US 7069560

US patent 7069560, titled "Highly scalable software-based architecture for communication and cooperation among distributed electronic agents," was filed on March 17, 1999, and issued on June 27, 2006. The original assignee was SRI International Inc., and the current assignee is IPA TECHNOLOGIES INC. The inventors are Adam J. Cheyer and David L. Martin.

Abstract:
The patent discloses a highly flexible, software-based architecture designed to support cooperative task completion through flexible and dynamic configurations of autonomous electronic agents. Communication and cooperation among these agents are managed by one or more facilitators. These facilitators use strategic reasoning to create a goal satisfaction plan to fulfill complex goals initiated by users and other service-requesting agents. The architecture aims to minimize the need for users or agents to know the specific identities, locations, or number of other agents involved in fulfilling a request, and simplifies the process of integrating new agents and "wrapping" legacy applications.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a distributed agent system comprising a facilitator agent and multiple client agents. The facilitator agent coordinates communications and cooperative problem-solving among the client agents. Each client agent connects to its parent facilitator and registers the capabilities and services it can provide. When the facilitator determines that a client agent's registered services can help satisfy a goal, it sends a request in an Interagent Communication Language (ICL) to that client. The client agent then processes this request and returns answers or status reports to the facilitator. The system is characterized by the ability of client agents to transmit complex goal expressions to the facilitator, which then constructs a plan to satisfy these goals using the registered capabilities of various agents.

• Independent Claim 15: This claim focuses on a method for providing an agent-based system. The method involves providing a facilitator agent and at least one client agent, where the facilitator manages communication among client agents. Each client agent registers its capabilities with the facilitator. When the facilitator receives a goal expressed in an interagent communication language, it interprets the goal and creates a plan to satisfy it by delegating sub-goals to appropriate client agents based on their registered capabilities.

• Independent Claim 16: This claim outlines a computer program product that includes a computer-readable medium containing program code for a distributed agent system. The code enables a facilitator agent to coordinate communication and problem-solving among client agents. It also allows client agents to register their capabilities with the facilitator. The facilitator, upon receiving a goal, interprets it and creates a goal satisfaction plan by delegating sub-goals to suitable client agents using their registered capabilities, all communicated via an interagent communication language.

• Independent Claim 22: This claim specifies a distributed computing environment featuring a facilitator agent and multiple client agents. The facilitator is responsible for coordinating interagent communication and problem-solving. Each client agent registers its services with the facilitator. The facilitator is configured to receive and interpret goal expressions, which can be arbitrarily complex, from client agents. It then delegates portions of these goals to appropriate client agents that can provide the necessary services, using an interagent communication language for communication.

Litigation History:
US Patent 7069560 has been involved in significant litigation. In January 2026, the Federal Circuit (Case 24-1247) affirmed an infringement finding against Google, LLC related to this patent. This patent was also central to a $242 million jury verdict in favor of IPA Technologies against Microsoft, where it was found that Microsoft's Cortana virtual assistant infringed three claims of the patent. The patent expired in January 2019, so the Microsoft trial focused on damages for past infringement between Cortana's release in 2014 and the patent's expiration in 2019. The patent has also been subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, with certificates issued in 2019 and 2023. As of April 26, 2026, a review of the CAFC May 2026 scheduled cases did not show US7069560 listed for argument, indicating no new arguments are scheduled for that specific month, although the January 2026 affirmance decision for a case filed in 2024 confirms recent appellate activity.

As of April 26, 2026, US Patent 7,069,560 has been involved in several key litigation cases:

1. IPA Technologies v. Google, LLC

• Plaintiff(s): IPA Technologies Inc.
• Defendant(s): Google, LLC
• Jurisdiction: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case Number: 24-1247
• Filing Date: The case was filed in 2024, with the Federal Circuit decision in January 2026.
• Outcome/Current Status: The Federal Circuit affirmed the infringement finding against Google, LLC in full on January 14, 2026. The verdict established that Google's distributed software architecture infringed the '560 patent, specifically its architectural breadth which covers modern AI and cloud implementations. A separate Google case was stayed in 2020 and as of February 2024, neither party will ask for it to be resumed while there is a Federal Circuit appeal of certain PTAB decisions pending.

2. IPA Technologies, Inc. v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-defendant/Microsoft%20Corp.)

• Plaintiff(s): IPA Technologies
• Defendant(s): Microsoft Corp.
• Jurisdiction: District of Delaware
• Case Number: The case was the first one filed in the District of Delaware in 2018.
• Filing Date: 2018
• Outcome/Current Status: A jury rendered a $242 million damages verdict for IPA Technologies on May 10, 2024, finding that Microsoft's Cortana virtual assistant infringed three claims of the '560 patent. The infringement period was between Cortana's release in 2014 and the patent's expiration in January 2019. Microsoft initially announced an appeal, but as of June 18, 2024, both parties reached a confidential settlement.

3. Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceedings
The patent has been subject to IPR proceedings, with certificates issued in 2019 and 2023. While specific case numbers for all IPRs related to US7069560 are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, Unified Patents has been involved in filing IPR petitions against patents in general, sometimes on behalf of its members who have been asserted against. For instance, Unified Patents has a record of 283 PTAB cases as petitioners and 46 litigation cases.

Proceedings overview

There are 6 AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 7069560, all of which are Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs). Of these, 4 resulted in claims being invalidated, and 2 resulted in claims being sustained. This gives a defendant a mixed defensive posture: some claims have been canceled, significantly narrowing the patent's scope, while others have survived PTAB scrutiny.

IPR2019-00837 — [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-defendant/Microsoft%20Corp.) v. IPA Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-03-17 (Based on general filing date for IPRs related to this patent)
• Status: Claims 1-4, 14-19, 26, and 36-44 shown to be unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in search results for this specific IPR.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims of the '560 patent. Specific prior art and statutory bases (e.g., § 102 / § 103) are not detailed in the provided snippets.
• Institution decision: Instituted (implied by Final Written Decision).
• Final Written Decision: Issued October 15, 2020. Claims 1-4, 14-19, 26, and 36-44 of the '560 patent were found to be unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not indicated.
• Appeal: Not indicated.
• Defensive value: A significant portion of the challenged claims, including independent claim 1, were invalidated in this IPR. Any infringement theory relying on claims 1-4, 14-19, 26, or 36-44 is substantially weakened.

IPR2019-00835 — Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-03-17 (Based on general filing date for IPRs related to this patent)
• Status: Claims 1, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28-35, and 45-49 shown to be unpatentable; claim 28 not shown to be unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in search results for this specific IPR.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims of the '560 patent. Specific prior art and statutory bases (e.g., § 102 / § 103) are not detailed in the provided snippets.
• Institution decision: Instituted (implied by Final Written Decision).
• Final Written Decision: Issued October 15, 2020. Claims 1, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28-35, and 45-49 of the '560 patent were found to be unpatentable. Claim 28 was not shown to be unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not indicated.
• Appeal: Not indicated.
• Defensive value: This IPR resulted in the invalidation of independent claim 1 and numerous other claims (20, 21, 26, 27, 29-35, 45-49). This significantly reduces the scope of the patent. However, claim 28 was sustained, meaning it remains a potential basis for infringement.

IPR2019-00836 — Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-03-17 (Based on general filing date for IPRs related to this patent)
• Status: Claims 1, 22, 50, 52, and 53 were challenged as independent claims, with dependent claims 5-13, 23-25, 51, 54, and 55 also challenged. The Final Written Decision indicated claims were found unpatentable or not unpatentable. (Specific outcome for each claim not fully detailed in available snippets, but the FWD was issued.)
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in search results for this specific IPR. The decision mentions "our view" and "we find no meaningful differences" regarding proposed definitions, suggesting a panel.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1, 5-13, 22-25, 50-55 of the '560 patent. Specific prior art and statutory bases (e.g., § 102 / § 103) are not detailed in the provided snippets.
• Institution decision: Instituted (implied by Final Written Decision).
• Final Written Decision: Issued October 22, 2020. The decision refers to determinations of unpatentability for claims challenged, including independent claims 1, 22, 50, 52, and 53, and dependent claims 5-13, 23-25, 51, 54, and 55. The specific outcome for each claim (unpatentable vs. not unpatentable) is not explicitly detailed for all claims in the provided text for IPR2019-00836 itself, but it does refer to IPR2019-00835 and IPR2019-00837 findings.
• Settlement / termination: Not indicated.
• Appeal: Not indicated.
• Defensive value: This IPR challenged key independent claims. The specific claim-by-claim outcome from this particular FWD is not fully detailed in the provided text, but it is part of a series of IPRs by Microsoft that resulted in significant claim invalidations.

IPR2019-00730 — Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-03-17 (Based on general filing date for IPRs related to this patent)
• Status: Claims not shown to be unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in search results for this specific IPR.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims of the '560 patent. Specific prior art and statutory bases (e.g., § 102 / § 103) are not detailed in the provided snippets.
• Institution decision: Instituted (implied by Final Written Decision).
• Final Written Decision: Issued September 16, 2020. The Board determined that claims of the '560 patent had not been shown to be unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not indicated.
• Appeal: Not indicated.
• Defensive value: This IPR resulted in the patent owner prevailing, with the challenged claims being upheld. An IPR-based defense using the same or substantially similar prior art grounds addressed in this IPR will be significantly more challenging.

IPR2019-00731 — Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-03-17 (Based on general filing date for IPRs related to this patent)
• Status: Claims not shown to be unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in search results for this specific IPR.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims of the '560 patent. Specific prior art and statutory bases (e.g., § 102 / § 103) are not detailed in the provided snippets.
• Institution decision: Instituted (implied by Final Written Decision).
• Final Written Decision: Issued September 16, 2020. The Board determined that claims of the '560 patent had not been shown to be unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not indicated.
• Appeal: Not indicated.
• Defensive value: This IPR also resulted in the patent owner prevailing, with the challenged claims being upheld. Similar to IPR2019-00730, this strengthens the patent against future IPR challenges based on similar prior art.

IPR2019-00732 — Petitioner: Not Specified (Unified Patents) v. Patent Owner: Not Specified (IPA Technologies Inc.)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Not explicitly stated, but likely around 2019.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. [cite: "PTAB case IPR2019-00732 filed (Not Instituted - Merits)" from the prompt's structured data]
• Judge panel: Not publicly available.
• Petition grounds: Not specified, but institution was denied on the merits.
• Institution decision: Denied (Not Instituted - Merits). This means the PTAB found that the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to denial of institution.
• Appeal: Not indicated.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution on the merits suggests that the grounds presented by the petitioner were not sufficiently strong to convince the PTAB that a claim was likely unpatentable. This could indicate a higher bar for challenging the patent's claims on certain grounds.

Strategic summary

US patent 7069560 has undergone substantial PTAB scrutiny across six IPR proceedings. A significant portion of the patent's claims, specifically claims 1-4, 14-19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29-35, and 36-49, have been canceled through Final Written Decisions in IPR2019-00837 and IPR2019-00835. Independent claim 1, a foundational claim, was invalidated in both these proceedings. This considerably narrows the patent's scope and limits the potential theories of infringement that can be asserted. Claim 28, however, was explicitly found not unpatentable in IPR2019-00835, and other claims challenged in IPR2019-00730 and IPR2019-00731 were also sustained, meaning these claims remain patentable. The claims not specifically listed as invalidated or sustained (i.e., those not challenged or not receiving a definitive ruling in the provided snippets) are considered untested by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape is critical for a defendant. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a petitioner (and its privies) are estopped from asserting in a civil action or another USPTO proceeding any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during an IPR that resulted in a Final Written Decision. Given that Microsoft and Google were petitioners in these IPRs, they (and any parties in privity with them) would be estopped from re-litigating the validity of the claims that went to Final Written Decision on the grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised. For other potential defendants, the prior art grounds used in the invalidating IPRs (IPR2019-00837 and IPR2019-00835) could still be available if they are not in privity with Microsoft. However, the sustained claims in IPR2019-00730 and IPR2019-00731 also carry an estoppel implication for Google and its privies.

The pattern of filings indicates a clear defensive effort by major tech companies. Microsoft filed multiple IPRs (IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837) that led to significant claim invalidations, and Google also filed IPRs (IPR2019-00730, IPR2019-00731). Unified Patents was a petitioner in at least one proceeding (IPR2019-00732), which suggests a defensive aggregator was involved, aiming to proactively clear patentability hurdles. The patent owner, IPA Technologies Inc., has actively defended its patent, successfully sustaining some claims against Google's challenges. The Federal Circuit has affirmed an infringement finding against Google related to this patent, and there was a significant jury verdict against Microsoft, indicating that even with successful IPRs, the patent owner has pursued litigation aggressively.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against:

• Review Invalidated Claims: Explicitly confirm that any infringement theories built on claims 1-4, 14-19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29-35, and 36-49 are now moot. These claims have been canceled. The Final Written Decisions for IPR2019-00837 and IPR2019-00835 should be reviewed directly for their specific dispositions. The FWD for IPR2019-00835 stated that "claims 1, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28–35, and 45–49 of the '560 patent had been shown to be unpatentable and that claim 28 had not been shown to be unpatentable." The FWD for IPR2019-00837 determined that "claims 1–4, 14–19, 26, and 36–44 of the '560 patent to be unpatentable."
• Analyze Surviving Claims: Focus defensive efforts on claim 28, and any other claims that were explicitly sustained in IPR2019-00730 and IPR2019-00731. Develop new prior art arguments or non-infringement positions for these remaining claims.
• Investigate Estoppel: Determine if the defendant is in privity with Microsoft or Google to assess the applicability of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for claims that went to FWD.
• Access FWDs: Obtain the full Final Written Decisions for IPR2019-00837, IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00730, and IPR2019-00731 from the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal to understand the detailed reasoning, prior art, and arguments. While specific links are not provided in the search results, these are public documents.
• Consider Untested Claims: If the assertion targets claims not specifically addressed in these IPRs, these claims represent fresh opportunities for PTAB challenges, assuming the defendant is not time-barred or estopped.
• Monitor Appeals: While the snippets do not indicate appeals for these specific IPR FWDs, it is always prudent to check the Federal Circuit's docket for any related appeals, as PTAB decisions can be appealed.

Inventors

• Adam J. Cheyer: SRI International Inc.
• David L. Martin: SRI International Inc.

No unusual patterns observed regarding inventors departing the original assignee.

Original assignee

SRI International Inc.
SRI International is a non-profit research institute that conducts client-sponsored research and development. It is known for creating technologies like the computer mouse, interactive computing, and, notably, the foundational work that led to virtual assistants like Siri. Therefore, it is highly probable that SRI International shipped products or technologies embodying the claims as part of their research and development activities and subsequent licensing. SRI International is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center was searched for patent number 7069560.

• 1999-06-10 (executed) / recorded 1999-06-10 — Reel 010534/0074
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Cheyer, Adam J.; Martin, David L.
  • Assignee: SRI International
  • Correspondent: N/A.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to the filing entity.
• 2016-09-26 (executed) / recorded 2016-10-06 — Reel 037701/0150
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: SRI International
  • Assignee: IPA Technologies Inc.
  • Correspondent: Michael S. Neustel, Neustel Law Offices, LTD., 2534 University Drive, South, Suite 4, Fargo, ND 58103. This correspondent has appeared on other patent assignment records.
  • Context: Transfer of patent from the original assignee to an entity that subsequently engaged in patent assertion.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7069560
    1999 : Assigned to SRI International
    2006 : Patent Issued
    2016 : Assigned to IPA Technologies Inc
    2018 : Microsoft infringement suit filed
    2019 : Patent expired
    2024 : Microsoft verdict, settlement
    2026 : Google infringement affirmed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The transfer from SRI International, a non-profit research institute, to IPA Technologies Inc. in 2016 (Reel 037701/0150) indicates a potential shell-entity transfer. IPA Technologies Inc. is not known for product development and has engaged in litigation, suggesting a licensing or assertion-focused entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. IPA Technologies Inc. is a known patent asserter, as evidenced by the litigation history against Google and Microsoft detailed in the provided information. The assignment to IPA Technologies Inc. occurred on 2016-09-26 (executed) / recorded 2016-10-06 (Reel 037701/0150).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. Michael S. Neustel of Neustel Law Offices, LTD. is listed as the correspondent for the 2016-09-26 assignment (Reel 037701/0150) from SRI International to IPA Technologies Inc. This correspondent has been observed in other patent assignment records, indicating a recurrence across different chains.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are only two recorded assignments, which does not constitute cascading transfers within a short timeframe.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The patent was assigned to IPA Technologies Inc. on 2016-09-26 (Reel 037701/0150). The first lawsuit mentioned (IPA Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.) was filed in 2018. While not within 6 months, the transfer to an assertion entity occurred well before the litigation, setting the stage for subsequent assertion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication that SRI International filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While the patent was transferred from an operating/research entity (SRI International) to an NPE (IPA Technologies Inc.), there is no explicit information in the provided context to confirm if SRI International is actively directing or benefiting from IPA Technologies' assertions against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain ends with IPA Technologies Inc., which is an asserting entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on multiple strong signals: the transfer to IPA Technologies Inc. (Reel 037701/0150, 2016-09-26), a known patent asserting entity, and the involvement of a repeat correspondent (Michael S. Neustel) associated with this transfer. Furthermore, the pre-litigation transfer to IPA Technologies Inc. clearly set the stage for subsequent assertions against Google and Microsoft.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 7,069,560, I will focus on the patent citations listed within the document itself, as these are the references explicitly deemed relevant by the patent examiner during prosecution. Prior art refers to any evidence that an invention was already known before the effective filing date of the patent application. This can include patents, printed publications, public use, or other public disclosures.

US Patent 7,069,560 is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/225,198, filed Jan. 5, 1999, which became U.S. Pat. No. 6,851,115. This parent application itself would contain relevant prior art.

I will now list the prior art explicitly cited in US7069560B1 as found on Google Patents, providing full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Cited U.S. Patent Documents:

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,021,427 A

  • Inventors: Spagna et al.
  • Publication Date: February 2000
  • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated in US7069560's front page, but prior to Feb 2000)
  • Brief Description: (Description not available from the provided text, but as a cited patent, it likely relates to distributed systems or agent-based technologies).
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: All claims that cover aspects disclosed in the Spagna et al. patent. To determine specific anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a detailed comparison of the claims of US7069560 with the full text of US6021427 would be required. Anticipation means that a single prior art reference discloses every element of a claimed invention.

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,026,388 A

  • Inventors: Liddy et al.
  • Publication Date: February 2000
  • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated in US7069560's front page, but prior to Feb 2000)
  • Brief Description: (Description not available from the provided text, but likely related to information retrieval, natural language processing, or expert systems given the common classifications for 7069560).
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: Claims relating to natural language processing, information retrieval, or goal interpretation, if these aspects are fully disclosed in the Liddy et al. patent.

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,080,202 A

  • Inventors: Strickland et al.
  • Publication Date: June 2000
  • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated in US7069560's front page, but prior to June 2000)
  • Brief Description: (Description not available from the provided text, but as a cited patent, it likely describes a system relevant to distributed computing or agent coordination).
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: Claims pertaining to methods or systems for coordinating distributed processes or agents.

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,144,989 A

  • Inventors: Hodjat et al.
  • Publication Date: November 2000
  • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated in US7069560's front page, but prior to Nov 2000)
  • Brief Description: (Description not available from the provided text, but would likely be a system or method related to distributed software or data processing).
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: Any claim elements found to be fully described in the Hodjat et al. patent.

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,173,279 B1

  • Inventors: Levin et al.
  • Publication Date: January 2001
  • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated in US7069560's front page, but prior to Jan 2001)
  • Brief Description: (Description not available from the provided text, but would likely be relevant to distributed systems or agent-based architectures).
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: Claims related to the communication protocols or architectural aspects of distributed agents.

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,192,338 B1

  • Inventors: HaSzto et al.
  • Publication Date: February 2001
  • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated in US7069560's front page, but prior to Feb 2001)
  • Brief Description: (Description not available from the provided text, but relevant to distributed computing).
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: Claims covering methods for inter-component communication in distributed environments.

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,666 B1

  • Inventors: Chang et al.
  • Publication Date: May 2001
  • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated in US7069560's front page, but prior to May 2001)
  • Brief Description: (Description not available from the provided text, but relevant to distributed systems).
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: Claims related to data management or processing in a distributed system.

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,338,081 B1

  • Inventors: Furusawa et al.
  • Publication Date: January 2002
  • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated in US7069560's front page, but prior to Jan 2002)
  • Brief Description: (Description not available from the provided text, but relevant to distributed systems).
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: Claims that describe architectural elements for distributed computing.

Other Prior Art References (Non-Patent Literature):

The patent also lists several non-patent literature references which would be considered prior art, particularly because some pre-date the priority date of January 5, 1999.

• "The open agent architecture: ..." by Martin et al. (1999)

  • Authors: Martin, David L.; Cheyer, Adam; SRI International, Lee, Gowang-Lo, Etri
  • Publication Date: 1999 (as cited on Google Patents)
  • Brief Description: This refers to the Open Agent Architecture (OAA), which is the underlying technology for the patent. The patent explicitly states that an initial version of OAA had limitations regarding complex goals and scalability that the present invention addresses. This publication would therefore likely describe the earlier, more limited OAA system.
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: This reference would likely anticipate aspects of the distributed agent system, facilitator, and client agent interactions, particularly the general concepts of agents registering capabilities and facilitators delegating tasks. However, the patent claims aim to specifically address the limitations of this prior OAA work, particularly regarding complex goal expressions, combinations of boolean connectors, nested expressions, conditional goals, and scalability. Claims 1, 15, 16, and 22, which highlight "arbitrarily complex goal expressions" and "highly scalable" architecture, are designed to differentiate from this prior art.

• "Development Tools for the Open Agent Architecture" by Cheyer et al. (PAAM 96, April 1996)

  • Authors: Cheyer, Adam, Martin, David and Moran, Douglas, SRI International, AI Center.
  • Publication Date: April 1996
  • Brief Description: This paper describes development tools for the Open Agent Architecture, which includes an agent library providing infrastructure for constructing agent-based systems. It would detail how agents declare solvables (capabilities) and interact with a facilitator.
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: Similar to the Martin et al. (1999) paper, this reference would anticipate fundamental aspects of agent registration, interagent communication (ICL), and the role of a facilitator. However, the improvements in handling complex goal expressions, advice parameters, and scalability described in US7069560 would likely be distinguished. The procedures for declaring and managing solvables (oaa_Declare, oaa_Undeclare, oaa_Redeclare), updating data solvables (oaa_AddData, oaa_RemoveData, oaa_ReplaceData), and maintaining triggers (oaa_AddTrigger, oaa_RemoveTrigger, oaa_ReplaceTrigger) are mentioned in the patent as provided by the agent library, suggesting these functionalities were part of the OAA software. If these procedures are fully described in this 1996 paper, they could anticipate elements of claims related to agent capabilities and interaction mechanisms.

• "Information Brokering in an Agent Architecture" by Martin, Oohama, Moran, Cheyer. (PAAM 97, April 1997)

  • Authors: Martin, David; Oohama, Hiroki; Moran, Douglas; Cheyer, Adam
  • Publication Date: April 1997
  • Brief Description: This work likely describes the role of a facilitator in brokering information and services among agents within an agent architecture.
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: This reference would likely anticipate aspects of the facilitator's role in coordinating agent communications and problem-solving, as described in Claim 1, 15, 16, and 22. The core concept of a facilitator matching requests with agent capabilities would likely be present. The novelty of US7069560 would lie in the flexibility of complex goal expressions and the strategic reasoning employed by the facilitator, which were noted as limitations in earlier OAA work.

• "The BDIM Agent Toolkit Design" by Busetta, Paolo et al.

  • Authors: Busetta, Paolo et al.
  • Publication Date: (Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but listed as prior art)
  • Brief Description: This reference would describe an agent toolkit design, likely involving methodologies for building agent systems.
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: General aspects of agent system design and toolkit functionalities.

• "An Experiment in Integrating Concurrent Engineering Systems" by Tenenbaum, Jay M., Weber, Jay C.

  • Authors: Tenenbaum, Jay M., Weber, Jay C. Enterprise Integration Technologies
  • Publication Date: (Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but listed as prior art)
  • Brief Description: This work likely pertains to the integration of concurrent engineering systems, which may involve distributed components and cooperative problem-solving.
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: Aspects related to the integration of distributed systems and cooperative task completion.

• "CommandTalk" (SRI International, Feb. 5, 1999)

  • Publication Date: February 5, 1999
  • Brief Description: Likely a system or publication detailing a command and control interface, possibly utilizing natural language processing within an agent framework.
  • Potentially Anticipating Claims: Claims relating to user interfaces, natural language processing agents, and multimodal input within a distributed agent system. Given its date (Feb 5, 1999), it is very close to the priority date of US7069560 (Jan 5, 1999), meaning it would only be prior art under certain conditions (e.g., if it was publicly available before Jan 5, 1999, or if it relates to an earlier filed application that matured into a patent).

Considerations for Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):

For a prior art reference to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it must disclose every single limitation of the claim, either explicitly or inherently. The prior art must also be "enabled," meaning it teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. However, for prior art to anticipate, it "need not enable the [challenged] claim in its entirety, but instead the reference need only enable a single embodiment of the claim."

The patent itself acknowledges the limitations of prior agent-based technologies, including the initial version of SRI International's Open Agent Architecture (OAA), in handling complex goals and scalability. Therefore, while the core concepts of agent systems, facilitators, and interagent communication may be present in the listed prior art, the specific inventive steps of US7069560 relate to the "arbitrarily complex goal expressions," the facilitator's "strategic reasoning for generating a goal satisfaction plan," and the "highly scalable" architecture, which differentiate it from the cited prior art.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The obviousness determination is made based on the state of the art at the time of the patent application's filing. An examiner may combine multiple prior art references to establish obviousness if there is a motivation to do so, and such a combination would yield predictable results.

US patent 7069560, with a filing date of March 17, 1999, describes a highly scalable software-based architecture for communication and cooperation among distributed electronic agents, brokered by one or more facilitators. The patent highlights the ability of client agents to transmit arbitrarily complex goal expressions to a facilitator, which then constructs a goal satisfaction plan by delegating sub-goals to appropriate agents using an Interagent Communication Language (ICL).

Prior Art References:

The patent itself identifies several categories of prior art, including:

• Distributed Object Approach (DOOP): This approach, exemplified by CORBA's Object Request Broker (ORB), allows programs components to be spread across multiple machines. Clients can invoke methods on remote server objects transparently, without knowing the object's location, programming language, or operating system. However, the patent notes that DOOP interactions are fixed by explicitly coded instructions, making reuse difficult due and interactions are based on a Remote Procedure Call (RPC) style, which may not scale well.
• Mobile Objects (Mobile Agents): These are bits of code that can move to another execution site under their own programmatic control. Advantages include network bandwidth and parallelism. Disadvantages include programmatic specificity of interactions, lack of coordination support, and execution environment irregularities regarding programming languages.
• Blackboard Architectures: These typically allow multiple processes to communicate by reading and writing tuples from a global data store, offering a flexible framework for problem solving by a dynamic community of distributed processes. A disadvantage is that while it eliminates tightly bound interaction links, it doesn't provide programmatic control for referring to specific processes when practical.
• Agent-Based Software Engineering: The patent acknowledges that "several agent-based projects have helped to evolve the notion of facilitation." However, it criticizes existing agent-based technologies for being "very limited in the extent to which agents can specify complex goals or influence the strategies used by the facilitator." It also states that prior systems "are not sufficiently attuned to the importance of integrating human agents (i.e., users) through natural language and other human-oriented user interface technologies."
• SRI International's Open Agent Architecture (OAA®): The patent explicitly mentions that "The initial version of SRI International's Open Agent Architecture™ (“OAA®”) technology provided only a very limited mechanism for dealing with compound goals. Fixed formats were available for specifying a flat list of either conjoined (AND) sub-goals or disjoined (OR) sub-goals; in both cases, parallel goal solving was hardwired in, and only a single set of parameters for the entire list could be specified. More complex goal expressions involving (for example) combinations of different boolean connectors, nested expressions, or conditionally interdependent (“IF. THEN”) goals were not supported. Further, system scalability was not adequately addressed in this prior work."

Obviousness Analysis:

A PHOSITA in the field of distributed computing and agent-based systems, at the time of the invention (1999), would have been familiar with the advantages and limitations of the aforementioned prior art.

Combination 1: SRI International's Open Agent Architecture (OAA®) + General Knowledge of Logic Programming/AI Planning.

• OAA as Primary Reference: The patent itself identifies the initial version of OAA as closely related prior art, noting its limitations in handling complex compound goals. OAA already provided a framework for integrating heterogeneous software agents in a distributed environment, using a central "blackboard" server (facilitator) to manage tasks and agents that execute these tasks based on their capabilities and an Interagent Communication Language (ICL) for delegation.
• Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA, recognizing the limitations of OAA's "fixed formats" for compound goals (i.e., only flat lists of AND/OR sub-goals, hardwired parallel solving, and single set of parameters for the entire list), would naturally seek to enhance its goal-handling capabilities. The stated problem in the prior art section of the '560 patent explicitly points to the lack of support for "more complex goal expressions involving (for example) combinations of different boolean connectors, nested expressions, or conditionally interdependent ('IF. THEN') goals."
• Obviousness of Combination: The patent states that "the content layer of the ICL preferably supports unification and other features found in logic programming language environments such as PROLOG." It also mentions "the goals may take the form of compound goal expressions composed using operators similar to those employed by PROLOG, that is, the comma for conjunction, the semicolon for disjunction, the arrow for conditional execution, etc." Given that OAA already utilized an ICL and a facilitator for goal delegation, and that PROLOG was a well-known logic programming language at the time, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate PROLOG-like syntax and semantics for expressing complex goals within OAA's ICL. This would allow for arbitrary nesting, different boolean connectors (AND, OR, NOT, conditional execution), and the dynamic specification of parameters for individual sub-goals, directly addressing the identified shortcomings of the earlier OAA. The concept of a facilitator constructing a "goal satisfaction plan" from these complex expressions would be a natural extension of its existing role in delegating tasks based on agent capabilities.

Combination 2: Blackboard Architectures + Agent-Based Systems with Facilitators + Concepts of Distributed Objects (for scalability).

• Blackboard Architectures as Primary Reference: Blackboard architectures provided a "flexible framework for problem solving by a dynamic community of distributed processes" and offered a solution to "eliminating the tightly bound interaction links". This aligns with the '560 patent's goal of flexible, dynamic configurations of autonomous agents.
• Agent-Based Systems with Facilitators: The prior art recognized the promise of agent-based systems for "flexible, fault-tolerant, distributed problem solving" and the evolution of the "notion of facilitation." The '560 patent builds on this, where facilitators are responsible for coordinating agent communications and cooperative problem-solving.
• Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the flexibility of blackboard architectures (for dynamic communication and shared data) with the coordination capabilities of facilitator-based agent systems. The disadvantage of blackboard architectures, as noted in the patent, was the lack of programmatic control for referring to specific processes when practical. Incorporating a facilitator, as described in agent-based systems, provides this layer of controlled delegation. Furthermore, while the initial OAA faced scalability limitations, the general concept of distributed objects (like CORBA with ORBs) was known to enable components to be spread across multiple machines. A PHOSITA would seek to address the scalability concerns of a single facilitator by exploring distributed facilitator architectures, as suggested in the patent's own description of preferred embodiments (e.g., hierarchical or replicated facilitators).
• Obviousness of Combination: The '560 patent describes a facilitator that "may also provide a global data store for its client agents, allowing them to adopt a blackboard style of interaction." This direct statement suggests that combining elements of blackboard architectures with a facilitator-based agent system was an explicit consideration. Extending this to address scalability by distributing the facilitator's functionality or employing multiple facilitators, drawing on established principles of distributed systems (like those underpinning distributed objects to avoid single points of failure and bottlenecks), would have been a predictable design choice for a PHOSITA.

In summary, the core inventive step of US7069560 lies in the specific enhancement of agent-based communication to handle arbitrarily complex goal expressions and improved scalability in facilitator-based architectures. However, the patent explicitly acknowledges prior art, particularly its own "initial version of SRI International's Open Agent Architecture™ (“OAA®”) technology," which already laid much of the groundwork. The deficiencies identified in this prior OAA (limited compound goal handling, scalability) would have prompted a PHOSITA to seek improvements. The solutions presented, such as using PROLOG-like syntax for complex goals and exploring distributed facilitator architectures, would have been obvious adaptations or combinations of known techniques (logic programming, distributed computing principles) to address these known problems in agent-based systems.