DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This is a CON of 16/370,605 which has become a patent US 11,720,857 B2.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/26 has been entered.
Claim Amendment
The amendment filed 02/09/26 has been entered. Claims pending: 21-40.
1) Claims amended:
(1) Independent claims: 21, 27, and 36.
(2) Dependent claims: 22, 24-25, 30, 33-34, and 39.
Claim Status
1-20. (Canceled)
Claims 21-40 are pending. They comprising of 3 groups:
(1) Method1: 21-26, and
(2) System1: 27-35, and
(3) System2: 36-40.
All appear to have similar scope and will be rejected together.
As of 02/09/26, independent claim 21 is as followed.
21. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for suggesting content for creation of a new issue for an issue tracking system, the computer-implemented method comprising:
[1] generating and storing in a non-transitory memory, a nodal graph of the issue tracking system comprising a plurality of nodes representing a plurality of content items associated with issues managed by the issue tracking system, wherein at least one edge between any pair of nodes represents a computed relational metric calculated based on at least one of:
a semantic similarity score between the respective content items represented by respective nodes in the pair of nodes or a frequency of co-occurrence between text content associated with respective content items represented by the respective nodes in the pair of nodes; and
[2] causing display of an issue request graphical user interface on a client device running a client application of the issue tracking system;
[3] in response to receiving a first user input corresponding to an issue request at a first field of the issue request graphical user interface, extracting first content from the issue request;
[4] analyzing the first content, comprising:
[4a] analyzing the first content using a natural language processing (NLP) module to generate processed content; and
[4b] analyzing the first content using a predictive model to determine a predicted issue type of the new issue; and
[5] analyzing, by an issue content comparator module of the issue tracking system, the nodal graph to identify a similarity between the first content and a first node of the nodal graph representing a first content item of an issue of the issue tracking system, the first content item associated with an issue type that corresponds to the predicted issue type; and
[6] analyzing, by the issue content comparator module, the nodal graph to identify a second content item that is related to the first content item within the nodal graph, wherein identifying the second content item comprises:
[6a] identifying, by the issue content comparator module, a second node having an edge relationship with respect to the first node, the second node representing the second content item; and
[7] extracting, by a text history tracker module of the issue tracking system, suggested content from the second content item;
[8] causing display, via the client device, of the suggested content in the issue request graphical user interface for the new issue;
[9] subsequent to receiving a second user input corresponding to selection of the suggested content, updating the issue request to include the suggested content;
[10] automatically updating the computed relational metric of the edge between the first node and the second node in the nodal graph based on the selection of the suggested content; and in response to receiving a third user input:
[11] causing creation, at the issue tracking system, of an issue corresponding to the issue request; and
[12] based at least on the second user input, the processed content, and the predicted issue type of the new issue, adding a new node to the nodal graph, the new node associated with the first content.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[12] are added to the beginning of each step.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities,
(2i) an idea of itself, or
(3i) a mathematical relationship or formula.
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 21-40:
Claim category:
Method (process): 21-26.
System (machine): 27-35, and 36-40.
Analysis:
Method: claims 21-26, are directed to a computer-implemented method for suggesting content for a new issue creation, comprising steps of generating a nodal graph of the issue tracking, causing a display, extracting content, analyzing the extracted content, identifying a predicted new issue, analyzing the nodal graph, identifying a second content, extracting suggested content, displaying the suggested content, updating the issue request, updating the nodal graph, receiving another user input, detecting an issue, adding a new node to the nodal graph. (Step 1:Yes).
System (machine): claims 27-35, and 36-40, are directed to a networked issue tracking system comprising processor configured to carry out steps for suggesting content for a new issue creation, comprising steps of generating a nodal graph of the issue tracking, causing a display, extracting content, analyzing the extracted content, identifying a predicted new issue, analyzing the nodal graph, identifying a second content, extracting suggested content, displaying the suggested content, updating the issue request, updating the nodal graph, receiving another user input, detecting an issue, adding a new node to the nodal graph. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for suggesting content for a new issue creation, comprising steps of generating a nodal graph of the issue tracking, causing a display, extracting content, analyzing the extracted content, identifying a predicted new issue, analyzing the nodal graph, identifying a second content, extracting suggested content, displaying the suggested content, updating the issue request, updating the nodal graph, receiving another user input, detecting an issue, adding a new node to the nodal. The entire claim is directed to managing workflow in an issue tracking system. Specifically, it suggesting content to streamline the process of issue requests. This is a method of organizing human activity related to project management, task assignment, and business practices for software development teams, which is an abstract idea.
These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to business process for making a suggestion of a content of a new issue. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Alternatively, the recited limitations also fall within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to an evaluation of content and make a recommendation for a suggested content based on a model of business analysis using nodal graph comparison. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for suggesting content for a new issue creation, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] generating a nodal graph… Mathematical relationship.
[2] causing a display of a GUI displaying, insignificant extra-solution activity, IESA.
[3a] receiving user input (data)… data gathering, IESA.
[3b] extracting content (data)… data gathering, IESA.
[4] analyzing content (data).. Mental step (evaluation/judgment).
[4a] analyzing 1st content… Mental step (evaluation/judgment)
[4b] analyzing 1st content… Mental step (evaluation/judgment).
[5] analyzing … to identify similarity of items. Mental/evaluate/compare features.
[6a] analyzing … to identify a 2nd content. Mental/evaluate/compare features.
[6b] identify a 2nd node … Mental/evaluate/compare features.
[7] extracting suggested content (data) Data gathering, IESA.
[8] display suggested content (data). Displaying data, IESA.
[9] receiving a 2nd user input.. updating… Data gathering, IESA.
[10]updating nodal graph. Data gathering, IESA.
[11] causing creation of an issue. Mental/evaluation.
[12] adding a new node to the nodal graph. Mathematical relationship.
Steps [2], [3a], [3b], [7], [8], [9], and [10] are data generation, data gathering, and data displaying which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [1] and [12] are mathematical relationship or formula.
Steps [4], [4a], [4b], [5], [6a], [6b] and [11] are well known mental steps for evaluating/judgment / comparing items using an evaluation model and nodal graph of content relational structures.
Step [2] is providing a generic computer device with generic software elements.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, i.e. an electronic device having a processing unit with a software application thereon. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for evaluating/analyzing an object using an evaluation model and nodal graph of content relational structures which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[12] above.
Steps [2], [3a], [3b], [7], [8], [9], and [10] are data generation, data gathering, and data displaying which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [1] and [12] are mathematical relationship or formula.
Steps [4], [4a], [4b], [5], [6a], [6b] and [11] are well known mental steps for evaluating/judgment / comparing items using an evaluation model and nodal graph of content relational structures.
Step [2] is providing a generic computer device with generic software elements.
The additional elements do not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. The generic computer components, with other devices such as predictive text module, issue tracking, GUI, etc., merely perform generic computer functions: causing a display, extracting content, analyzing the extracted content, generating a nodal graph, analyzing the nodal graph to identify similarity, identifying a second content, extracting suggested content, and displaying the suggested content.
Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software application for suggesting content for a new issue creation of an issue tracking system. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental step for evaluating/analyzing an object using an evaluation model and nodal graph of content relational structure) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [1] and [12] and [4], [4a], [4b], [5], [6a], [6b] and [11], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system or article claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions, with other devices such as predictive text module, issue tracking, GUI, etc. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for carrying out the issue creation method, are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 22-23 (part of 21 above), which deal with further details of the determinations of the predicted issue type, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis of the predicted issue type, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 22-23 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 24-25 (part of 21 above), which deal with further details of the extracted suggested content, a suggested assignee or complexity, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis of the predicted issue type, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 24-25 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 26 (part of 21 above), which deals with further details of the generation of the nodal graph, by a predictive model, this further limits the abstract idea of the generated nodal graph, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 26 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 21-40 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/26 have been fully considered and the results are as followed.
1) 112 (b) rejection: None.
2) 101 Rejection: Applicant’s comment on page 13, as cited below, is noted but not persuasive, updating data is well known business activities to provide new data which in general enhancing the monitoring and workflow accuracy.
PNG
media_image1.png
176
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
230
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s comment on page 14, as cited above, is noted but this appears to be related to the collection of more and updated data which normally improves the model performance and this is well known practice.
The additional amended elements do not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field.
Relevant Arts
Independent claims 21(serve as representative for the other independent claims) is directed to a system for tracking issue records and suggesting content to a user, comprising the steps as shown above, is neither anticipated by, nor obvious in view of, (1) CALVER, US 2021/0.032.092, and (2) RAICHUR et al., US 2001/0.034.015, and (3) WATKINS, Jr. et al, US 2019/0.066.243, and (4) BHAMIDIPATY et al, US 9,459,950, since claimed invention, which teaches steps [1], [4], [5], and [10], which references neither discloses nor suggest.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689