CTFR 17/971,381 CTFR 80862 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 26 January 2026. No claim amendments are presented. Claims 18-21 are canceled. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined. Response to Amendment No claim amendments are presented. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection remains pending and is restated below. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments regarding the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the recited limitations to be merely mental processes, even with the aid or pen and paper. Applicant asserts that Ex Parte Desjardins is applicable to the present claims, which are “ directed to monitoring module executing in a computing environment’s server hardware to resolve an abnormal system behavior in the computing environment ” and “ recite logical structures and processes that have been recognized as sufficient for parent-eligibility ” by Enfish and the Appeals Review Panel decision in Ex Parte Desjardins . Applicant asserts that the claimed invention is directed to an improvement to computer related technology, “ specifically resolving an abnormal system behavior in the computing environment ,” to automatically generate a data structure from one or more digital service provider records, including resolution data that can be referenced to determine a solution to another service ticket that describes the same or a similar problem. Applicant further asserts that the steps for “ transmitting the first vendor team dispatch request to a first device ,” causing a first interface to display additional information corresponding to the first service requirement, and “ transmitting the second vendor dispatch request ” shows a “ particular transformation ” that is more than a general link to the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. Applicant states that “ a computer that includes and executes specified and specialized instructions cannot thereafter be reasonably regarded as a generic computer .” Lastly, Applicant asserts that the claims apply or use any alleged judicial exception in some other meaningful way, such that the claims as a whole, are directed to a practical application and amount to significantly more than any abstract concept. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Memorandum of August 04, 2025 stated that Examiners should consider whether the technological limitations are used as a tool to improve the recited judicial exception or whether the claim as a whole provides an improvement to a technology or technical field, and advised Examiners to refrain from oversimplifying claim limitations. The memorandum does not change how 35 U.S.C. 101 is applied for examination purposes. The 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis detailed in MPEP 2106 has been properly applied in the examination of the claims herein. Examiner has made the requisite prima facie case showings for satisfying: Step 2a Prong One –the directed to findings, Prong Two –findings supporting additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and Step 2B –findings of not significantly more. See detailed 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection restated below. Per the MPEP evidentiary requirements in making a § 101 rejection: “When performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Therefore, there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception. … At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.” See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). The claim limitations are directed to an abstract idea of data collection, analysis, display, and updating of data that falls within the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities groupings of abstract concepts. The recited steps for configuring a probe to monitor a resource, executing a query, updating the action plan record, monitoring event logs, and updating the digital ticket are all data gathering and recording steps that could be performed mentally by a human or through use of a pen and paper. The steps for generating a digital ticket, creating an action item record, executing a query, determining an optimal vendor team, and creating a multi-vendor team, are each mental processes because a project manager could mentally, or through use of pen and paper, use institutional/personal experience and knowledge to make mental determinations, observations, and judgements for discerning whether a digital ticket should be created based on monitored system data, tasks required to resolve a system issue, and optimal vendor selections for performing the related tasks to minimize a risk of missing a contract service level agreement for equipment to be repaired. None of the recited limitations are claimed in a manner that cannot be practically performed in the mind, therefore, the claim limitations are not analogous to those of Desjardins. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The assignment of tasks and monitoring/recording of task completion is a form of managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people (optimal vendor team). Because assigning and monitoring tasks is a form of managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people the claims fall within the abstract concept grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. The limitations for transmitting vendor team dispatch requests and additional information corresponding to the service requirement for display on an interface constitute insignificant extra solution activity because these steps do not add meaningful limitations to the process of determining an optimal vendor team or the tasks required to resolve a system/equipment issue. Merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g) & (h). The claimed invention does not improve a computer or its components’ functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the way the device functions, at least in the sense contemplated by the Federal Circuit in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation , 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claimed self-referential table in Enfish was a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1339. To the extent Applicant contends that the claimed invention uses such a data structure to improve a computer’s functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the way that device functions, neither the Specification nor the claim limitations support such an improvement. Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are "changed" are not considered an eligible transformation. A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method ( e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). See MPEP 2106.05(c). While the claims recite limitations for collecting and analyzing data, including monitoring resources, generating a digital ticket, creating a multi-vendor team, updating the action record, and transmitting dispatch requests, the claims fall short of a practical application because the results of the collection and analysis are merely “transmitted” to a vendor device for action. Unlike the limitations of Example 40 wherein the results of the analysis were used to detect and abnormal condition and modifying the collection of data to avoid excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance, the data collected herein is merely processed according to specific business rules to generate a plurality of action items to be performed by a multi-vendor team, without significantly more. The limitations for transmitting data to a vendor device/interface fail to recite limitations that use computer technology in a manner that is necessary for the performance of the claimed improvement to technology. In other words, the claims merely use generic computing technology as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claims fail to recite actual interface functionality. As claimed herein the display is updated in response to data input, not to specific interaction with a specialized interface and technical details regarding how the interface functions in response to the specific interface interaction. The claims fails to recite a significant amount of interaction with a particular interface element that uses the information in a particular way such that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims herein are more analogous to those of Claim 2 of Example 40 wherein the claims are directed to mere data gathering steps that automate data collection, transmission, and updates without significantly more than the recited insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The improvement stated by Applicant is an improvement to the abstract idea of making a mental determination for assigning a team to resolve a service issue, which is not sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application. The functions of the additional elements are broadly and generically claimed, do not present an improvement to the underlying technology used to implement the abstract idea, and are recited in a manner that does not go beyond applying generic system monitoring technology to implement the abstract idea of dispatching workers to resolve a problem identified through data analysis and abnormal system behavior determination. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, do not provide a practical application of the additional elements, and when considered in combination do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is proper, maintained, and restated below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a process, independent claim 12 recites a product for optimal selection of a service request response team. Independent claims 1 and 12 recite substantially similar limitations. Taking independent claim 1 as representative of claim 12, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations: configuring a probe in the server hardware to monitor a specific type of resource in the computing environment, and to become associated with the monitoring module that is configured to operate in conjunction with the specific type of resource such that the monitoring module is enabled to identify an occurrence of an event relative to the specific type of resource, and is further enabled to correlate the occurrence with the abnormal system behavior relative to the specific type of resource ; generating, upon detecting the abnormal system behavior, a digital ticket corresponding to the abnormal system behavior, the digital ticket comprising a service request ; creating a first action item record corresponding to a first action item of a plurality of action items of an action plan record that is responsive to a service request, the first action item record comprising a first service requirement of the first action item ; executing a first querying process that searches vendor records stored in a database for candidate vendors associated with the first service requirement, the first querying process resulting in a first set of candidate vendors ; updating the first action item record with the first set of candidate vendors ; determining an optimal vendor team from among a plurality of candidate vendors of the plurality of action items, the plurality of candidate vendors including the first set of candidate vendors, based at least in part on reputation data and cost data associated with each of the plurality of candidate vendors, wherein the determining of the optimal vendor team comprises minimizing a risk of missing a contract service level agreement for equipment to be repaired ; creating a multi-vendor team by combining one or more of the plurality of candidate vendors of the plurality of action items based on the optimal vendor team determined, wherein the multi-vendor team comprises a first vendor associated with the first service requirement and a second vendor associated with the second service requirement ; updating the action plan record to include the optimal vendor team, wherein the updating of the action plan record triggers creation of a vendor team dispatch request ; transmitting the first vendor team dispatch request to a first device associated with the first vendor, wherein the transmitting the first vendor team dispatch request to a first device causes a first interface of the first device to display additional information corresponding to the first service requirement ; transmitting the second vendor team dispatch request to a second device associated with the second vendor, wherein the transmitting the second vendor team dispatch request to the second device causes a second interface of the second device to display additional information corresponding to the second service requirement ; monitoring, using the monitoring module, event logs to determine whether the service request has been resolved; and updating, upon a determination that the service request has been resolved, the digital ticket to include resolution data comprising information related to the service request that has been resolved . Under Step 1, independent claims 1 and 12 recite at least one step or act, including generating, upon detecting the abnormal system behavior, a digital ticket. Thus the claims fall within one of the statutory categories on invention. See MPEP 2106.03. Under Step 2A Prong One, the limitations of claims 1 and 12 for configuring a probe, generating a digital ticket comprising a service request, creating a first action item record, executing a first querying process, updating the first action item record, determining an optimal vendor team, creating a multi-vendor team, updating the action plan record, and transmitting the first vendor team dispatch request, as drafted, illustrates a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (comparing or categorizing information). A project manager could mentally observe event logs, determine anomalous conditions, create a service ticket/task, create a resolution plan based on past resolution data, assign qualified vendors, and update the status for vendor compliance with the plan of action. Therefore, the limitations fall into the mental processes grouping and accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Because determining (assigning) an action plan or optimal vendor team to a service requirement is a form of managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people (assigner to assignee) the claims within the abstract concept grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, and recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The steps for transmitting dispatch requests, updating the action plan record, and updating the digital ticket to include resolution data are construed as insignificant extra-solution activity that do not impose meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (including “testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction” determined as mere data gathering extra-solution activity). Under Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception of claims 1 and 12 is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites a probe in a hardware server, computer (processor and storage device), and database for performing the recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0058] states: “ Data processing system 200 is also representative of a conventional data processing system or a configuration therein, such as conventional data processing system 132 in Fig. 1 in which computer usable program code or instructions implementing the processes of the illustrative embodiments may be located .” Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The claims are void of technical details regarding how the claimed computing devices and computer related technology is improved through execution of the recited steps. The recited additional elements include, a server, computer, probe, a first device and interface associated with a first vendor, and a second device and interface associated with a second vendor. Each of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and when applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, each additional element is used as a tool to implement the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data to determine a dispatch team for resolution of a service request. While use of the recited additional elements improves efficiency, nothing in the claim limitations precludes the recited data analysis steps from being performed using the human mind/ human use of pen and paper to make optimal plan of action or service provider collaboration determinations, communicate a dispatch request, and record a service outcome. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the claims fall within the mental processes/ certain methods of organizing human activities grouping of abstract ideas and do not amount to a practical application. Regarding the steps for “ configuring a probe associated with a monitoring module that is configured to operate in conjunction with a specific type of resource in a computing environment ,” the probe and monitoring module are construed as software. The monitoring module is construed as a generic computing module that can be implemented as software executable by a generic processor to perform data comparison and correlation functions based on a business rule, in a manner that could be performed by a human analyzing the data mentally. As a result, these additional elements do not transform the recited abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Regarding the claimed first and second interface using to display information transmitted to the first and second vendor device, the interface is also recited at a high level of generality with the only required function of displaying, which is a generic function of interfaces, similar to the ineligible claims of Example 22 of the MPEP Guidance. Like Example 22, the recited limitations of claim 1 do not improve the functioning of a device and do not improve a technology or a technical field. The claims herein are also analogous to those of Claim 2 of Example 40 wherein the claims are directed to mere data gathering steps that automate the comparison of data without significantly more than the recited insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and storage device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept. Dependent claims 2 through 11 and 13 through 17 include the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The claims merely narrow the mental process/method of organizing human activity abstract idea by describing the type and availability of replacement part required to perform the service, using the part availability data to select an optimal vendor, creating an additional action item record comprising an additional service request and querying the system to determine the optimal vendor team to perform the additional service request – including a skill requirement for performance of the additional service request, updating the additional action item record, retrieving reputations data including a reputation score for a candidate vendor, and minimizing risk, maximizing reputation, and minimizing cost. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly independent claims 12 and the claims that depend therefrom are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis applied to claim 1 above. Therefore claims 1 – 17 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure : Kloeffer et al. (US 2007/0168874) - The health checks service can automate the monitoring of an event generation process on the client system and the creation of incidents and/or tasks based on the monitored events. During the creation of the incident and/or task, context or diagnostic data related to the generated event (e.g., the data that is needed to resolve the event, such as data related to an error message) can be automatically collected, stored and attached to the incident or task message that can be prepared and then pushed to appropriate personnel, such as the IT administrator, and displayed in a graphical user interface (UI), which can include control center views (summary pages) and work center views (detailed pages). Thus, the health checks service can automatically inform people in charge of handling an incidents and tasks (e.g., at IT administrator) and can provide the context data to resolve the incident or task. The results of the recommended actions can then be displayed or provided to a person in charge, such as the IT administrator. In some implementations, the collected context data are stored and the generated incident service request is associated with the stored context data. In some implementations, the generated incident service request is displayed in one or more views of a graphical user interface. Niemann (US 11,430,023) - a method of connecting customers needing technological support with advisors capable of providing technological support includes providing an application in which a user may identify as a customer or advisor, allowing a customer to create a support ticket request by selecting a requested advisor or team of advisors from a database of registered advisors with contact information and skills located on at least one server computer having a non-transitory computer readable medium, notifying the requested advisor that the requested advisor or team of advisors has been selected by the customer, permitting communication between the customer and requested advisor. Wood (US 2005/0097396) - A service desk diagnostic system of the present invention takes advantage of a database with pre-identified symptoms and makes a set of activated symptoms available to service representatives. These activated symptoms reflect the current state of the system, and each state of the system is characterized by a set of symptoms. The system is pre-populated with causes, related symptoms, and solutions. n automated monitoring system is configured to recognize the state of the IT environment that describes each cause. Actions are associated with the recognition of the state in the monitoring system, and these actions include activation of the related symptoms in the diagnostics system, creation of a system incident report in the incident tracking system, and relating the incident to a cause. Grace et al. (US 8,996,397) - method, system, computer program product, or a combination of the foregoing for creating a knowledge management system including a performance dashboard monitoring system that is standardized and centralized across the channels and sub-channels in an organization. The performance dashboard monitoring system is used to track, measure, and resolve incidents that occur throughout the channels, sub-channels, systems, and applications of an organization. The system receives information related to two or more incidents, where each incident is associated with one or more of a business channel, sub-channel, or application. The system tracks the status of at least one incident between the occurrence and the resolution of the incident. The system displays on a user interface the information related to the incident on a channel, sub-channel, application, or individual incident level. Tremblay et al. (US 2022/0343250) - GUI allow a user of a client to customize service workflows of the client with respect to a ticket pipeline. The GUI presents a ticket pipeline that defines a set of triggering conditions that automate the processing of a ticket, such as the ticket reaching a “new ticket” status when a customer initiates a new ticket, a ticket reaching “waiting on contact” status when customer is expected to make contact with the client, a “waiting on us” status when the client is expected to take action to close the ticket, and a “closed” status when the ticket is closed. The ticket management system may generate new tickets, assign tickets to new tickets to respective ticket pipelines, manage pipelines including updating the status of tickets as the ticket moves through the various stages of its lifecycle, managing workflows, and the like. 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 LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm. 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, Rutao WU can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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. /L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 2 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 3 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 4 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 5 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 6 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 7 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 8 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 9 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 10 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 11 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 12 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 13 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 14 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 15 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 16 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 17 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 17/971,381 Page 18 Art Unit: 3623
Prosecution Insights