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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 2/27/26.
Claims 9-20 have been previously cancelled.
Therefore, Claims 1-8 are now pending and have been addressed below.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a method. Thus, this claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claim falls within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recite methods for tailoring a multi-channel help desk including retrieving and clustering information technology service management (ITSM) data to generate clustered ITSM data, wherein the ITSM data further comprises ITSM information including historical data associated with information technology (IT) ticket records, and wherein the clustering further comprises obtaining problem profiles for issue clusters associated with the IT ticket records, wherein the problem profiles for the issue clusters further identify patterns associated with the IT ticket records: retrieving and clustering, customer data to generate customer clusters comprising clustered customer data, wherein generating the customer clusters further comprises correlating customer information and the ITSM data to identify patterns of user attributes and IT issues:, wherein the feedback further comprises parameterized feedback metrics comparing users in a same cluster from the customer clusters; based on the customer clusters and the clustered ITSM data select an attendance channel associated with the a multi-channel help desk environment based on a user and an IT issue and, correlate a customer profile, a problem profile, and a feedback rate for a given attendance channel, and with a channel tailoring configuration: in response to receiving a request from a given user to resolve a received IT issue, retrieving the customer profile from a customer cluster to which the given user belongs based on comprising the clustered customer data, retrieving the problem profile from the issue clusters to which the received IT issue belongs further comprising the clustered ITSM data, determine a best attendance channel, and for the best attendance channel to predict channel tailoring characteristics for the best attendance channel; assembling a dataset including the IT ticket records associated with different attendance channels and the parameterized feedback metrics based on analyzed customer feedback on the attendance channel , wherein the different attendance channels further comprise selected best channels including the best attendance channel selected in response to the received request from the given user; augmenting the dataset by replacing customer identifications in the dataset with respective cluster centroids of customer clusters; augmenting the dataset by replacing information technology (IT) descriptions in the dataset with respective cluster centroids of the issue clusters; using an augmented dataset to select the best attendance channels for respective ones of the customer clusters and for respective ones of the issue clusters,; enhancing the augmented dataset by adding channel tailoring characteristics to the augmented dataset; dividing an enhanced dataset into respective partitions for respective attendance channel types; and tailoring the respective attendance channel types, using the respective partitions of the enhanced dataset; retrieving historical feedback from an ITSM on the best attendance channel
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and interaction between a person and computer), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as computer implemented method, one or more computing devices and servers, using unsupervised machine learning techniques training a feedback model, training machine learning models comprising training a channel routing classifier model training the channel tailoring predicting model, a database using the channel routing classifier model, using the channel tailoring prediction model ), the claims are directed to retrieving and analyzing customer issue data to determine best attendance channel. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving feedback data, analyzing it, and providing attendance channel for routing. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – computer implemented method, one or more computing devices and servers, using unsupervised machine learning techniques, training a feedback model, training machine learning models comprising training a channel routing classifier model training the channel tailoring predicting model, a database using the channel routing classifier model, using the channel tailoring prediction model. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely add 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The limitations of “training a feedback model to provide feedback; based on the customer clusters and the clustered ITSM data, training machine learning models comprising training a channel routing classifier model to select an attendance channel; training a channel tailoring prediction model to tailor the attendance channel; training the channel tailoring prediction model; in response to determining that the historical feedback on random attendance channel is more positive…retraining the channel routing classifier based on the positive feedback”, such training/retraining and applying of a machine learning model is no more than putting data into a black box machine learning operation, devoid of technological implementation and application details. Each step requires a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claim does not provide any details about how the trained models operates or how the prediction for best attendance channel is made. The requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement. (RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP.). The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; retrieving and analyzing customer issue data to determine best attendance channel. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to the computer implemented method, one or more computing devices and servers, using unsupervised machine learning techniques, training a feedback model, training machine learning models comprising training a channel routing classifier model training the channel tailoring predicting model, a database using the channel routing classifier model, using the channel tailoring prediction model, these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph [0069] details “ processor 520, memory 510, [0022] training ML model.” These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) discussing elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities in particular fields. Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-8 add additional limitations, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as representative claim 1.
Claim 2-4 recites determining the channel tailoring characteristics, using data in an information technology service management (ITSM) system is simply data gathering; the ticket records are stored in an information technology service management (ITSM) system; retrieving customer information from multiple sources; retrieving, from an information technology service management (ITSM) system, ITSM information; clustering the customer information to obtain customer profiles of the customer clusters; and clustering the ITSM information to obtain problem profiles of the issue clusters are simply data gathering and merely adds 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 as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites the clustered customer information and clustered ITSM information are used for training the machine learning model of selecting best attendance channels and for training the machine learning models of tailoring the respective attendance channel types. These limitations merely adds 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 as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites storing the channel routing classifier model of selecting the best attendance channels in a database; and storing the channel routing classifier models of tailoring the respective attendance channel types in the database. These limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element channel routing classifier model has been addressed in claim 1. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6-7 recites wherein the machine learning model of selecting best attendance channels and tailoring respective attendance channel are trained by inputting customer profiles of customer clusters, problem profiles of issue clusters, and parameterized feedback metrics recite machine learning model at “apply it” level. Furthermore, such training and applying of a machine learning model is no more than putting data into a black box machine learning operation, devoid of technological implementation and application details. Each step requires a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The limitations of analyzing using an algorithm merely adds 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 as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The receiving/retrieving function is similar to a data gathering function. The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes 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)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing system is merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection, applicant on pages 8-9 states that claims are not directed to abstract idea of organizing human activity. Applicant point to spec 0001 that states invention directed to improving technical field of multi-channel help desk.
Examiner has considered al arguments and respectfully disagrees. Independent Claim 1 recite, a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The concept of multichannel help desk system is commercial interaction such as business or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at high level of generality. The limitations of “training a feedback model to provide feedback; based on the customer clusters and the clustered ITSM data, training machine learning models comprising training a channel routing classifier model to select an attendance channel; training a channel tailoring prediction model to tailor the attendance channel; training the channel tailoring prediction model”, such training and applying of a machine learning model is no more than putting data into a black box machine learning operation, devoid of technological implementation and application details. Each step requires a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claim does not provide any details about how the trained models operates or how the prediction for best attendance channel is made. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Further applicant discusses on pages 14-15, example 39 directed to “training a neural network for facial detection” and example 47. In example 39, claims were eligible under 35U.S.C 101 as they did not recite any judicial exception. Examiner has considered all arguments regarding example 39. The claim 1, in instant application are not similar to example 39. In the current application, claims are directed to organizing of human activity using a computer as a tool. Claim 1 only recite computer implemented method, claims do not include a processor. An administrator/user can assemble dataset; augment the dataset by replacing customer ID/IT information; enhance the dataset by adding channel; divide the enhanced dataset into partitions and provide this data to machine learning model for training. Also, claims do not recite any particular technology used for assembling/augmenting/enhancing/dividing steps. However, instant claims, are similar to example 47 claim 2 which recites receives continuous training data at a computer, uses the computer to discretize the continuous training data to generate input data, trains the ANN using the input data and a selected backpropagation algorithm and gradient descent algorithm, detects and analyzes anomalies in a data set using the trained ANN, and outputs anomaly data from the trained ANN. The claimed discretizing, detecting, and analyzing steps encompass mental choices or evaluations, and the claimed discretizing and training using a backpropagation algorithm and gradient descent algorithm encompasses performing mathematical calculations. The limitations reciting “using the trained ANN” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Similarly, in instant case, the limitations of “training machine learning model using the augmented dataset” is recited at high level of generality (apply it level), provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The amended claims have been considered in 101 rejection above.
Further, on page 13-22, applicant states that claims are directed to an improvement to functioning of a computer by providing a novel process for training machine learning models. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant’s specification may disclose alleged improvements to processor efficiency, however, the specification ([0013]) does not provide any further detail as to how the claim set achieves such an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a) recites “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Examiner notes neither specification nor claims recite how the improvement to functioning of computer or technology/efficiency is achieved. The instant claims are directed to an abstract idea, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the instant claims are only to generic computing components that implement the abstract idea on a computing environment. As such, it can be interpreted that the instant claims only make the abstract idea more efficient, and there are not actual changes/improvements to any computing components. The claims are wholly directed to the abstract idea.
With regards to Dec 25th memo and Ex-Parte Desjardins decision, examiner has considered all arguments and respectfully disagrees. With regards to Desjardin decision, claims were directed to training a machine learning model and the claims/specification reflected an improvement in training the machine learning model Itself, however current claims do not recite any improvement in ML model or training of a ML model. The instant claims recite apply one or more models, training one or more model, thus the limitations are recited at high level of generality without any details regarding training or model or how the model is used. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chirakkil (US 2021/0365279 A1) discloses an input component can receive a computing context of a client and a computing profile of a client. A decision component can recommend in real-time, via a second machine learning classifier, a computing touchpoint to which to transfer the client. In various aspects, the second machine learning classifier can receive as input the computing context, the computing profile, and the predicted negative event and produce as output the recommended computing touchpoint.
Rogynskyy (US 20200372016) discusses determining a preferred communication channel based on determining a status of a node profile using electronic activities. The method may include accessing, by the one or more processors, a plurality of electronic activities.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626