DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner's Note
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123). The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claim(s) above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim(s), typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-3, 7, 9-15, and 17-23, pages 12-15 of the REMARKS filed 07/29th/2026,, have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument #1
claim 1 as a whole is not directed to a "mental process" as claim 1 recites various limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind…….. For example, a human cannot execute machine learning classification processes within the mind or using pen a paper.
Examiner Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Limitations that execute a machine learning model have been analyzed as mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components, they are not analyzed as mental processes. The examiner is indeed analyzing the claim as a whole. To do so, the examiner has to analyze each limitation of the claim separately and while some limitations (sorting, extracting, and analyzing) are mental processes, the use of machine learning models to perform classification processes and natural language processing is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components which does not necessarily integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. In addition, claims regarding receiving or transmitting data generally amount to data gathering and data outputting which are insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Please see the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection below for further details regarding the analysis of the mental processes and additional elements.
Applicant Argument #2
In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the independent claims 1, 13, and 18 can somehow be characterized as a reciting the judicial exceptions of mental processes, the Applicant respectfully contends that each independent claim 1, 13, and 18 recites additional elements that integrate the supposed judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Examiner Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the applicant argues that the independent claims 1, 13, and 18 recite additional elements that reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field with regard to using machine learning and artificial intelligence to provide intelligent recommendations for support case resolution for resolving software-related and hardware-related issues associated with computing devices and computing systems, and while the applicant further argues that the claims are directed to an intelligent support framework that transmits resolution options and needed elements to agents of an assisted support channel in real-time so that the agents may use and/or rely on the resolution options and needed elements during their troubleshooting and resolution workflow when assisting users with their support cases, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of sorting data, extracting text, analyzing text, determining resolution recommendations for a support case, or computing a degree of confidence of a resolution recommendation rather than to an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-3, 7, 9-15, and 17-23, pages 15-19 of the REMARKS filed 07/29th/2026, have been considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-3, 7, 9-15, and 17-23 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 for all claims:
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, and 21-23 are directed to a process, claims 13-15 and 17 are directed to a machine, and claims 18-20 are directed to a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-15, and 17-23 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites an abstract idea consisting of the following elements:
Sorting ….. the data associated with the plurality of historical support cases into a first portion of training data and a second portion of training data, wherein the first portion of training data comprises support case details of respective ones of the plurality of historical support cases, and wherein the second portion of training data comprises affected device details of the respective ones of the plurality of historical support cases and shipping data of one or more hardware elements or software elements associated with the affected device details of computing devices and computing systems. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As drafted, this encompasses a person observing the data and sorting it into two partitions with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of processing platform is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components See MPEP 2106.05(f).
(i) automatically extract text from the first and second portions of training data and determine and assign weight values to the extracted text of the first and second portions of training data, and (ii) format the extracted text from the first and second portions of training data for use in machine learning training of classification models implemented by the machine learning support system. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As drafted, this encompasses a person observing the data and extracting text from the first and second portions of training data and determining and assigning weight values to the extracted text of the first and second portions of training data, and formatting the extracted text with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of performing, by the processing platform, machine natural language processing is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components See MPEP 2106.05(f).
automatically extract text from the input data and determine and assign weight values to the extracted text of the input data, and formatting the extracted text from the input for use in machine learning classification. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As drafted, this encompasses a person observing the data and extracting text, determining and assigning weight values to the extracted text, and formatting the extracted text with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of performing, by the processing platform, machine natural language processing is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components See MPEP 2106.05(f).
analyze the extracted text and the assigned weight values of the input data Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As drafted, this encompasses a person observing the data and extracting text, determining and assigning weight values to the extracted text, and formatting the extracted text with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of performing, by the processing platform, machine natural language processing is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components See MPEP 2106.05(f).
determine one or more initial resolution recommendations for at least one of a replacement and an installation of a hardware element or a software element for resolving for the at least one support case. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As drafted, this encompasses a person analyzing the extracted text and the assigned weight values of the input, and determining one or more resolution options for the at least one support case with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of performing, by the processing platform, a first machine learning classification process is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components See MPEP 2106.05(f).
determine one or more alternative resolution recommendations for at least one of a replacement and an installation of an alternative hardware element or an alternative software element for resolving the at least one support case, in response to determining that one or more initial resolution recommendations are not available for resolving the at least one support case. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As drafted, this encompasses a person analyzing the extracted text and the assigned weight values of the input, and determining one or more resolution options for the at least one support case with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of performing, by the processing platform, a first machine learning classification process is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components See MPEP 2106.05(f).
computing ….. a degree of confidence for respective ones of the one or more initial resolution recommendations and the alternative resolution recommendations Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As drafted, this encompasses a person analyzing the extracted text and the assigned weight values of the input, and determining one or more resolution options for the at least one support case with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of performing, by the processing platform, a first machine learning classification process is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
implementing a machine learning support system which executes on a processing platform to provide automated intelligent support case resolution for resolving software related and hardware-related issues associated with computing devices and computing systems, wherein the machine learning support system performs a method This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
receiving, by the machine learning support system, data associated with a plurality of historical support cases. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
in connection with prior resolutions of software-related and hardware-related issues associated with computing devices and computing systems This is a field of use limitation which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
by the machine learning support system This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
executing, by a first machine learning recommendation engine of the machine learning support system, machine natural language processing to analyze the first and second portions of training data from the plurality of historical support cases to. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Executing by the first machine learning recommendation engine, a first machine learning process to train a first machine learning classification model using the extracted text and the assigned weight values of the first portion of training data, to thereby generate a first trained machine learning classification model comprising a support vector machine classifier that is configured to provide intelligent recommendations to resolve support cases. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Executing, by a second machine learning recommendation engine of the machine learning support system, a second machine learning process to train a second machine learning classification model using the extracted text and the assigned weight values of the second portion of training data, to thereby generate a second trained machine learning classification model comprising a K-nearest neighbors model and associated distance algorithm, which is configured to provide alternative intelligent recommendations for the intelligent recommendations provided by the first trained machine learning classification model to resolve the support cases. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
receiving, by the machine learning support system, an input data comprising data associated with at least one support case with regard to at least one of a hardware-related issue and a software-related issue of a given computing device or computing system. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
using the first machine learning model. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
executing, by the first machine learning recommendation engine, machine natural language processing to analyze the input data. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
executing, by the first machine learning recommendation engine, a first machine learning classification process …… using the first trained machine learning classification model to. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
executing, by the second machine learning recommendation engine, a second machine learning classification process ….. using the second trained machine learning classification model to. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
by the machine learning support system This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
transmitting, by the machine learning support system, at least one of the one or more initial resolution recommendations and the one or more alternative resolution recommendations along with the respective computed degrees of confidence to an agent for use by the agent in resolving the at least one support case This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting data. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the steps of the method are executed by at least one processing device operatively coupled to a memory. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
implementing a machine learning support system which executes on a processing platform to provide automated intelligent support case resolution for resolving software related and hardware-related issues associated with computing devices and computing systems, wherein the machine learning support system performs a method This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
receiving, by the machine learning support system, data associated with a plurality of historical support cases. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
in connection with prior resolutions of software-related and hardware-related issues associated with computing devices and computing systems This is a field of use limitation which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
by the machine learning support system This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
executing, by a first machine learning recommendation engine of the machine learning support system, machine natural language processing to analyze the first and second portions of training data from the plurality of historical support cases to. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Executing by the first machine learning recommendation engine, a first machine learning process to train a first machine learning classification model using the extracted text and the assigned weight values of the first portion of training data, to thereby generate a first trained machine learning classification model comprising a support vector machine classifier that is configured to provide intelligent recommendations to resolve support cases. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Executing, by a second machine learning recommendation engine of the machine learning support system, a second machine learning process to train a second machine learning classification model using the extracted text and the assigned weight values of the second portion of training data, to thereby generate a second trained machine learning classification model comprising a K-nearest neighbors model and associated distance algorithm, which is configured to provide alternative intelligent recommendations for the intelligent recommendations provided by the first trained machine learning classification model to resolve the support cases. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
receiving, by the machine learning support system, an input data comprising data associated with at least one support case with regard to at least one of a hardware-related issue and a software-related issue of a given computing device or computing system. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
using the first machine learning model. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
executing, by the first machine learning recommendation engine, machine natural language processing to analyze the input data. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
executing, by the first machine learning recommendation engine, a first machine learning classification process …… using the first trained machine learning classification model to. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
executing, by the second machine learning recommendation engine, a second machine learning classification process ….. using the second trained machine learning classification model to. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
by the machine learning support system This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
transmitting, by the machine learning support system, at least one of the one or more initial resolution recommendations and the one or more alternative resolution recommendations along with the respective computed degrees of confidence to an agent for use by the agent in resolving the at least one support case This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting data. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the steps of the method are executed by at least one processing device operatively coupled to a memory. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 2:
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites an abstract idea consisting of the following elements:
determine and assign weight values to the extracted text. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As drafted, this encompasses a person determining and assigning weight values to the extracted text with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
Executing the machine natural language processing comprises the machine learning support system executing an automated term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) statistical process to determine and assign weight values to the extracted text. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
Executing the machine natural language processing comprises the machine learning support system executing an automated term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) statistical process to determine and assign weight values to the extracted text. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 3:
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified above.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
wherein the support vector machine classifier comprises a linear support vector machine (LSVM) classifier. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the support vector machine classifier comprises a linear support vector machine (LSVM) classifier. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 7:
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified above.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
the hardware element associated with a given initial resolution recommendation comprises a given device part; and the alternative hardware element associated with a given alternative resolution recommendation comprises one or more alternative device parts to be used instead of the device part. This is a field of use limitation which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the hardware element associated with a given initial resolution recommendation comprises a given device part; and the alternative hardware element associated with a given alternative resolution recommendation comprises one or more alternative device parts to be used instead of the device part. This is a field of use limitation which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 9:
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites an abstract idea consisting of the following elements:
determine one or more alternative parts by comparing the given device part to a plurality of alternative parts to determine a level of similarity between the device part and respective ones of the plurality of alternative parts. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As drafted, this encompasses a person observing the device part and a plurality of alternative parts and judging how similar the parts are to each other with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
the machine learning support system further operates to. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the machine learning support system further operates to. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 10:
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified above
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
wherein the associated distance algorithm comprises a Euclidean distance algorithm. This is a field of use limitation which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the associated distance algorithm comprises a Euclidean distance algorithm. This is a field of use limitation which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 11:
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites an abstract idea consisting of the following elements:
further comprising evaluating ….. a performance of the first trained machine learning classification model. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As drafted, this encompasses a person observing the machine learning model’s outputs and judging the performance of the model with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
by the machine learning support system This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
wherein the evaluating is performed using K-folds cross validation. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
by the machine learning support system This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
wherein the evaluating is performed using K-folds cross validation. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 12:
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified above
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
further comprising generating, by the machine learning support system, a visualization of the performance of the first trained machine learning classification model, wherein the visualization comprises a confusion matrix comprising dispatched resolutions versus recommended resolutions for a plurality of received support cases. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
further comprising generating, by the machine learning support system, a visualization of the performance of the first trained machine learning classification model, wherein the visualization comprises a confusion matrix comprising dispatched resolutions versus recommended resolutions for a plurality of received support cases. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 13:
This claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 14:
This claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15:
This claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 7 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 17:
This claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 9 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 18:
This claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, with the exception of the following additional elements:
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
An article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory processor readable
storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device causes the at least one processing device to. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
An article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory processor readable
storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device causes the at least one processing device to. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 19:
This claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 20:
This claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 7 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 21:
Step 2A Prong 1
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified above.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
wherein the support case details comprise at least one of a case title, a case description, one or more software elements associated with the respective ones of the plurality of historical support cases and one or more hardware elements associated with the respective ones of the plurality of historical support cases. This is a field of use limitation which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the support case details comprise at least one of a case title, a case description, one or more software elements associated with the respective ones of the plurality of historical support cases and one or more hardware elements associated with the respective ones of the plurality of historical support cases. This is a field of use limitation which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 22:
Step 2A Prong 1
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified above.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
wherein the affected device details comprise at least one of one or more affected parts, a part identification number for respective ones of the one or more affected parts, one or more attributes associated with the respective ones of the one or more affected parts and one or more configurations associated with the respective ones of the one or more affected parts. This is a field of use limitation which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the affected device details comprise at least one of one or more affected parts, a part identification number for respective ones of the one or more affected parts, one or more attributes associated with the respective ones of the one or more affected parts and one or more configurations associated with the respective ones of the one or more affected parts. This is a field of use limitation which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 23:
Step 2A Prong 1
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified above.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
wherein the shipping data of one or more elements associated with the affected device details comprises an inventory of available elements and dispatch information for the one or more elements. This is a field of use limitation which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the shipping data of one or more elements associated with the affected device details comprises an inventory of available elements and dispatch information for the one or more elements. This is a field of use limitation which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The following references have been determined to be related to the application, but were not applied in any specific rejection. They are nonetheless listed below for reference.
SAVIR (US20200242623A1)
“SAVIR teaches a customer support ticket aggregation method comprising obtaining a customer support ticket; extracting a topic of the customer support ticket using a topic model based on natural language processing techniques; converting the customer support ticket to a topic vector representation that identifies the extracted topic and comprises a list of words describing the topic based on a collection of processed customer support tickets; extracting features from the customer support ticket; generating a fingerprint for the customer support ticket that comprises the topic vector representation and the extracted features; applying the fingerprint to a machine learning similarity model that compares the fingerprint to fingerprints of processed customer support tickets from the collection of processed customer support tickets; and identifying a processed customer support ticket from the collection of processed customer support tickets that is related to the customer support ticket”
SINGH (US20200388390A1)
“SINGH teaches a method for a health proxy device configured to parse medical data using data processing techniques and provide assistive technologies to a caregiver and/or patient for making an optimal medical decision in a time-sensitive environment”
ACHARYA (US 2013/0060784 Al)
“ACHARYA teaches a method for generating automated tags for a video file”
RAMANATH (US 2021/0406838 Al)
“Ramanath teaches a method to generate a recommendation for a user of an online service based on user actions that have been performed by the user within a threshold amount of time before the generation of the recommendation”
DAS (US 2019/0034498 Al)
“Das teaches a method to implement natural language (NL) application functionality that enables users to more effectively access various data storage systems based on NL requests”
DAKE (US 2022/0215323 Al)
“Dake teaches a method for efficient ticket resolution”
LU (US 2019/0197442 Al)
“Lu teaches examples of artificial intelligence based risk and knowledge management analysis”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMCY ALGHAZZY whose telephone number is (571) 272-8824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, OMAR FERNANDEZ RIVAS can be reached on (571) 272-2589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service.
/SHAMCY ALGHAZZY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights