DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “The present claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because the present claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Office Action alleges that "[t]he claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity." Office Action, 3. However, contrary to the allegations of the Office Action, the present claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity, examples of which include fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, none of the examples enumerated by the MPEP as being certain methods of organizing human activity accurately describe the features of the present claims.” The Examiner disagrees. The claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant’s claimed invention considers the prioritization of software related issues. It also describes the tracking and processing of said issues. This is plainly certain methods of organizing human activity, namely, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations).
Applicant further argues that the claims are similar to those in Enfish, LLC, Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016). The Examiner disagrees. The claims in Enfish were determined to be focused on the specific improvement in computer capabilities. In the instant Application there is no improvement to a computer. Even if one looked at the idea of an improvement to the software arts, there is still no comparison, as Applicant’s invention does not provide an improvement to software technology so much as it adds a general-purpose computer to abstract steps. Moreover, the focus of Applicant’s claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
accessing a data record of a reported issue occurring in a first runtime environment associated with an offering provided to a user, the data record comprising issue data that includes a first priority rating for the reported issue;
using the issue data to identify a relation between the reported issue and context data associated with the user; the context data comprising information for a plurality of runtime environments associated with the user;
accessing a second data record of a related issue occurring in a second runtime environment associated with the reported issue, the related issue identified based on at least the context data associated with the user;
augmenting the context data based on at least the related issue;
generating, based on at least the context data, a second priority rating for the reported issue, the second priority rating differing from the first priority rating; and causing presentation of the second priority rating.
automatically adjusting, based on at least the second priority rating, allocated to addressing the reported issue to reduce an issue processing time; and
causing presentation of an adjusted issue queue the second priority rating, the adjusted issue queue including the reported issue with the second priority rating.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “metadata, computing device, software offering, processor, computing resource, non-transitory computer-readable medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being business relations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, metadata, computing device, software offering, processor, computing resources, non-transitory computer-readable medium. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
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);
- (non-transitory computer readable medium, computing resources, computing device, software offering, processor)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(metadata)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While dependent claims 5-6 describes meta-data, 7 a data repository and runtime environment, 10 metadata, 11-software offering and runtime environment, 13-rules engine. Machine learning model, 14-computing device graphical user interface, computing device, 17 and 20, metadata, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628