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.
Claim Amendment
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/23/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
1) In independent claim 21, the phrase “[12] based at least on the issue request [the second user input, the processed content, and the predicted issue type of the new issue,]:
[13] adding a new node to the nodal graph, the new node associated with the first content” is considered as new matter and not supported by the original disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claims pending: 21-40.
1) Claims amended:
(1) Independent claims: 21, 27, and 36.
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 06/23/26, 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 a respective pair of nodes of the plurality of nodes represents a computed relational metric calculated based on at least one of:
(i) a semantic similarity score between respective content items represented
by respective nodes in the respective pair of nodes or a frequency of co-occurrence between
text content associated with respective content items represented by the respective nodes in the
respective 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;
[3a] in response to receiving a first user input to the issue request graphical user interface, [3b] extracting first content;
[4] 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, and
[5] 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:
[6] 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, generating an issue request including 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 issue request [the second user input, the processed content, and the predicted issue type of the new issue,]:
[13] adding a new node to the nodal graph, the new node associated with the first content; and
[14] adding at least one new edge to the nodal graph, the at least one new edge extending between the new node and at least one node of the plurality of nodes; and
[15] updating a training state of the predictive model based at least on the new node and the at least one new edge.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[15] are added to the beginning of each step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(1) In independent claims 1, step [3] “user input to the issue request graphical user interface” is vague because it’s not clear what kind of interface is it?
(2) Independent claim 1 recites the limitation "the predictive model based at least on the new node" in the last step “updating.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, adding new edge, and updating a training state of the predictive model. (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, adding new edge, and updating a training state of the predictive model. (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, adding new edge, and updating a training state of the predictive model. 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:
Independent method claim 21 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 … to identify similarity of items. Mental/evaluate/compare features.
[5] analyzing … to identify a 2nd content. Mental/evaluate/compare features.
[6] 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] receiving a 3rd user input (data) Data gathering.
[13] adding a new node to the nodal graph. Mathematical relationship.
[14] adding at least one new edge to graph. Mathematical relationship.
[15] updating a training state of model. Data gathering, IESA.
Steps [2], [3a], [3b], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [15] are data generation, data gathering, and data displaying which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [1] and [13] and [14] are mathematical relationship or formula.
Steps [4], [5], [6], [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]-[15] above.
Steps [2], [3a], [3b], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [15] are data generation, data gathering, and data displaying which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [1] and [13] and [14] are mathematical relationship or formula.
Steps [4], [5], [6], [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 [13] and [14] and [4], [5], [6], [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 06/23/26 have been fully considered and the results are as followed.
1) 112 (b) rejection: None.
2) 101 Rejection: Applicant’s comment on page 13, Step 2A, Prong 2, that as cited below, is noted but not persuasive, because there is the benefits cited “this recursive training mechanism improves the system’s ability to ascertain relationships and statistical confidences between data records” is not cited in par. [0051-0052] as mentioned.
Furthermore, as shown in claim 1, the step of “updating a training state of the predictive model…” is improper because there is no antecedent for “the predictive model.” In other word, there is only one model. Therefore, the comparison to the “two models” in “Ex parte Desjardins” is improper.
Applicant’s comment on pages 14-15, Step 2B, that as cited below, is noted but not persuasive, because there is the benefits cited “this recursive training mechanism improves the system’s ability to ascertain relationships and statistical confidences between data records” is not cited in par. [0051-0052] as mentioned.
Furthermore, as shown in claim 1, the step of “updating a training state of the predictive model…” is improper because there is no antecedent for “the predictive model.” In other word, there is only one model. Therefore, the comparison to the “training the two models” in “Ex parte Desjardins” is improper. Furthermore, the model in “Ex parte Desjardins” is used for multiple tasks with an acceptable level of performance. There are no multiple tasks related to the “updating the training state of the predictive model” in claim 21.
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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights