DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing 09/25/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully examined.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “a first threshold” on both Page 2, Claim 1 line 11, and Page 2, Claim 1 line 20. This introduces an antecedent basis issue as it is unclear whether the second recitation if “a first threshold” on line 20 is intending to recall the same “first threshold.” For the purposes of examination, the recitation of “a first threshold” on line 20 is interpreted to be “the first threshold” recalling the same as line 11. Claims 2-9 inherit this unclarity of Claim 1. Claims 10 and 19 recite similarly, therefore Claims 11-18 and 20 inherit the respective unclarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “a first word overlap score” on Page 2, Claim 1 line 19. Claim 2, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites “a first word overlap score” on Page 3, Claim 2 line 4. This introduces an antecedent basis issue as it is unclear whether the second recitation of “a first word overlap score” in Claim 2 is intending to recall the same “first word overlap score” of Claim 1, or if this is introducing a new “first word overlap score.” For the purposes of examination, the recitation of “a first word overlap score” on line 4 of Claim 2 is interpreted to be “the first word overlap score,” recalling the same as Claim 1. Claims 3-4 inherit this unclarity of Claim 2. Claims 10-11 recite similarly, therefore Claims 12-13 inherit this same unclarity. Claims 19-20 recite similarly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “a second threshold” on Page 2, Claim 1 line 21. Claim 9 further recites “a second threshold” on Page 5, Claim 9 line 10. This introduces an antecedent basis issue as it is unclear whether the second recitation of “a second threshold” in Claim 9 is intending to recite the same “second threshold” as Claim 1, or if this introducing a new “second threshold. For the purposes of examination, the recitation of “a second threshold” in Claim 9 is interpreted to be “the second threshold,” recalling the same as Claim 1. Claims 10 and 18 recite similarly. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: The claim recites a product.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract idea
Claim 10 recites,
determining a change set … This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind that makes a judgement whether a complaint is within a set time-period. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
calculating a text similarity … This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
determining a change as a fault change … This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of forming an opinion of similarity. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
… in response to that a text similarity between a description text corresponding to the change and the user complaint text meets a first threshold This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind making a judgement regarding a threshold. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
… determining a weighted fusion… This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind making a judgement regarding a threshold. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
calculating a text similarity … This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional Elements
Claim 10 additionally recites,
obtaining a user complaint text obtaining the user complaint text is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
obtaining a description text … obtaining the description text is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
a fault change being a technical change made to the computing system with respect to one or more of a physical configuration or a software code of the computing system that causes a technical issue to the computing system, This limitation merely describes data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
communicating with a technician in updating one or more of… This limitation describes merely providing data to a technician in the form of a notification [specification; 0047]. Therefore, this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculation to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 10 further recites,
one or more processors and one or more memory devices, the one or more processors being communicatively coupled to the one or more memory devices… Merely performing the above steps on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Significantly More
Claim 10 additionally recites,
obtaining a user complaint text obtaining the user complaint text is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
obtaining a description text … obtaining the description text is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
a fault change being a technical change made to the computing system with respect to one or more of a physical configuration or a software code of the computing system that causes a technical issue to the computing system, This limitation merely describes data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
communicating with a technician in updating one or more of… This limitation describes merely providing data to a technician in the form of a notification [specification; 0047]. Therefore, this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculation to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 10 further recites,
one or more processors and one or more memory devices, the one or more processors being communicatively coupled to the one or more memory devices… Merely performing the above steps on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11
The calculating and obtaining steps recited in Claim 11 recite further elements of the abstract idea of Claim 10 and do not provide any further features. Claim 11 is a product that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). The limitation “wherein the description text includes at least one sentence” is selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and has been found to be an extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 12
The calculating steps recited in Claim 12 recite further elements of the abstract idea of Claims 10-11 and do not provide any further features. Claim 12 is a product that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 13
The steps recited in Claim 13 recite further elements of the abstract idea of Claims 10-12 and do not provide any further features. Claim 13 is a product that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites,
calculating the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text includes … This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
calculating a second word overlap score… This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
obtaining M target texts with highest second word overlap scores among the at least one target text corresponding to the description text, wherein M is a positive integer This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind that filters through and sorts text basted on overlap score. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
calculating the text similarity This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). …
Claim 14 additionally recites,
the description text includes a plurality of sentences The limitation is merely describing data and has been found to be an extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 15
The calculating steps recited in Claim 15 recite further elements of the abstract idea of Claim 14 and do not provide any further features. Claim 15 is a product that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 16
The calculating steps recited in Claim 16 recite further elements of the abstract idea of Claim 15 and do not provide any further features. Claim 16 is a process that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites,
… filtering the user complaint text and the description text corresponding to each change based on a stop word library … This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind that filters text to remove words from a word library. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
… calculating a text similarity … This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites,
… determining X historical user complaint texts made before the complaint time … This limitation recites performing a determination regarding previously collected data relating to a desired, threshold time. Therefore, this limitation recites forming a judgement or opinion, therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
calculating a text similarity … This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
in response to that text similarities between the Y historical user complaint texts and the user complaint text meets a second threshold… This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of comparing known information to a threshold. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
… determining the change as a fault change … This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of forming an opinion of similarity. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D). This limitation is also a process that recites a mathematical calculation by determining if a fault change is greater than or equal to a determined threshold. Thus, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claims 19-20 recite a non-transitory computer storage medium, therefore a product, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same abstract ideas without significantly more as Claims 10-11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 10-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being unpatentable over Singh (U.S. PGPUB No. 20210014260) in view of Dani et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 20160026452).
Regarding Claim 1, Singh teaches,
A fault change locating method, comprising: obtaining a user complaint text (Platform applications include information technology service management, including incident (trouble ticket) management [0111]);
determining a change set of one or more technical changes made to a computing system within a time period based on a complaint time of the user complaint text (Data used to determine recommendations include "a text field of […] another incident report, a text field of a resolved incident report, a knowledgebase article" [0147]);
obtaining a description text corresponding to each change of the one or more technical changes made to the computing system in the change set (Data used to determine recommendations include "a text field of […] another incident report, a text field of a resolved incident report, a knowledgebase article" [0147];
calculating a text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text ("A degree of overlap between the identities of words present in the two samples of text and/or a word matrix method could be used to determine the degree of similarity" [0147]);
and determining a change as a fault change corresponding to the user complaint text in response to that a text similarity between a description text ("the recommendation engine may focus on making proactive and preventative recommendations to IT administrators" [0135])
corresponding to the change and the user complaint text meets a first threshold, ("a rule may define that when the value of a particular property passes a threshold, then a recommendation to take an action should be provided to an [information technology operations management] administrator" [0119])
a fault change being a technical change made to the computing system with respect to one or more of a physical configuration or a software code of the computing system that causes a technical issue to the computing system, (the determined fault change may include corrective recommendations that an IT configuration should be modified or fixed ("technical change to the computing system with respect to … a physical configuration ….") [00138])
wherein the calculating the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text includes: determining a weighted fusion on a first plurality of sentences of a portion of the description text having a first word overlap score with respect to the user complaint text meeting a first threshold and a text similarity with respect to the user complaint text meeting a second threshold (where paragraph vectors used may be a plurality of sentences or individual sentences [0161]; where text used to generate similarity may be "segments of text within a larger sample" [0147]; a weighted average of vectors (plural) used to represent degree of similarity ("fusion") may be used [0155-0156] with similarly being performed for aforementioned paragraph vectors [0162]; where a rule may define that a "first threshold" is used to decide action [0119]; where records may be clustered [for use] based on threshold similarity values [0171], hence a "second threshold");
and calculating the text similarity between the description text and the user complaint text based on the weighted fusion (where generated weighted averages of vectors ("fusion") is used to determine text similarity [0163]).
Singh does not appear to disclose and Dani teaches,
updating one or more of a physical configuration or a software code of the computing system by rolling back the technical change of the fault change made to the computing system ("in response to receiving an error message from an application server 21, the control server 35 … can take appropriate action. For example, the control server 35 may automatically cause the application server 31 from which the error notification was received to stop providing the application service associated with the failed rollback" [0055], where the application service is a compiled code file ("software code") [0014]),
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fault change locating method of Singh to include the fault change rollback of Dani. The resulting combination allows for the efficient deployment of application rollbacks while transmitting a minimal amount of information [Dani; 0057].
Regarding Claim 2, Singh teaches,
calculating the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text includes: calculating a first word overlap score between the user complaint text and each sentence in the description text corresponding to each change, wherein the first word overlap score is used to represent a correlation between the user complaint text and each sentence in the description text corresponding to each change (a degree of overlap [0147], corresponding to a first word overlap score, are used to provide recommendations that include correlations in source data [0127], see [0126-0127] and [0145-0148]);
obtaining N sentences with highest first word overlap scores among sentences of the description text corresponding to each change, wherein N is a positive integer (a comparison resulting in a degree of similarity identifies "one or more text string vectors [which] may be the k text string vectors with the highest similarity" [0156]);
and calculating the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text based on the N sentences corresponding to each change (k vector representations [0156] for incident report sentences, corresponding to N claimed user complaint sentences, compared to knowledge database sentence text, corresponding to description text for each change, where word vector degree of overlap, corresponding to text similarity, is used to populate a cluster [0144], see [0147] and FIGs 6B&6C).
Regarding Claim 3, Singh teaches,
The method according to claim 2, wherein calculating the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text based on the N sentences corresponding to each change includes: calculating N text similarities between the N sentences corresponding to each change and the user complaint text (k vector representations [0156] for incident report sentences, corresponding to N claimed user complaint sentences, compared to knowledge database sentence text, corresponding to description text for each change, where word vector degree of overlap, corresponding to text similarity, is used to populate a cluster [0144], see [0147] and FIGs 6B&6C);
and determining the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text based on L sentences having L highest text similarities among the N text similarities, wherein L is a positive integer greater than 0 and less than or equal to N ("a record could be precluded from assignment to a particular cluster [N text similarities] unless a degree of similarity between the cluster and the record is greater than a threshold similarity" [0173], corresponding to the cluster containing the remaining L sentences).
Regarding Claim 4, Singh teaches,
The method according to claim 3, wherein determining the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text based on the L highest text similarities among the N text similarities includes: determining the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text based on the L highest text similarities among the N text similarities and L first word overlap scores between the L sentences and the user complaint text ("a record could be precluded from assignment toa particular cluster [N text similarities] unless a degree of similarity between the cluster and the record is greater thana threshold similarity" [0173], corresponding to the cluster containing the remaining L sentences).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by the same grounds of rejection as Claims 1-4, above. Regarding Claim 10’s amended limitation communicating with a technician in updating one or more of…, Singh discloses notifying recommendations to a technician or user [0133-135].
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by the same grounds of rejection as Claims 1-2, above. Regarding Claim 19’s amended limitation communicating with a technician in updating one or more of…, Singh discloses notifying recommendations to a technician or user [0133-135].
Claims 5-7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Dani, further in view of Cella et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 20210342836).
Regarding Claim 5, Singh teaches,
The method according to claim 1, wherein the description text includes a plurality of sentences (Data used to calculate similarity includes multiple sentences [0161]);
and calculating the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text includes (data to determine recommendations [0147]; incident management [0111]):…
calculating a second word overlap score between the user complaint text and each target text of the at least one target text corresponding to the description text, wherein the second word overlap score is used to represent a correlation between the user complaint text and each target text corresponding to the description text (a degree of overlap [0147], corresponding to a first word overlap score, are used to provide recommendations that include correlations to source data [0127], see [0126-0127] and [0145-0148]);
obtaining M target texts with highest second word overlap scores among the at least one target text corresponding to the description text, wherein M is a positive integer (a comparison resulting in a degree of similarity identifies "one or more text string vectors [which] may be the k text string vectors with the highest similarity" [0156]);
and calculating the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text based on the M target texts corresponding to the description text of each change (k vector representations [0156] for incident report sentences, corresponding to M claimed user complaint sentences, compared to knowledge database sentence text, corresponding to description text for each change, where word vector degree of overlap, corresponding to text similarity, is used to populate a cluster [0144], see [0147] and FIGs 6B&6C).
Singh in view of Dani do not appear to disclose and Cella teaches,
stitching all sentences in the description text corresponding to each change according to a first rule to obtain at least one target text corresponding to the description text, wherein a target text of the at least one target text includes at least one of the sentences (“the knowledge distribution system 16802 may be configured to perform an aggregation operation that aggregates a set of operations and/or instructions included in one or more instances of the digital knowledge 16804 [...] Examples of concatenation aggregation [...] where sentence instances are concatenated to form paragraphs” [0916]);
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the text-similarity teachings of Singh to include concatenating sentences as taught by Cella. The result combination allows for improvements to data collection and processing, as well as automated configuration of inputs (Cella [0024]).
Regarding Claim 6, Singh teaches,
The method according to claim 5, wherein calculating the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text based on the M target texts corresponding to the description text of each change includes: calculating M text similarities between the M target texts corresponding to each change and the user complaint text (k vector representations [0156] for incident report sentences, corresponding to M claimed user complaint sentences, compared to knowledge database sentence text, corresponding to description text for each change, where word vector degree of overlap, corresponding to text similarity, is used to populate a cluster [0144], see [0147] and FIGs 6B&6C);
and determining the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text based on K target texts having K highest text similarities among the M text similarities, wherein K is a positive integer greater than 0 and less than or equal to M ("a record could be precluded from assignment toa particular cluster [M text similarities] unless a degree of similarity between the cluster and the record is greater than a threshold similarity" [0173], corresponding to the cluster containing the remaining K target texts).
Regarding Claim 7, Singh teaches,
The method according to claim 6, wherein determining the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text based on the K highest text similarities among the M text similarities includes: determining the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text based on the K highest text similarities among the M text similarities and K second word overlap scores between the K target texts and the user complaint text ("a record could be precluded from assignment toa particular cluster [M text similarities] unless a degree of similarity between the cluster and the record is greater thana threshold similarity" [0173], corresponding to the cluster containing the remaining K target texts).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by the same grounds of rejection as Claims 5-7, above.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Dani, further in view of Jayaraman (U.S. PGPUB No. 20200349199).
Regarding Claim 8, Singh in view of Dani do not appear to disclose and Jayaraman teaches,
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: after obtaining the user complaint text and before calculating the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text, filtering the user complaint text and the description text corresponding to each change based on a stop word library and according to a second rule to obtain a filtered user complaint text and a filtered description text corresponding to each change (filtering is applied to two samples of text according to a stop rule library and punctuation, mapped to “a second rule” [0176]);
and wherein calculating the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text includes: calculating a text similarity between the filtered description text corresponding to each change and the filtered user complaint text (a degree of overlap is used to determine a similarity between the two filtered samples of text [0177]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fault change locating device as taught by Singh to include the text pre-filtering as taught by Jayaraman. The resulting combination allows for a text processing and comparing method to reduce time-consuming, repetitive actions [0051].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by the same grounds of rejection as Claim 8.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Dani, further I view of Samdani et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11803556).
Regarding Claim 9, Singh teaches,
and wherein determining the change as the fault change corresponding to the user complaint text in response to that the text similarity between the description text corresponding to the change and the user complaint text is greater than or equal to the first threshold includes ("A degree of overlap between the identities of words present in the two samples of text and/or a word matrix method could be used to determine the degree of similarity" [0147]):
in response to that a text similarity between a description text corresponding to a change and the target complaint text meets the first threshold, determining the change as a fault change corresponding to the user complaint text and the Y historical user complaint texts ("a rule may define that when the value of a particular property passes a threshold, then a recommendation to take an action should be provided to an [information technology operations management] administrator" [0119]; "the recommendation engine may focus on making proactive and preventative recommendations to IT administrators" [0135]).
Singh in view of Dani do not appear to disclose and Samdani teaches,
after obtaining the user complaint text and before calculating the text similarity between the description text corresponding to each change and the user complaint text, determining X historical user complaint texts made before the complaint time of the user complaint text, wherein X is a positive integer (historical user queries, "user complaint texts," are collected [Col. 4, lines 37-43]; where a set number of previous entries may be used ("X historical…" and "X is a positive integer") [Col. 4, lines 21-25]);
calculating a text similarity between the user complaint text and each of the X historical user complaint texts (the user complaint text is compared to the historical user complaint text [Col. 4, lines 49-63]);
and in response to that text similarities between the Y historical user complaint texts and the user complaint text meets a second threshold, stitching the Y historical user complaint texts and the user complaint text according to a third rule to obtain a target complaint text, wherein Y is a positive integer greater than 0 and less than or equal to X (previously augmented queries ("historical user complaints") may be further augmented ("stitched") with the most recent query ("the user complaint text") for further use [Col. 5, lines 17-26]);
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fault change locating method of Singh to include the use of historical complaint texts to determine a solution, as taught by Samdani. The result combination allows minimized resource usage and continued improvements to accuracy of the output (Samdani [Col. 9, lines 25-30)).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by the same grounds of rejection as Claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-13 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the newly amended claim limitations of “determining a weighted fusion based on a first plurality of sentences of a portion of the description text each having a first word overlap score with respect to the user complaint text meeting a first threshold and a text similarity with respect to the user complaint text meeting a second threshold; and calculating the text similarity between the description text and the user complaint text based on the weighed fusion” must be implemented by a machine using artificial intelligence and cannot be practically implemented by the human mind. Examiner respectfully maintains that the portion of the above limitations reciting mental processes may be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(B) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III). Performing a mental process that may require a pen and paper or using a computer as a tool, such as determining a “weighted fusion,” still recite a mental process. Furthermore, comparing an already-acquired numerical value (such as an overlap score) to a threshold may be practically performed in the human mind. Further, these mental processes do not require the use of machine learning/artificial intelligence. As disclosed, employing machine learning to aggregate complaint texts merely speeds-up the technician’s task of performing remediation, however, this is a task previously performed by customer service persons [specification; 0046]. The limitation “calculating a text similarity…” is not an abstract idea under mental process, rather a mathematical calculation.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 13-14 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that, as amended, Singh does not disclose “an overlap degree between a sentence of a portion of the description text with respect to the user complaint text as a whole… a weighted fusion… a first threshold of similarity… a second threshold of similarity… text similarity [or] word overlap score about a sentence.” Examiner respectfully disagrees with the following citations, emphasized for clarity:
Regarding an overlap degree: Singh [0147] discloses “a degree of overlap between the identities of words present in the two samples of text and/or a word matrix method could be used to determine the degree of similarity”
Regarding a portion of the description text: Singh [0147] discloses “The two samples of text could be a text field of an incident report and a text field of another incident report, a text field of a resolved incident report, a knowledgebase article, or some other sample of text that may be relevant to the resolution … one or both of the samples could be segments of text within a larger sample of text.”
Regarding the presence of a sentence, therefore corresponding similarity and word-overlap: Singh [0161] discloses, “Paragraph [vectors] are not limited in size; they can be as large as entire documents or as small as a sentence or phrase.”
Regarding weighted fusion: Singh [0155] discloses, regarding word vectors, “Once vector representations have been determined for all words of interest, linear and/or multiplicative aggregations of these vectors may be used to represent text strings. For instance, a vector for a text string can be found by adding together the individual vectors for the words contained therein. In some cases, an average or some other operation may be applied to the vectors for the words… such as weighted averages”
Where Singh further [0162] discloses, “linear and multiplicative aggregation between word vectors and paragraphs vectors can be obtained… paragraph vectors can achieve the same kind of analogies to word vectors with more context-based results”
Regarding a first threshold of similarity: Singh [0119] discloses, “a rule may define that when the value of a particular property passes a threshold, then a recommendation to take an action should be provided to an ITOM administrator”
Regarding a second threshold: Singh [0171] discloses, “The ML model could include … threshold similarity values… to determine which cluster to assign a record [to a cluster, for relevance]”
The examiner accordingly maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
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 AUDREY E WHITESELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4767. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm MST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113