The present disclosure is generally related to software agents and more particularly to software agents' use of rule-based systems.
Agents
A software agent is a software abstraction, similar to the object-oriented programming concept of an object. The concept of an agent provides a convenient and powerful way to describe a complex software entity that is capable of acting with a certain degree of autonomy in order to accomplish tasks on behalf of its user. But unlike objects, which are defined in terms of methods and attributes, an agent is defined in terms of its behavior.
Various authors have proposed different definitions of agents, commonly including concepts such as:
Persistence—code is not executed on demand but runs continuously and decides for itself when it should perform some activity
Autonomy—agents have capabilities of task selection, prioritization, goal-directed behavior, decision-making without human intervention
Social Ability—agents are able to engage other components through communication and coordination, they may collaborate on a task
Reactivity—agents perceive the context in which they operate and react to it appropriately.
Agents may also be mobile. They can move from one execution environment to another carrying both their code and their execution state. These execution environments can exist in a variety of devices in a data network including, but not limited to, servers, desktops, laptops, embedded devices, networking equipment and edge devices such as PDAs or cell phones. The characteristics of these platforms may vary widely in terms of computational capacity, networking capacity, display capabilities, etc. An agent must be able to adapt to these conditions.
Historically, agents have been programmed in a procedural manner. That is, agents are programmed with a series of steps that will ultimately result in a goal being achieved. This approach has limitations though as the logic for each agent must be compiled into the agent software and is therefore static. Complex goals can also become intractable for a programmer as the set of rules the agent must follow grows.
Rule-Based Systems
In his tutorial, Introduction to Rule-Based Systems, James Freeman-Hargis defines a rule-based system to consist of a set of assertions and a set of rules for how to act on the assertion set. When a set of data is supplied to the system, it may result in zero or more rules firing. Rule based systems are rather simplistic in nature, consisting of little more than a group of if-then statements, but form the basis of many “expert systems.” In an expert system, the knowledge of an expert is encoded into the rule-set. When a set of data is supplied to the system, the system will come to the same conclusion as the expert. With this approach there is a clear separation between the domain logic (a rule set) and the execution of the agent. As mentioned, the procedural agent approach tightly couples the two.
The rule-based system itself uses a simple technique. It starts with a rule-set, which contains all of the appropriate knowledge encoded into If-Then rules, and a working memory, which mayor may not initially contain any data, assertions or initially known information. The system in operation examines all the rule conditions (IF) and determines a subset, the conflict set, of the rules whose conditions are satisfied based on the working memory. Of this conflict set, one of those rules is triggered (fired). The rule that is chosen is based on a conflict resolution strategy. When the rule is fired, any actions specified in its THEN clause are carried out. These actions can modify the working memory, the rule-set itself, or do just about anything else the system programmer decides to include. This loop of firing rules and performing actions continues until one of two conditions are met: there are no more rules whose conditions are satisfied or a rule is fired whose action specifies the rule engine execution should terminate.
Rule-based systems, as defined above, are adaptable to a variety of problems. In some problems, working memory asserted data is provided with the rules and the system follows them to see where they lead. This approach is known as forward-chaining. An example of this is a medical diagnosis in which the problem is to diagnose the underlying disease based on a set of symptoms (the working memory). A problem of this nature is solved using a forward-chaining, data-driven, system that compares data in the working memory against the conditions (IF parts) of the rules and determines which rules to fire.
In other problems, a goal is specified and the system must find a way to achieve that specified goal. This is known as backward-chaining. For example, if there is an epidemic of a certain disease, this system could presume a given individual had the disease and attempt to determine if its diagnosis is correct based on available information. A backward-chaining, goal-driven, system accomplishes this. To do this, the system looks for the action in the THEN clause of the rules that matches the specified goal. In other words, it looks for the rules that can produce this goal. If a rule is found and fired, it takes each of that rule's conditions as goals and continues until either the available data satisfies all of the goals or there are no more rules that match.
The Rete algorithm is an efficient pattern matching algorithm for implementing forward-chaining, rule-based systems. The Rete algorithm was designed by Dr. Charles L. Forgy of Carnegie Mellon University in 1979. Rete has become the basis for many popular expert systems, including JRules, OPS5, CLIPS, JESS, Drools, and LISA.
A naïve implementation of a rule-based system might check each rule against the known facts in the knowledge base, firing that rule if necessary, then moving on to the next rule (and looping back to the first rule when finished). For even moderate sized rules and fact knowledge-bases, this naïve approach performs far too slowly.
The Rete algorithm (usually pronounced either ‘REET’ or ‘REE-tee’, from the Latin ‘rete’ for net, or network) provides the basis for a more efficient implementation of an expert system. A Rete-based expert system builds a network of nodes, where each node (except the root) corresponds to a pattern occurring in the left-hand-side of a rule. The path from the root node to a leaf node defines a complete rule left-hand-side. Each node has a memory of facts which satisfy that pattern.
As new facts are asserted or modified, they propagate along the network, causing nodes to be annotated when that fact matches that pattern. When a fact or combination of facts causes all of the patterns for a given rule to be satisfied, a leaf node is reached and the corresponding rule is triggered.
The Rete algorithm is designed to sacrifice memory for increased speed. In most cases, the speed increase over naive implementations is several orders of magnitude (because Rete performance is theoretically independent of the number of rules in the system). In very large systems, however, the original Rete algorithm tends to run into memory consumption problems which have driven the design of Rete variants.
Therefore, what is needed is an ability to utilize a set of survival rules by an agent. More specifically what is needed is utilization of survival rules by an agent that uses a rule engine in an execution environment.
The present invention provides a system, method, and computer readable medium for utilization of survival rules by an agent that uses a rule engine in an execution environment.
In one embodiment of the present invention, a method for determining the lifespan of an agent utilizing a rule engine and a set of canonical survival rules, in an execution environment comprising collecting a survival rule, asserting a survival data into a working memory and executing the rule engine with the set of survival rules and the working memory. The method may also comprise supplying the agent with the survival rule during construction. The method may additionally comprise supplying the agent with the survival rule during movement from a first execution environment to a second execution environment. The method may further comprise collecting the survival rule when the agent that is being moved from a first execution environment to a second execution environment arrives in the second execution environment. The method may also comprise collecting the survival rule from a rule repository in the execution environment. The method may also comprise the survival rule being specific to the agent. The method may additionally comprise the survival rule being specific to the execution environment. The method may further comprise asserting the survival data in the working memory based on a state change in the agent. The method may also comprise asserting the survival data in the working memory based on a timer event in the execution environment. The method may further comprise asserting the survival data in the working memory based on firing the survival rule by the rule engine.
In another embodiment of the present invention, a computer readable medium for determining the lifespan of an agent utilizing a rule engine and a set of canonical survival rules in a first execution environment comprising instructions for asserting an initial set of survival data into a working memory, collecting the set of survival rules, compiling the set of survival rules, executing the rule engine with the set of survival rules and a working memory, asserting the survival data into the working memory and firing a survival rule by the rule engine. The computer readable medium may also comprise instructions for collecting the set of survival rules from a rule repository in a second execution environment. The computer readable medium may additionally comprise instructions for asserting a survival data into the working memory as a result of firing the survival rule that requires extending the life of the agent. The computer readable medium may further comprise instructions for updating a lifespan timer in the execution environment of the agent as a result of firing the survival rule that requires extending the life of the agent. The computer readable medium may also comprise instructions for destroying the agent as a result of firing the survival rule that requires termination of the agent. The computer readable medium may additionally comprise instructions for capturing rule statistics as a result of firing the survival rule that requires termination of the agent. The computer readable medium may further comprise instructions for asserting the survival data in the working memory based on receiving a lifespan update request from an application. The computer readable medium may also comprise instructions for updating a lifespan timer in the execution environment of the agent based on receiving a lifespan update request from an application.
In a further embodiment of the present invention, a system for determining the lifespan of an agent utilizing a rule engine and a set of canonical survival rules in a first execution environment comprising a working memory for the agent in the first execution environment and a first processor communicably coupled to the first memory, wherein the processor collects the set of canonical survival rules, compiles the set of survival rules, executes the rule engine with the set of compiled survival rules and the working memory, fires a survival rule, asserts a survival data into the working memory as a result of the rule firing, and sends a heartbeat to an originating application as a result of the rule firing. The system may further comprise a second memory stores the originating application and a second processor communicably coupled to the second memory, wherein the second processor executes the originating application that receives the heartbeat.
Construction
Agents which utilize rule based systems may be constructed locally or remotely. In order to operate, these agents need an initial set of canonical rules that can be compiled and loaded into an associated rule engine. These rules can either be supplied at construction or a rule repository location can be supplied so that the rules may be fetched during construction or at a later time.
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Movement
An agent may move from one execution environment to another. This process may be initiated by a variety of means including but not limited to an application, another agent, another object, the existing agent itself, a human interacting with the execution environment or a rule executing in the agent's rule engine.
Referring now to
Referring now to
Execution
Once an agent has been initialized in an execution environment through either creation or movement, it can be sent requests to perform different tasks. These tasks mayor may not require sending one or more responses. Recall that during construction an agent is associated with a newly created or resident rule engine and that a rule set is provided to that engine.
Referring now to
When the engine 622 starts, it processes the objects in working memory against the rule set 620. This may result in one or more rules being fired by the engine 622. When a rule is fired it may add, modify or delete objects in working memory 624. Additionally, the engine 622 can inform the agent 618 which may result in a number of actions being taken by the agent 618 including, but not limited to, the collection and assertion of additional data into the working memory 624 (shown) and/or sending of a preliminary response back to the application. This sequence will continue until the task is completed, there are no more rules available to fire, or the agent receives an event, such as move or terminate, causing it to halt rule engine processing. Upon completion of the task, the agent 618 may send a response back to the application 616 that initiated the request (shown).
Pre-Compiled Agent Rule Set Usage
As noted above, the process of adding rules to the rule engine can be expensive in terms of CPU utilization on the execution environment in which the operation is performed. This can be problematic for less powerful hosts such as personal devices (cell phones, PDAs, etc.) and servers with limited available CPU resources. Therefore, another embodiment of the invention creates the compiled rule set in the execution environment of the application that creates an agent instead of in the environment in which the agent is constructed or moved.
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Execution Environment Rule Set Usage
Each execution environment may have access to a local rule repository which allow for the rules for a particular domain, domain rules, to be distributed, or partitioned, in any number of rule repositories. An agent may be configured to only use rules provided at construction essentially ignoring rules available from each execution environment's local rule repository. The more general case is for the agent to make use of the rules that it carries with itself along with the rules extracted from the execution environment's local rule repository. Local rule repositories may contain rules for several different domains and are usually specific to execution environment objects that will be asserted to working memory but may also apply to execution environment concerns such as security, resource usage, scheduling, or any other execution environment attribute.
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
As-Needed Rules
As there is a cost of carrying around unnecessary rules in terms of both CPU and memory usage, it is desirable in many cases to supply an agent with a subset of its total potential rule set. This can be done in a context-specific manner based on the goals and execution environment of the agent. For example, if each device upon which an agent will be executing only contains a small screen, then there is no need to carry the rules for display on a standard computer monitor. As another example, an agent who moves progressively further in a single direction, perhaps among GPS enabled fixed location devices, need not carry rules that only apply to previous GPS locations.
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Dynamic Determination of Needed Rules
Large rule sets, even with efficient algorithms such as Rete, are often expensive in computation and bandwidth. The process of dynamically removing rules considered unlikely to be useful has a benefit to performance and also, combined with mobile agents, provides an efficient method for utilizing large rule sets that can be partitioned across many repositories. This method also allows an agent to dynamically change the rules to meet the execution environment processing task.
Each constructed agent has a unique identifier for itself and this identifier is also known to the agent's originator. At the point of origination, this identifier will be associated with the agent's outcome. An example outcome is successfully attaining an end goal and sending the results back to the application. Another example outcome is the loss or death of the agent. An agent that is determined to be lost or dead may cause a replacement agent to be launched. The replacement agent will have a unique identifier that differs from the original agent. In addition to a unique agent identifier, an agent also carries with it an indicative subset of the set of previously completed agent outcomes for the given domain. This is a set of unique identifiers and outcomes for agents that have previously executed in the domain of the current agent.
In each execution environment, the local rule repository not only stores rules, but is also the location for agents to record statistics about rule engine activity for the rules in the rule set given to the rule engine. These instrumented rules include agent carried rules and rules for the domain that were retrieved from the local rule repository. Alternately, only the locally acquired domain rules may be instrumented.
Referring now to
When the agent prepares to move to another execution environment it dynamically determines to remove unnecessary rules by consulting the rule history associated with some or all of the rules in its current rule set in conjunction with the indicative subset of previously completed agent outcomes that the agent carries. Referring now to
At this point the agent consults the local rule repository 2322 to get the rule history 2330 of the rules in set 2336. The agent 2326 then uses the rule history 2330 with its carried set of previous agent outcomes to remove rules from rule set 2336 that are unlikely to participate in a desired outcome. The statistics are used in aggregate form. As an example consider an agent that carries the results of 2318 previously executed agents and their outcomes, 50 of which were desirable outcomes. The agent examines the metrics for a particular rule named “A” which shows that it was never activated. The agent then removes rule “A” from its agent carried rule set. As another example consider rule “B” which has been activated and fired in one-third of previous desirable outcomes but also has been active and fired in nearly all negative outcomes. Rule “B” remains in the agent carried rule set. Finally, a rule, “C”, which never activates for any as yet recorded desired outcomes but has been active in almost all negative outcomes can be considered a computational burden and removed from the agent carried rule set. Although activation is a criterion above, finer grained partial left-hand side matching statistics can be used as well. Since rule removal requires an aggregate of previous runs a threshold is provided so that no rule deletion is permitted until a requisite number of outcomes has been obtained.
Once the pruned rule set 2332 has been created, the agent 2326 encodes itself along with its pruned rule set 2332 into a transferable form in execution environment 2314. The agent 2326 then transfers the encoded version of itself in execution environment 2314 to an agent manager 2346 resident in the target execution environment 2316. The remainder of the move process follows that of
Survivability Rules
All agents have a lifespan; but that lifespan need not be pre-determined if a set of rules around survivability of an agent is put in place. These rules may be agent specific or execution environment specific. They may be carried with the agent or resident in a rule repository for the execution environment. As these rules are like any other declarative rules, they may be any combination of the above according to the teachings of this invention. In addition, these rules may be used in conjunction with more typical survivability mechanisms such as heartbeats between the application and the agent.
Referring now to
Data Narrowing Rules
Agent may visit many execution environments each with differing levels of network connectivity or an execution environment with multiple levels/types of network connectivity. Given this, it is important that an agent take this into consideration when responding to application requests, sending periodic reports, and determining how much data to carry with it when moving. As per the teachings of this invention, execution environment specific rules are an ideal method for insuring the appropriate agent behavior. If the networking capabilities of the execution environment are static, then rules for this may be maintained in the rule repository on the execution environment running the application that launched the agent. In many cases though, the capabilities may be more dynamic in which case the rules regarding network bandwidth are better kept on the remote execution environment.
Referring now to
In the second scenario, that same agent now labeled 114 has moved to a home computer 2518 which is connected to the network via a DSL connection 2546. As before, the engine 2522 is loaded with the execution environment specific rules regarding bandwidth available to the execution environment. As the agent 2520 completes its task, the event causes a rule to fire, which instructs agent 2520 to send a full report, which contains less data than the detailed report described previously. Note, that the agent 2520 is not compressing the same data, but sending a different data-set back—a subset of the data to fit the bandwidth available.
In the final scenario, the agent, now labeled 2526 has moved to the mobile device 2524. The mobile device is connected to the high speed data network via a relatively low speed cellular data network 2536. As before, the agent 2526 completes its task which results in the rule engine 2528 firing a rule. This firing causes the agent 2526 to dispatch a much smaller summary report to the application 2532 in order to accommodate the low bandwidth connection.
Methods, computer readable media and systems have been shown and/or described in the above embodiments for movement of an agent that utilizes a compiled set of canonical rules. Although the above descriptions set forth embodiments, it will be understood that there is no intent to limit the invention by such disclosure, but rather, it is intended to cover all modifications and alternate implementations falling within the spirit and scope of the invention. For example, the present invention should not be limited to a single agent, or to a particular programming language for the execution environment. Furthermore, the association of agent to execution environments is not limited to the topology depicted. Lastly, the embodiments are intended to cover capabilities and concepts whether they be via a loosely couple set of components or they be converged into one or more integrated components, devices, circuits, and/or software programs.
This application is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/645,198, filed Dec. 22, 2006, now abandoned, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4714995 | Materna et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
5465111 | Fukushima et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5495533 | Linehan et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5524253 | Pham et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5604800 | Johnson et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5675711 | Kephart et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5721912 | Stepczyk et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5778395 | Whiting et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5812997 | Morimoto et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5859911 | Angelo et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5930798 | Lawler et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5982891 | Ginter et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6038500 | Weiss | Mar 2000 | A |
6055562 | Devarakonda et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6065040 | Mima et al. | May 2000 | A |
6088689 | Kohn et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6113650 | Sakai | Sep 2000 | A |
6134580 | Tahara et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6134660 | Boneh et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6154777 | Ebrahim | Nov 2000 | A |
6172986 | Watanuki et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6199195 | Goodwin et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6202060 | Tran | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6209124 | Vermeire et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6230309 | Turner et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233601 | Walsh | May 2001 | B1 |
6256773 | Bowman-Amuah | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272478 | Obata et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282563 | Yamamoto et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282697 | Fables et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6304556 | Haas | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6330677 | Madoukh | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6343265 | Glebov et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6349343 | Foody et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6389462 | Cohen et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6438744 | Toutonghi et al. | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6442537 | Karch | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6452910 | Vij et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6477372 | Otting | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6496871 | Jagannathan et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6600430 | Minagawa et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6600975 | Moriguchi et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6611516 | Pirkola et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6629032 | Akiyama | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6629128 | Glass | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6662642 | Breed et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6671680 | Iwamoto et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6687761 | Collins et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6701381 | Hearne et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6714844 | Dauner et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6738975 | Yee et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6744352 | Lesesky et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6744358 | Bollinger | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6744820 | Khairallah et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6768417 | Kuragaki et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6816452 | Maehata | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6831375 | Currie et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6851108 | Syme | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6862443 | Witte | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6876845 | Tabata et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6879570 | Choi | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6895391 | Kausik | May 2005 | B1 |
6901588 | Krapf et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6904593 | Fong et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6931455 | Glass | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6931623 | Vermeire et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6947965 | Glass | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6951021 | Bodwell et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6957439 | Lewallen | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6963582 | Xu | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6981150 | Little et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6985929 | Wilson et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6993774 | Glass | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7010689 | Matyas, Jr. et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7043522 | Olson et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7047518 | Little et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7055153 | Beck et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7058645 | Seto et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7062708 | Mani et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7069551 | Fong et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7127259 | Ueda et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7127724 | Lewallen | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7146614 | Nikols et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7146618 | Mein et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7172113 | Olenick et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7174533 | Boucher | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7197742 | Arita et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7210132 | Rivard et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7213227 | Kompalli et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7225425 | Kompalli et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7228141 | Sethi | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7231403 | Howitt et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7237225 | Kompalli et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7293261 | Anderson et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7376959 | Warshavsky et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7475107 | Maconi et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7477897 | Bye | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7496637 | Han et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7499990 | Tai et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7502615 | Wilhoite et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7506309 | Schaefer | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7519455 | Weiss | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7566002 | Love et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7643447 | Watanuki et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7660777 | Hauser | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7660780 | Patoskie | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7664721 | Hauser | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7698243 | Hauser | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7702602 | Hauser | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7702603 | Hauser | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7702604 | Hauser | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7774789 | Wheeler | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7810140 | Lipari et al. | Oct 2010 | B1 |
7823169 | Wheeler | Oct 2010 | B1 |
7840513 | Hauser | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7844759 | Cowin | Nov 2010 | B1 |
20010029526 | Yokoyama et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010051515 | Rygaard | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20010056425 | Richard | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020016912 | Johnson | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020032783 | Tuatini | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035429 | Banas | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020091680 | Hatzis et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020115445 | Myllymaki | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116454 | Dyla et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020159479 | Watanuki et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020174222 | Cox | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020196771 | Vij et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030009539 | Hattori | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018950 | Sparks et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030023573 | Chan et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033437 | Fischer et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046377 | Daum et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030046432 | Coleman et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030051172 | Lordermann et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055898 | Yeager et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030070071 | Riedel et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030101441 | Harrison et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030177170 | Glass | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030191797 | Gurevich et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030191969 | Katsikas | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030225789 | Bussler et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030225935 | Rivard et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040003243 | Fehr et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015539 | Alegria et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040037315 | Delautre et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040044985 | Kompalli et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040044986 | Kompalli et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040044987 | Kompalli et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040064503 | Karakashian et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078423 | Satyavolu et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078687 | Partamian et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040082350 | Chen et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088369 | Yeager et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111730 | Apte | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040133656 | Butterworth et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040148073 | Hawig et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040153653 | Abhyankar et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040172614 | Gallagher | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040194072 | Venter | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040203731 | Chen et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040220952 | Cheenath | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040221292 | Chiang et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050004727 | Remboski et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050030202 | Tsuboi | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050090279 | Witkowski et al. | Apr 2005 | A9 |
20050114832 | Manu | May 2005 | A1 |
20050141706 | Regli et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144218 | Heintz | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050163549 | Shima et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050172123 | Carpenter et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050246302 | Lorenz et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050256614 | Habermas | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050256876 | Eidson | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050262155 | Kress et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050273668 | Manning | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050281363 | Qi et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060005177 | Atkin et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060031850 | Falter et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060040640 | Thompson et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041337 | Augsburger et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060048145 | Celli et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060080646 | Aman | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060090103 | Armstrong et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060111089 | Winter et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112183 | Corson et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060121916 | Aborn | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060123396 | Fox et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143600 | Cottrell et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149746 | Bansod et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060167981 | Bansod et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060173857 | Jackson | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060190931 | Scott et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060200494 | Sparks | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060206864 | Shenfield et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060220900 | Ceskutti et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060221901 | Yaqub et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060245406 | Shim | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060256008 | Rosenberg | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060272002 | Wightman et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070004432 | Hwang et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070015495 | Winter et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070026871 | Wager | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070103292 | Burkley et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070112773 | Joyce | May 2007 | A1 |
20070223432 | Badarinath | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070243880 | Gits et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080077667 | Hwang et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20100161543 | Hauser | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100223210 | Patoskie | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100235459 | Wheeler | Sep 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2005190103 | Jul 2005 | JP |
Entry |
---|
Bursell et al (“Comparison of autonomous mobile agent technologies” 1997). |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/052,680 (Nov. 19, 2010), 17 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,197, (Nov. 29, 2010), 20 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/647,964 (Nov. 30, 2010),7 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/647,964, (Sep. 8, 2010), 5 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/975,827 (Sep. 15, 2010), 22 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,192, (Sep. 15, 2010),14 pages. |
Erfurth, Christian et al., Migration Intelligence for Mobile Agents, (2001), 8 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,194 (Sep. 15, 2010),28 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,196, (Sep. 22, 2010), 33 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/714,753 (Sep. 27, 2010),7 pages. |
Advisory Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,197, (Oct. 6, 2010), 3 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,121 (Oct. 7, 2010),6 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,195, (Oct. 7, 2010), 8 pages. |
Final Office Action, Application Oct. 21, 2010 ,34 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,191, (Oct. 28, 2010), 19 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,102 (Jul. 1, 2010), 14 pages. |
Notice of Allowability, U.S. Appl. No. 10/975,146 (Jul. 13, 2010),2 pages. |
Rosenberg, Jonathan et al., “Programming Internet Telephony Services”, IEEE Network, (May/Jun. 1999), 8 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/439,059, (Jul. 14, 2010), 12 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,197 (Jul. 19, 2010), 16 pages. |
Advisory Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/052,680, (Jul. 28, 2010), 3 pages. |
Advisory Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,303, (Jul. 28, 2010), 3 pages. |
“The Sims”, Sims, Electranic Arts, (2000), 57 pages. |
Taylor, TL “Does WoW Change Everything?”, Games and Culture, vol. 1, No. 4, (Oct. 2006), 20 pages. |
Barba, Rick “The Sims Prima's Official Strategy Guide”, Prima Publishing: ISBN: 7615-2339-1 (2000),98 Pages. |
Hinchey, Michael G., et al., “Formal Approaches to Agent-Based Systems”, 2nd International Workshop FAABS, (Oct. 2002),291 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,301 (Jul. 30, 2010), 18 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, Application 11/1645,303, (Aug. 19, 2010), 20 pages. |
Chang, Yao-Chung et al., “All-IP Convergent Communications over Open Service Architecture”, 2005 Wireless Telecommunications Symposium, IEEE, 0-7803-8856, (2005), pp. 202-210. |
“WOW, World of Warcraft”, Wikipedia (online), Retrieved from Internet in 2010, <URL:htto:llen.wikioedia.orq/wiki/World of Warcraft> (2010), 28 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/495,053 (Aug. 31, 2010),7 pages. |
Advisory Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,120, (May 4, 2010), 3 pages. |
Advisory Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/495,053 (May 26, 2010),3 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,121, (Jun. 16, 2010), pp. 1-30. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,120 (Feb. 23, 2010),43 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/495,053, (Mar. 17, 2010), 17 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/052,680 (May 17, 2010), 12 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,301 May 12, 2010), 32 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,303, May 21, 2010), 32 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/975,827 Mar. 25, 2010, 19 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/439,059, Mar. 26, 2010,6 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,191 (May 5, 2010), 17 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,192, May 4, 2010, 14 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,194, Mar. 26, 2010, 26 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,196, Apr. 28, 2010, 29 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,200 May 26, 2010, 34 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/052,680, Feb. 4, 2010, 12 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,101 Sep. 2, 2009 ,20 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,102, Mar. 5, 2010 , 15 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,121 Dec. 30, 2009, 25 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/439,059, Oct. 30, 2009, 9 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/495,053 Jun. 10, 2009, 13 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,195, Apr. 15, 2010, 20 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,197 Feb. 24, 2010, 13 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,301, Jan. 6, 2010, 25 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,303 Feb. 8, 2010, 18 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 10/975,623, Feb. 23, 2010), 9 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,101 Feb. 25, 2010), 9 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,292, Nov. 17, 2009, 9 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,300 Nov. 18, 2009, 9 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,302, Nov. 17, 2009, 8 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,306 Nov. 17, 2009, 8 pages. |
Restriction Requirement, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,191, Jan. 28, 2010, 7 pages. |
Restriction Requirement, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,192 Jan. 28, 2010 ,6 pages. |
Restriction Requirement, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,200, Feb. 26, 2010 ,8 pages. |
Bagci, et al., “Communication and Security Extensions for a Ubiquitous Mobile Agent System (UbiMAS)”, In Proceedings of CF 2005, Available at <http://portal.acm.orgIft—gateway.cfm?id=1062302&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=91857573&CFTOKEN=53726080>,(May 2005), pp. 246-251. |
Brandt, Raimund “Dynamic Adaptation of Mobile Code in Heterogenous Environments”, Der Teschnischen Universitat Munchen,(Feb. 15, 2001), 76 pages. |
Brazier, F.M.T. et al., “Generative Migration of Agents”, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; de Boelelaan 1081 a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands {frances, bjo, steen, niek} @cs.vu.l,(Aug. 2002), 4 pages. |
Christopoulou, Eleni et al., “An ontology-based context management and reasoning process for UbiComp applications”, Research Academie Computer Technology Institute, Research Unit 3, Design of Ambient Information Systems Group, N. Kazantzaki str., Rio Campus, 26500, Patras, Greece {hristope, goumop, kameas} @cti.qr,(Oct. 2005), 6 pages. |
Hasegawa, Tetsou et al., “Inoperability for mobile agents by incarnation agents”, AAMAS; Melbourne, Australia; ACM, 1-58113-683, pp. 1006-1007,(Jul. 14, 2003), 2 pages. |
Jih, Wan-Rong et al., “Context-aware Access Control in Pervasive Healthcare”, Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan jih@agents.csie.ntu.edu.tw., {r93070, yjhsu} @csie.ntu.edu.tw,(2005), 8 pages. |
Karnik, Neeran M., et al., “Security in the Ajanta Mobile Agent System”, Softw. Pract. Exper. 31, 4 (Apr. 2001), 301-329,(2001), 28 pages. |
Korba, Larry “Towards Secure Agent Distribution and Communication”, In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science—vol. 8 (Jan. 5-8, 1999). HICSS. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 8059.,(1999), 10 pages. |
Pauline, Siu Po Lam “Context-Aware State Management for Supporting Mobility in a Pervasive Environment”, A thesis submitted to the University of Hong Kong in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Philosophy.,(Aug. 2004), 106 pages. |
Poggi, Agostino et al., “Security and Trust in Agent-Oriented Middleware”, OTM Workshops 2003: 989-1003,(2003), 15 pages. |
Qui-Sheng, He et al., “A Lightweight Architecture to Support Context-Aware Ubiquitous Agent System”, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, Chain {hequisheng, situ} @fudan.edu.cn,(Aug. 2006), 6 pages. |
Walsh, Tom et al., “Security and Reliability in Concordia”, In Mobility: Processes, Computers, and Agents ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, 524-534.,(1999), 10 pages. |
Yu, Ping et al., “Mobile Agent Enabled Application Mobility for Pervasive Computing”, Internet and Mobile Computing Lab, Department of Computing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong {cspyu, csjcao, cswen} @comp.polyu.edu.hk.,(OS/2006), 10 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/975,623, (Nov. 12, 2009), 8 pages. |
Blackwell, John “Ramit—Rule-Based Alert Management Information Tool”, Thesis Florida State University College of Arts and Sciences (2004), pp. 1-69. |
FORTE, “Feature Comparison of Agent and Free Agent”, Retrieved from: <www.forteinc.com/agent/features.php> on Jan. 26, 2010 (2002),3 pages. |
Lockemann, Peter C., “Agents and Databases: Friends or Foes?”, Proceedings of the 9th International Database Engineering & Application Symposium (IDEAS '05), (2005), 11 pages. |
Russell, Stuart et al., “Artificial intelligence: A Modern Approach”, Pearson, (2003), pp. 5, 32-56, 449-454. |
Stallings, William “ISDN and Broadband ISDN with Framw Relay and ATM”, Prentice-Hall, (1999), p. 516. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,102 (Oct. 20, 2009), 13 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/975,827, (Nov. 23, 2009), 17 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/975,146 (Dec. 1, 2009), 11 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,120 (Aug. 13, 2009),35 pages. |
Advisory Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,121, (Sep. 11, 2009), 3 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,190 (Sep. 17, 2009),8 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,193, (Sep. 17, 2009), 8 pages. |
Advisory Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,121 (Sep. 11, 2009),3 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,211, (Sep. 29, 2009), 18 pages. |
Praset, et al., “Processor Modeling and Code Selection for Retargetable Compilation”, Jul. 2001 ACM TODAES vol. 6 Issue 3 (Jul. 2001), pp. 277-307. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,291 (Oct. 1, 2009), 11 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/052,680, (Oct. 5, 2009), 16 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,102, (Jun. 2, 2009), 18 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,306, (Jun. 4, 2009), 19 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/975,623, (Jun. 9, 2009), 6 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,121, (Jun. 22, 2009), 32 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,211, 25 pages. |
Requirement for Restriction/Election, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,102, (Apr. 6, 2009), 7 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/975,827, (Apr. 7, 2009), 38 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,120, (Apr. 14, 2009), 48 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,292, (Apr. 17, 2009), 40 pages. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/052,680 (Feb. 13, 2009), 117 pages. |
Flanagan, Roxy “Graphic + Internet related tutorials Using Winzip”, indexed by www.archive.org,(Oct. 30, 2008),8 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,190, (Mar. 13, 2009), 41 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,291, (Mar. 13, 2009), 41 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,193, (Mar. 16, 2009), 41 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/086,101, (Mar. 23, 2009),20 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/052,680, (May 6, 2009),28 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,300, (May 11, 2009), 21 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,302, (May 11, 2009), 21 pages. |
“Stuffit Deluxe”, Aladdin Systems,(Jan. 1, 2004), 83 pages. |
Gu, T. et al., “Toward an OSGi-based infrastructure for context-aware applications”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,190, Pervasive Computing IEEE, vol. 3, Issue 4. Digital abject Identifier 10.11 09/MPRV.2004.19,(Oct.-Dec. 2004), 9 pages. |
Pantic, M et al., “Simple agent framework: an educational tool introducing the basics of AI programming”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,190, Information Technology: Research and Education, 2003. Proceedings. ITRE2003.,(Aug. 11-13, 2003), 426-430. |
Singh, V.K. et al., “DYSWIS: An architecture for automated diagnosis of networks”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,190, Operations and Management Symposium, 2008. NOMS 2008. IEEE,(Apr. 7-11, 2008), 851-854. |
Non Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/975,146, (May 26, 2009), 21 pages. |
Emmerich, et al., “TIGRA—An Architectural Style for Enterprise Application Integration”, IEEE, (Jul. 2001), p. 567-576. |
Bussler, Christoph “The Role of B2B Engines in B2B Integration Architectures”, ACM, (Mar. 2002), 67-72. |
Jandl, et al., “Enterprise Application Integration by means of a generic CORBA LDAP Gateway”, ACM, (May 2002), 711. |
Sutherland, et al., “Enterprise Application Integration and Complex Adaptive Systems”, ACM, (Oct. 2002), 59-64. |
Ballance, et al., “The Pan Language-Based Editing System for Integrated Development Environments”, ACM, (Oct. 1990), 77-93. |
Dilts, et al., “An Inteligent Interface to CIM Multiple Data Bases”, ACM, TALIP, (Mar. 2004),vol. 3 Issue 1, pp. 491-509. |
Shiao, Dan, “Mobile Agent: New Model of Intelligent Distributed Computing Part One” Oct. 2004. |
Final Office Action on U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,198, mailed Nov. 8, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action on U.S. Appl. No. 11/645,198, mailed Jul. 22, 2011. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120185826 A1 | Jul 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11645198 | Dec 2006 | US |
Child | 13429785 | US |