`5,608,624
`5
`5,721,938
`6
`5,729,659
`7
`5,748,974
`8
`5,774,859
`9
`10 5,794,050
`
`Hedin et al.
`Luciw
`Kupiec
`Luciw
`Stuckey
`Potter
`Johnson
`Houser et al.
`Dahlgren et al.
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Foreign Patent or Application
`
`Examiner
`Cite
`Initial
`No.
`Office
`11 WO
`/'11
`lzq5 12 EP
`
`Kind Code
`(if known)
`
`NUMBER
`00/11869
`0 803 826 A2
`
`Name of Patentee or Applicant
`of Cited Document
`Ellis et al.
`Lindblad et al.
`
`_.,____
`
`Date of
`Publication or
`Filing Date
`of Cited
`Document
`3/23/93
`
`1/31/95
`7/18/95
`5/21/96
`3/4/97
`2/24/98
`3/17/98
`5/5/98
`6/30/98
`8/11/98
`
`Date of
`Publication or
`Filing Date
`of Cited
`Document
`3/2/00
`10/29/97
`
`Pages, Columns, Lines,
`Where Relevant
`Figures Appear
`
`Pages, Columns, Lines,
`Where Relevant
`Figures Appear
`
`Examiner
`Initials
`
`OTHER PRIOR ART-NON PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS
`Include name of the author (in CAPITAL LETTERS), title of the article (when appropriate), title of the item
`(book, magazine, journal, serial, symposium, catalog, etc.), date, page(s), volume issue number(s), publisher, city
`and/or country where published.
`John et al., "Gemini: A Natural Language System For Spoken-Language
`vDowding,
`13 Understanding", SRI International
`
`Cite
`No.
`
`T
`
`T
`
`http:l/www.ai.sri.com/-oaa/infowiz.html, "InfoWiz: An Animated Voice Interactive
`Information System, May 8, 2000
`14
`Dowding, John, "Interleaving Syntax and Semantics in an Efficient Bottom-up
`1
`15 Parser", SRI International
`
`Moore, Robert et al., "Combining Linguistic and Statistical Knowledge Sources in a
`16 Natural-Language Processing for ATIS", SRI International
`
`DATE CONSIDERED
`
`*EXAMINER:
`
`Initial if reference considered, whether or not criteria is in conformance with MPEP 609. Draw line through citation if not in conformance and not
`of this form with next communication to application s).
`considered, Include co
`
`BY022180
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 594
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1755
`
`

`

`*PLETE
`
`IF KNOWN
`
`_& CZ
`
`,
`
`J P
`
`I..7
`
`Pages, Columns, Lines,
`Where Relevant
`Figures Appear
`
`o
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`STATEMENT
`BY APPLICANT
`Form PTO-1449 (Modified)
`g (Use several sheets if necessary)
`
`'
`
`-
`
`6SI~eet
`
`2
`
`of
`
`2-
`
`09/225,198
`
`Application Number
`Confirmation Number
`Cofrmto NubePPLICANT__________
`Filing Date
`January 5, 1999
`First Named Inventor
`Cheyer
`Group Art Unit
`2755
`Examiner Name
`Unassigned
`59501-8016.US01
`Attorney Docket No.
`
`U.S. Patent or Application
`
`Kind Code
`(if k own)
`
`Examiner
`Initials
`A4
`$VA
`
`/W
`
`A164
`/0"A
`
`Cite
`NUMBER
`No.
`17 5,802,526
`18 6,192,338
`19 6,173,279
`20 5,805,775
`5,855,002
`21
`22 5,890,123
`23 5,963,940
`24 6,003,072
`25 6,012,030
`26 6,026,388
`27 6,080,202
`28 6,021,427
`29 6,338,081
`30 6,144,989
`31 6,226,666
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Name of Patentee or Inventor
`of Cited Document
`Fawcett et al.
`Haszto et al.
`Levin et al.
`Eberman et al.
`Armstrong
`Brown et al.
`Liddy et al.
`Gerritsen et al
`French-St. George et al.
`Liddy et al.
`
`Strickland et al.
`Spagna et al.
`Furusawa et al.
`Hodjat et al.
`Chang et al.
`
`Date of
`Publication or
`Filing Date
`of Cited
`Document
`9/1/98
`2/2001
`1/2001
`9/8/98
`12/29/98
`3/30/99
`10/5/99
`12/14/99
`1/4/00
`2/15/00
`6/27/00
`1/1/00
`
`OTHER PRIOR ART-NON PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS
`Include name of the author (in CAPITAL LETTERS), title of the article (when appropriate), title of the item
`Cite
`(book, magazine, journal, serial, symposium, catalog, etc.), date, page(s), volume issue number(s), publisher, city
`No.
`and/or country where published.
`32 Stent, Amanda et al., "The CommandTalk Spoken Dialog System", SRI International
`
`T
`
`Examiner
`Initials
`
`lv
`
`Moore, Robert et al., "CommandTalk: A Spoken-Language Interface for Battlefield
`33 Simulations:, October 23, 1997, SRI International
`
`Dowding, John et al., "Interpreting Language in Context in CommandTalk",
`34 February 5, 1999, SRI International
`
`EXAMINER
`
`DATE CONSIDERED
`
`*EXAMINER:
`
`Initial if reference considered, whether or not criteria is in conformance with MPEP 609. Draw line through citation if not in conformance and not
`considered. Include copy of this form with next communication to application(s).
`
`BY022180
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 595
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1756
`
`

`

`qV
`
`PATENT
`
`IN THE'UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.: 59501.8016. US01
`EXAMINER: LEWIS ALEXANDER BULLOCK JR.
`ART UNIT: 2126
`
`IN RE APPLICATION OF:'
`
`ADAM CHEYER ET AL.
`APPLICATION No.: 09/225,198
`FILING DATE: JANUARY 5, 1999
`
`FOR: SOFTWARE-BASED ARCHITECTURE FOR
`COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION AMONG
`DISTRIBUTED ELECTRONIC AGENTS
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Patents
`Washington, D.C. 20231
`
`Chance of Address
`
`RECEIVED
`MAY 0 1 2003
`Technology Center 2100
`
`Effective immediately, please direct all further communications in the above-
`identified patent application to the following address:
`
`Brian R. Coleman
`Patent Attorney
`Perkins Coie LLP
`P. 0. Box 2168
`Menlo Park, CA 95026-2168
`
`Date:A2
`
`Correspondence Address:
`Customer No. 22918
`Perkins Coie LLP
`P. 0. Box 2168
`Menlo Park, California 94026-2168
`(650) 838-4300
`
`[09901-0001 /BY031070.131 ]
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Brian R. Coleman
`Registration No. 39,145
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 596
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1757
`
`

`

`0
`
`UNITED STATEs PATENT AND TRADEMARK OmFFE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COIMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Addro COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS
`P.O. Box 1450
`*, V
`Akrx=
`,..o.ptO gov
`
`ia 22313-1450
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`09/225,198
`
`FILING DATE
`
`01/05/1999
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.T- CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`ADAM J. CHEYER
`
`SRIIP016
`
`2756
`
`7590
`22918
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`P.O. BOX 2168
`MENLO PARK, CA 94026
`
`06103/2003
`
`EXAMINER
`
`BULLOCK JR, LEWIS ALEXANDER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2126
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`0
`
`DATE MAILED: 06/03/2003
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. 07-01)
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 597
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1758
`
`

`

`Bi
`
`interview Summary
`
`a
`
`Application N .
`
`09/225,198
`Examiner
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`CHEYER ET AL.
`Art Unit
`
`Lewis A. Bullock, Jr.
`
`2126
`
`All participants (applicant, applicant's representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1) Lewis A. Bullock, Jr..
`
`(2) Corina Tan.
`
`Date of Interview: 2/29/03.
`
`(3).
`
`(4)_
`
`Type: a)N Telephonic b)LI Video Conference
`c)LI Personal [copy given to: 1 )[- applicant
`
`2)-I applicant's representative]
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted: d)[I Yes
`If Yes, brief description: _
`
`e)[ No.
`
`Claim(s) discussed: Claim 1.
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Martin.
`
`Agreement with respect to the claims f)[-- was reached. g)[ was not reached. h)EI N/A.
`
`Substance of Interview including description of the general nature of what was agreed to if an agreement was
`reached, or any other comments: See Continuation Sheet.
`
`(A fuller description, if necessary, and a copy of the amendments which the examiner agreed would render the claims
`allowable, if available, must be attached. Also, where no copy of the amendments that would render the claims
`allowable is available, a summary thereof must be attached.)
`
`THE FORMAL WRITTEN REPLY TO THE LAST OFFICE ACTION MUST INCLUDE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
`INTERVIEW. (See MPEP Section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, APPLICANT IS
`GIVEN ONE MONTH FROM THIS INTERVIEW DATE TO FILE A STATEMENT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
`INTERVIEW. See Summary of Record of Interview requirements on reverse side or on attached sheet.
`
`Examiner Note: You must sign this form unless it is an
`Attachment to a signed Office action.
`
`Examiners signature, if required
`
`U.S. Patent and Tradeark Office
`PTO-413 (Rev. 04-03)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p.
`
`Paper No. 10.
`598
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1759
`
`

`

`Summary of Record of Interview Requirements
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Section 713.04, Substance of Interview Must be Made of Record
`A complete written statement as to the substance of any face-to-face, video conference, or telephone interview with regard to an application must be made of record in the
`application whether or not an agreement with the examiner was reached at the interview.
`
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews
`Paragraph (b)
`In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as
`warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office action as specified in §§ 1.111, 1.135. (35 U.S.C. 132)
`
`37 CFR §1.2 Business to be transacted in writing.
`All business with the Patent or Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Patent and
`Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to
`any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt.
`
`The action of the Patent and Trademark Office cannot be based exclusively on the written record in the Office if that record is itself
`incomplete through the failure to record the substance of interviews.
`It is the responsibility of the applicant or the attorney or agent to make the substance of an interview of record in the application file, unless
`the examiner indicates he or she will do so. It is the examiner's responsibility to see that such a record is made and to correct material inaccuracies
`which bear directly on the question of patentability.
`Examiners must complete an Interview Summary Form for each interview held where a matter of substance has been discussed during the
`interview by checking the appropriate boxes and filling in the blanks. Discussions regarding only procedural matters, directed solely to restriction
`requirements for which interview recordation is otherwise provided for in Section 812.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, or pointing
`out typographical errors or unreadable script in Office actions or the like, are excluded from the interview recordation procedures below. Where the
`substance of an interview is completely recorded in an Examiners Amendment, no separate Interview Summary Record is required.
`The Interview Summary Form shall be given an appropriate Paper No., placed in the right hand portion of the file, and listed on the
`"Contents" section of the file wrapper. In a personal interview, a duplicate of the Form is given to the applicant (or attorney or agent) at the
`conclusion of the interview. In the case of a telephone or video-conference interview, the copy is mailed to the applicant's correspondence address
`either with or prior to the next official communication. If additional correspondence from the examiner is not likely before an allowance or if other
`circumstances dictate, the Form should be mailed promptly after the interview rather than with the next official communication.
`
`The Form provides for recordation of the following information:
`-
`Application Number (Series Code and Serial Number)
`-
`Name of applicant
`-
`Name of examiner
`-
`Date of interview
`-
`Type of interview (telephonic, video-conference, or personal)
`Name of participant(s) (applicant, attomey or agent, examiner, other PTO personnel, etc.)
`-
`An indication whether or not an exhibit was shown or a demonstration conducted
`-
`-
`An identification of the specific prior art discussed
`An indication whether an agreement was reached and if so, a description of the general nature of the agreement (may be by
`-
`attachment of a copy of amendments or claims agreed as being allowable). Note: Agreement as to allowability is tentative and does
`not restrict further action by the examiner to the contrary.
`The signature of the examiner who conducted the interview (if Form is not an attachment to a signed Office action)
`
`-
`
`It is desirable that the examiner orally remind the applicant of his or her obligation to record the substance of the interview of each case. It
`should be noted, however, that the Interview Summary Form will not normally be considered a complete and proper recordation of the interview
`unless it includes, or is supplemented by the applicant or the examiner to include, all of the applicable items required below concerning the
`substance of the interview.
`
`A complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include at least the following applicable items:
`1) A brief description of the nature of any exhibit shown or any demonstration conducted,
`2) an identification of the claims discussed,
`3) an identification of the specific prior art discussed,
`4) an identification of the principal proposed amendments of a substantive nature discussed, unless these are already described on the
`Interview Summary Form completed by the Examiner,
`5) a brief identification of the general thrust of the principal arguments presented to the examiner,
`(The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the arguments is not
`required. The identification of the arguments is sufficient if the general nature or thrust of the principal arguments made to the
`examiner can be understood in the context of the application file. Of course, the applicant may desire to emphasize and fully
`describe those arguments which he or she feels were or might be persuasive to the examiner.)
`6) a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed, and
`7) if appropriate, the general results or outcome of the interview unless already described in the Interview Summary Form completed by
`the examiner.
`
`Examiners are expected to carefully review the applicant's record of the substance of an interview. If the record is not complete and
`accurate, the examiner will give the applicant an extendable one month time period to correct the record.
`
`Examiner t Check for Accuracy
`
`If the claims are allowable for other reasons of record, the examiner should send a letter setting forth the examiners version of the
`statement attributed to him or her. If the record is complete and accurate, the examiner should place the indication, 'Interview Record OK" on the
`paper recording the substance of the interview along with the date and the examiner's initials.
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 599
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1760
`
`

`

`)
`
`Continuati n She t (PTO-413)
`
`Application N . 09/225,198
`
`Continuation of Substance of Interview including description of the general nature of what was agreed to if an
`agreement was reached, or any other comments: Applicant proposed amending the claims such that the goal
`satisfaction plan entails the facilitating engine using "reasoning that includes one or more of domain-independent
`coordination strategies, domain-specific reasoning, and application-specific reasoning comprising rules and learning
`algorithms. Applicant argues this is quite different then the query execution plan as detailed in Martin. The examiner
`will consider the amendments in view of the prior art of record in responding in the subsequent action. The interview
`concluded.
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 600
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1761
`
`

`

`4
`
`Attorney DocKet No. 59501-8016.US01
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (37 CFR 1.8(a))
`rev
`"
`*Mreby certify that this paper (along with any referred to as being attached or enclosed) is being deposited with the U.S. Postal Service
`as first class mail in an envelope addressed to: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alxandria. VA 22313-10.
`
`Date: l,,ne 3 2003
`
`Applicants:
`Application No.:
`Filed:
`Examiner:
`Group Art Unit
`For:
`
`_______________0______
`
`own
`
`/ " Shary
`CHEYER et al.
`09/225,198
`January 5, 1999
`L. A. Bullock, Jr.
`Technology Center 2100
`2151
`SOFTWARE-BASED ARCHITECTURE FOR
`COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION
`AMONG DISTRIBUTED ELECTRONIC AGENTS
`
`RECEIVED
`JUN 1 6 2003
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`TRANSMITTAL FOR AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE AND
`COMPUTER PROGRAM LISTING APPENDIX SUBMITTED ON COMPACT DISC
`
`Transmitted herewith are the following:
`Amendment and Response
`Copy 1 and Copy 2 of Compact Disc both containing the identical contents of
`Appendix A as filed with the patent application on January 5, 1999.
`Amended first page of Specification
`[]
`IDS, 1449 and 3 references
`[]
`Machine format is ISO-9660 file system:
`Size
`File Name
`159,613 bytes
`oaa.pl
`52,733 bytes
`42,937 bytes
`18,010 bytes
`
`Creation Date
`1996/10/08
`1997/04/24
`
`1996/12/11
`1998/02/10
`
`Last Date
`1998/12/23
`
`1998/05/06
`1998/04/10
`1998/05/06
`
`Z
`[]
`
`fac.pl
`
`compound.pl
`
`com_tcp.pl
`
`Sir:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Fee Authorization
`Applicants believe that there is no fee due, however, the Commissioner is authorized to
`charge any underpayment of fees to Deposit Account No. 50-2207. This paper is
`submitted in duplicate.
`
`Date: June 3, 2003
`
`59501-8018.US01
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Perkins Coie LLP
`
`LXG~>1'24 7~K
`
`Carina M. Tan
`Registration No. 45,769
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 601
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1762
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 59501-8016.US01
`
`Correspondence Address:
`Customer No. 22918
`Perkins Coie LLP
`P. O. Box 2168
`Menlo Park, California 94026-2168
`(650) 838-4300
`
`59501-8018.USOI
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 602
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1763
`
`

`

`(9-
`
`Please forward to Group Art Unit a7J5
`
`Amended Compact Discs
`
`EXAMINER NOTE: THIS PAPER IS AN INTERNAL WORKSHEET ONLY. DO NOT ENCLOSE
`WITH ANY COMMUNICATION TO THE APPLICANT. ITS PURPOSE IS ONLY THAT OF AN
`AID IN HIGHLIGHTING A PARTICULAR PROBLEM IN A COMPACT DISC.
`
`THE ATTACHED CD (COPY 1) HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY OIPE FOR
`COMPLIANCE WITH 37 CFR 1.52(E). Please match this CD with
`the application listed below.
`
`Date:
`Serial No./Control No.
`Reviewed By:
`
`1uV q1
`
`Phone
`
`: 05 30f?'
`
`The compact discs are readable and acceptable.
`
`[D Copy 1 and Copy 2 of the compact discs are not the same.
`
`LII The compact discs are unreadable.
`
`[I The files on the compact discs are not in ASCII.
`
`[I The compact discs contain at least one virus.
`
`Other
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 603
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1764
`
`

`

`I
`
`At,
`
`JUN 0 6 0
`
`A,
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal
`in an envelope addressed to: Commissioner for Patents,
`Service as first class mail
`P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`on
`
`June 3. 2003
`
`by
`
`/
`
`1 ylBrown
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`(2-3/,A-3
`
`21-03
`
`In re application of:
`
`CHEYER et al.
`
`Serial No.: 09/225,198
`
`Filed on: January 5, 1999
`
`Atty Dkt. No. 59501-8016.USO1
`
`Group Art Unit No.: 2151
`
`Examiner: L. A. Bullock, Jr.
`
`For:
`
`SOFTWARE-BASED ARCHITECTURE FOR COMMUNICATION AND
`COOPERATION AMONG DISTRIBUTED ELECTRONIC AGENTS
`
`Commissioner of Patents
`Washington, D.C. 20231
`
`AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE
`
`"I
`
`kscso2
`
`jzz \JA0
`
`This is in response to the Office Action mailed March 3, 2003, the shortened statutory
`
`period for which runs until June 3, 2003.
`
`IN THE SPECIFICATION
`
`Enclosed is substitute Page 1 of the specification which has been amended to identify the
`
`-
`
`compact disk and lists the file names, size, and creation date of each file.
`
`59501-8016.USO1
`
`Serial No. 09/225,198
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 604
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1765
`
`

`

`IN THE CLAIMS
`
`Please amend Claims 1, 29, 61, 71 and 86. The claim amendments are submitted in
`
`"revised amendment format" as described in AMENDMENTS INA REVISED FORMATNOW
`
`PERMITTED, signed January 31, 2003, and published in Official Gazette on February 25, 2003.
`
`59501-8016.USO1
`
`Serial No. 09/225,198
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 605
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1766
`
`

`

`9 C
`
`LA]M AMENDMENTS
`A computer-implemented method for communication and
`
`1. (Currently Amended)
`cooperative task completion among a plurality of distributed electronic agents, comprising the
`acts of:
`registering a description of each active client agent's functional capabilities as corresponding
`
`registered functional capabilities, using an expandable, platform-independent, inter-agent
`
`language;
`receiving a request for service as a base goal in the inter-agent language, in the form of an
`arbitrarily complex goal expression; and
`
`dynamically interpreting the arbitrarily complex goal expression, said act of interpreting further
`comprising:
`generating one or more sub-goals expressed in the inter-agent language;
`
`constructing a goal satisfaction plan that includs said one or more sub goals;
`
`,a wherein the
`
`goal satisfaction plan includes:
`
`a suitable delegation of sub-goal requests to best complete the requested
`service request-by using reasoning that includes one or more of
`domain-independent coordination strategies, domain-specific
`
`reasoning, and application-specific reasoning comprising rules and
`learning algorithms; and
`
`dispatching each of the sub-goals to a selected client agent for performance, based on a match
`between the sub-goal being dispatched and the registered functional capabilities of the selected
`
`client agent.
`
`2. (Previously Amended)
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 1, further
`
`including the following acts of:
`
`receiving a new request for service as a base goal using the inter-agent language, in the form of
`
`another arbitrarily complex goal expression, from at least one of the selected client agents in
`response to the sub-goal dispatched to said agent; and
`
`recursively applying the step of dynamically interpreting the arbitrarily complex goal expression
`
`in order to perform the new request for service.
`
`59501-8016.USO1
`
`3
`
`Serial No. 09/225,198
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 606
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1767
`
`

`

`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 2 wherein the
`3. (Previously Amended)
`act of registering a specific agent further includes:
`
`invoking the specific agent in order to activate the specific agent;
`
`instantiating an instance of the specific agent; and
`transmitting the new agent profile from the specific agent to a facilitator agent in response to the
`instantiation of the specific agent.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 1 further including the act of
`4.
`deactivating a specific client agent no longer available to provide services by deleting the
`registration of the specific client agent.
`
`5.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 1 further comprising the act of
`providing an agent registry data structure.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 5 wherein the agent registry data
`6.
`structure includes at least one symbolic name for each active agent.
`
`7.
`
`A computer-implemented method of recited in claim 5 wherein the agent registry data
`structure includes at least one data declaration for each active agent.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 5 wherein the agent registry data
`8.
`structure includes at least one trigger declaration for one active agent.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 5 wherein the agent registry data
`9.
`structure includes at least one task declaration, and process characteristics for each active agent.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 5 wherein the agent registry data
`10.
`structure includes at least one process characteristic for each active agent.
`
`59501-8016.USO1
`
`4
`
`Serial No. 09/225,198
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 607
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1768
`
`

`

`0
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 1 further comprising the act of
`11.
`establishing communication between the plurality of distributed agents.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 1 further comprising the acts of:
`12.
`receiving a request for service in a second language differing from the inter-agent language;
`selecting a registered agent capable of converting the second language into the inter-agent
`language; and
`forwarding the request for service in a second language to the registered agent capable of
`converting the second language into the inter-agent language, implicitly requesting that such a
`conversion be performed and the results returned.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 12 wherein the request includes a
`13.
`natural language query, and the registered agent capable of converting the second language into
`the inter-agent language service is a natural language agent.
`
`14.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 13 wherein the natural language
`
`query was generated by a user interface agent.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 1, wherein the base goal requires
`15.
`setting a trigger having conditional functionality and consequential functionality.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 15 wherein the trigger is an
`16.
`outgoing communications trigger, the computer implemented method further including the acts
`of:
`monitoring all outgoing communication events in order to determine whether a specific outgoing
`communication event has occurred; and
`in response to the occurrence of the specific outgoing communication event, performing the
`particular action defined by the trigger.
`
`59501-8016.USO1
`
`5
`
`Serial No. 09/225,198
`
`DISH, Exh. 1008, p. 608
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1008, p. 1769
`
`

`

`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 15 wherein the trigger is an
`17.
`incoming communications trigger, the computer implemented method further including the acts
`
`of:
`monitoring all incoming communication events in order to determine whether a specific
`incoming communication event has occurred; and
`in response to the occurrence of a specific incoming communication event satisfying the trigger
`
`conditional functionality, performing the particular consequential functionality defined by the
`
`trigger.
`
`18.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 15 wherein the trigger is a data
`
`trigger, the computer implemented method further including the acts of:
`monitoring a state of a data repository; and
`
`in response to a particular state event satisfying the trigger conditional functionality, performing
`the particular consequential functionality defined by the trigger.
`
`19.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 15 wherein the trigger is a time
`
`trigger, the computer implemented method further including the acts of:
`
`monitoring for the occurrence of a particular time condition; and
`in response to the occurrence of a particular time condition satisfying the trigger conditional
`
`functionality, performing the particular consequential functionality defined by the trigger.
`
`20.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 15 wherein the trigger is installed
`
`and executed within the facilitator agent.
`
`A computer-implemented method as recited in claim 15 wherein the trigger is installed
`21.
`a