DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed on 05/13/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 21, 25, 28, and 32 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3-4, 21-25, 28-32, 35, 39-41, and 43-45 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn in light of amendments to claims 1, 21, and 28.
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/13/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered. The Applicant argues the following:
(1) The claims are not directed to the abstract groupings of Mental Processes or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the operations cannot practically be performed solely in the human mind aided only by pen and paper. For example, machine learning is not a human cognitive process. The claims do not direct any human to follow anything. Nothing in claim 1 instructs any associate, supervisor, or other person to take any specific action.
(2) The abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The ordering and prioritizing operations enable real-time enterprise-wide monitoring, ordering, and processing (i.e. resolving) of the executable commands (i.e. tickets) thereby improving enterprise-wide monitoring and resource optimization. The specification at paras [0014] and [0015] identifies a technological problem in computerized service-request prioritization. Paras [0016]-[0018] highlights the technological improvement to conventional prioritization systems, in which a prioritization engine automatically and dynamically orders a queue of tickets across multiple enterprises. Claim 1 is directed to a specific technical solution to that specific technical problem in computerized service-request prioritization.
(3) The combination of components recited in claim 1 is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in computerized service-request prioritization. The specification at paragraphs [0014] and [0015] identifies the conventional approach as single-focus prioritization producing cascading dimension. The contrast supplies the Berkheimer evidentiary basis for unconventionality. Under Berkheimer, the absence of any factual finding by the Office that the recited combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional is itself a basis for withdrawing the 101 rejection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with all arguments. As per argument (1), the Examiner maintains the position that the claims are directed to the abstract groupings of both Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claims describe a process of receiving and processing work related data to prioritize, score, and assign tickets (i.e. tasks) and evaluate performance of associates. These claims could encompass a human person such as a supervisor/manager mentally with pen and paper receiving and processing work related input data (e.g. adjusting, determine, displaying details and performance) to determine priority, scoring, and assignment of tickets (i.e. tasks) to support staff. The human mind can prioritize, predict, analyze, allocate. The Examiner is not saying that the mind can operate as ML or other computer components. These components are acknowledged as additional elements in Steps 2A(2) and 2B. However, these computer components are being used to perform mental processes of analyze, predict, prioritize, etc. Mental Processes include claims directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Assigning tickets (i.e. tasks), rewards, and/or penalties to support staff is considered acts of organizing human activities as the tickets provide instructions for support staff to follow and rewards/penalties are considered feedback given to support staff to reinforce and/or alter their behavior. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity which encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Therefore, these limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the abstract groupings of Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. As per MPEP 2106.04(a), a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
As per argument (2), the Examiner maintains the position that the additional elements recited in the claims and highlighted in Steps 2A(2) and 2B do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, provide significantly more, nor provide a technical solution to a technical problem. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer nor improve another technology of technical field. The improvement in service-request prioritization is not a technological improvement but an abstract improvement. This is improvement is furnished by the abstract steps of analyzing, determining a set of priorities, scoring, applying an allocation scheme, etc. as highlighted in Step 2A(1). Per MPEP 2106.05(a), an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. The Examiner also submits that prioritizing service-request is not a “technical problem” and addressing via abstract processes is not a “technological solution”. Using specific computer-based technology to perform an abstract process are viewed as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Applying an abstract idea on a computer and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(e-f)).
As per argument (3), the Examiner submits that the additional elements recited in the claims were not deemed as well-understood, routine, or conventional, was not the basis for the 101 rejection, and thus Berkheimer evidence is not required (MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). However, the Applicant’s specification in paras [0014]-[0015] recites “conventional systems’” struggles with maximizing support operation’s performance and the prioritization of tickets and does not discuss the system’s technological arrangement of components and/or parts that are different from the Applicant’s system. The Applicant’s specification does not provide details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim or of a non-generic arrangement of parts. The mere absence of the term “conventional” or the absence of an admission to using conventional components in the Applicant’s specification do not imply or mean “non-conventional”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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 .
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, 3-4, 21-25, 28-32, 35, 39-41, and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, “Service Request Prioritization”, is directed to an abstract idea, specifically Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, without significantly more. The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually or in combination provide mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 1: Claims 1, 3-4, 21-25, 28-32, 35, 39-41, and 43-45 are directed to a statutory category, namely a process (claims 1, 3-4, and 39-41), a manufacture (claims 21-25, 35, and 43-45), and a machine (claims 28-32).
Step 2A (1): Claims 1, 3-4, 21-25, 28-32, 35, 39-41, and 44-45 are directed to an abstract idea of Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, based on the following claim limitations:
Mental Processes:
“accessing,…, a set of inputs describing: a ticket originating with a client organization and relating to a solution request associated with the client organization, the client organization, and ticket processing related details;
analyzing…the set up inputs…;
applying a first allocation scheme to a set of tickets…, wherein applying the first allocation scheme orders the set of tickets… according to the first allocation scheme and comprises utilizing … (i) the set of inputs and (b) a set of prioritization criteria;
…generates…a prediction that an objective defined by a performance guideline…is in danger of falling below a threshold;
applying a second allocation scheme to the set of tickets… responsive to predicting that the objective is in danger of falling below the threshold, wherein applying the second allocation scheme orders the set of tickets…according to the second allocation scheme and comprises adjusting the first set of scoring elements to generate a second set of scoring elements for the set of tickets and a second set of priorities for the set of tickets;
utilizing at least one of the second set of scoring elements and the second set of priorities in a feedback loop…;
determining, …, and based on content received from the feedback loop, that the objective is not below the threshold; (claims 1, 21, and 28)
dynamically adjusting, on the fly…, values of a set of different weights that are assigned to the ticket based on performance feedback from the feedback loop for the set of tickets, and generating an aggregate score based on the performance feedback, wherein the aggregate score (a) is based on a score reward allocated for each ticket of the set of tickets and a score penalty allocated for each ticket of the set of tickets and (b) corresponds to an adherence to a priority …for the set of tickets. (claim 3)
wherein predicting that the objective is in danger of falling below the threshold is based on one or both of the first set of priorities and the first set of scoring elements, wherein the second set of priorities differs from a third set of priorities indicated by the third allocation scheme, and further comprising dynamically adjusting ticket processing details based on the client organization input (claims 4, 24, and 31)
dynamically adjusting on the fly…, values of a set of different weights that are assigned to the ticket based on performance feedback from the feedback loop for the set of tickets (claims 22 and 29)
generating an aggregate score based on the performance feedback, wherein the aggregate score is based on a score reward allocated for each ticket of the set of tickets and a score penalty allocated for each ticket of the set of tickets.(claims 23, 30, and 32)
wherein predicting that the objective is in danger of falling below the threshold is based on one or both of the first set of priorities and the first set of scoring elements. (claims 24 and 31)
generating an aggregate score that corresponds to an adherence to a priority at the associate device for the set of tickets (claim 25)
generating an aggregate score based on a score reward allocated for each ticket of the set of tickets and a score penalty allocated for each ticket of the set of tickets, and wherein the aggregate score corresponds to an adherence to the a priority at the associate device for the set of tickets (claim 32)
wherein one or more operations selected from a group comprising predicting that the objective is in danger of falling below a threshold and predicting that the objective is no longer in danger of falling below the threshold are performed… (claim 35)
wherein the second set of priorities is determined based on content other than the first set of scoring elements (claim 39)
wherein the prioritizing criteria is determined based on content other than the scoring criteria (claim 40)
wherein the ticket identifies an issue and identifies a request by the client organization for resolution of the issue (claim 41)
wherein predicting that the objective is in danger of falling below a threshold and predicting that the objective is no longer in danger of falling below the threshold are performed…(claim 44);
wherein the operations further comprise dynamically adjusting, on the fly …, the allocation logic based on performance feedback from the feedback loop. (claim 45)
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity:
allocating…the ticket …wherein allocating the ticket comprises: determining a first set of priorities relating to prioritizing criteria and a first set of scoring elements relating to scoring criteria differing from the prioritizing criteria, wherein a scoring element of the first set of scoring elements includes an item configured to: convey a first indication to increase a performance score value for the ticket; and/or convey a second indication to decrease the performance score value for the ticket; (claims 1, 21, and 28)
applying a third allocation scheme to the set of tickets…responsive to determining,…that the objective is not below the threshold, wherein applying the third allocation scheme comprises: automatically and dynamically initiating, on the fly…re-ordering of the set of tickets…according to the third allocation scheme;
transmitting… ticket reallocation information…the ticket reallocation information indicating a re-prioritized set of tickets ordered in accordance with the third allocation scheme (claims 1, 21, and 28)
These claims describe a process of receiving and processing work related data to prioritize, score, and assign tickets (i.e. tasks) and evaluate performance of associates. Dependent claims 3-4, 22-25, 29-32, 35, 39-41, and 44-45 further describe the ticket details, ticket scoring, and the evaluation of worker performance. These claims could encompass a human person such as a supervisor/manager mentally with pen and paper receiving and processing work related input data (e.g. adjusting, determine, displaying details and performance) to determine priority, scoring, and assignment of tickets (i.e. tasks) to support staff. Assigning tickets (i.e. tasks), rewards, and/or penalties to support staff is considered acts of organizing human activities as the tickets provide instructions for support staff to follow and rewards/penalties are considered feedback given to support staff to reinforce and/or alter their behavior. Therefore, these limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the abstract groupings of Mental Processes which include concepts performed in the human mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity which encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Mental Processes include claims directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity can encompass the activity of a single person (e.g. a person following a set of instructions), activity that involve multiple people (e.g. a commercial interaction), and certain activity between a person and a computer (e.g. a method of anonymous loan shopping). Therefore, claims 1, 3-4, 21-25, 28-32, 35, 39-41, and 44-45 are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Step 2A (2): The claims as a whole do not integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 21, 28, 35, and 43 recite additional elements of “A computer-implemented method performed by one or more hardware processors (OOMHPs); an input component of a prioritization engine associated with the OOMHPs; a processing component of the prioritization engine; wherein (A) the prioritization engine (i) is communicatively coupled to one or more medical-information electronic data stores, of a plurality of medical-information electronic data stores, associated with the set of inputs, (ii) comprises the input component that accesses the set of inputs, (iii) utilizes an electronic machine-learning component (EMLC), and (iv) further comprises an output component utilizing an electronic interface associated with an associate device…, and (B) the OOMHPs are associated with a plurality of program execution devices interconnected in a geographically dispersed configuration according to locations of the plurality of medical-information electronic data stores; allocating, via the OOMHPs; storing the ticket,…,at a queue of the associate device; leveraging the EMLC by the prioritization engine wherein leveraging of the EMLC (a) is initiated via the OOMHPs, and (b) generates via the EMLC..; stored at an electronic memory associated with the prioritization engine; transmitting, via the OOMHPs and the output component of the prioritization engine… to the electronic interface associated with the associate device (claims 1, 21, and 28); one or more non-transitory media having computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors (OOMHPs), cause the OOMHPs to perform a plurality of operations…; (claim 21), a system having one or more hardware processors (OOMHPs) configured to perform a plurality of operations…: (claim 28); …performed by applying at least one machine-learning electronic model that has been configured, via the one or more hardware processors, to perform the one or more operations (claim 35); and wherein a subset of the operations is performed by the plurality of program execution devices interconnected in the geographically dispersed configuration according to the locations of the plurality of medical- information electronic data stores (claim 43).”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not recite (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field and (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself and (c) implementing the abstract idea with or by use of a particular machine, (d) effecting a particular transformation or reduction of an article, or (e) applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These additional elements evaluated individually and in combination are viewed as computing and display devices that are used to perform the abstract idea of receiving and processing work related data to prioritize, score, and assign tickets and evaluate performance of support staff. Limitations that recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea are not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Also, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (e.g. machine learning) 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, claims 1, 3-4, 21-25, 28-32, 35, 39-41, and 43-45 as a whole do not include individual or a combination of additional elements that integrate the abstract into a practical application and thus are not patent eligible.
Step 2B: The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1, 21, 28, 35, and 43 recite additional elements as stated above in Step 2A(2). These additional elements evaluated individually and in combination are viewed as mere instructions to apply or implement the abstract idea on a computer. The use of machine learning and trained models/algorithms are considered instructions to apply or implement a model on a computer. Applying an abstract idea on a computer and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). Therefore, claims 1, 3-4, 21-25, 28-32, 35, 39-41, and 43-45 as a whole do not include individual or a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and thus are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ayanna Minor whose telephone number is (571)272-3605. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5 pm.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights