DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 11 November 2025.
Claims 1 – 22 are presented for examination.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 – 8, 11 – 18, and 21 in the reply filed on 11 November 2025 is acknowledged.
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 – 8, 11 – 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite receiving tickets for services with information from sources, identifying a set of tickets for a predefined event window and predefined non-event window from the tickets for each of the services, wherein predefined event and non-event windows are each indicative of a time period comprising the tickets occurring prior to occurrence of high severity tickets, respectively, identifying a set of words for the tickets for each window based on information corresponding to the respective tickets using a prediction model, identifying cluster data tickets for pre-defined clusters by correlating information associated with the clusters with words to respective tickets using a ticket clustering model, identifying presence of sequence rules in the cluster data for tickets based on occurrence of predefined patterns corresponding to predefined sequence rules using a mining model, and generating a risk score for each services and root-causes for the tickets based on the sequence rules, parameters of historical tickets, and creation time of the tickets, wherein catastrophic incidents are predicted based on risk score and root-causes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method, the system, and the computer readable medium are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of receiving data, identifying information, and risk scoring which falls into the “mental processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are receiving tickets for services with information from sources, identifying a set of tickets for a predefined event window and predefined non-event window from the tickets for each of the services, wherein predefined event and non-event windows are each indicative of a time period comprising the tickets occurring prior to occurrence of high severity tickets, respectively, identifying a set of words for the tickets for each window based on information corresponding to the respective tickets using a prediction model, identifying cluster data tickets for pre-defined clusters by correlating information associated with the clusters with words to respective tickets using a ticket clustering model, identifying presence of sequence rules in the cluster data for tickets based on occurrence of predefined patterns corresponding to predefined sequence rules using a mining model, and generating a risk score for each services and root-causes for the tickets based on the sequence rules, parameters of historical tickets, and creation time of the tickets, wherein catastrophic incidents are predicted based on risk score and root-causes.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in independent claims are directed to a processor, memory, and non-transitory computer readable medium, to implement the abstract idea. Dependent claims do not recite any additional elements. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: a processor, memory, and non-transitory computer readable medium. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of segregating tickets, defining severity information, removing tickets in both windows, and obtaining ticket description, by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 8, 11 – 18, and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in any combination, teach, inter alia a method, system, and computer readable storage medium storing instructions for receiving, by a processor of an incident prediction system, one or more tickets for one or more services associated with the service system along with information of each of the one or more tickets, from one or more sources; identifying, by the processor, a set of tickets for each of a predefined event window and a predefined non-event window from the one or more tickets, for each of the one or more services, wherein the predefined event window and the predefined non-event window are each indicative of a time period comprising the set of tickets occurring prior to occurrence of high severity tickets and low severity tickets, respectively; identifying, by the processor, a set of words for each of the set of tickets, for each of the predefined event window and the predefined non-event window, based on the information corresponding to the respective set of tickets using a prediction model; identifying, by the processor, cluster data for each set of tickets from pre-defined clusters by correlating information associated with the pre-defined clusters with the set of words respective to each of the set of tickets, using a ticket clustering model; identifying, by the processor, presence of one or more sequence rules in the cluster data for each of the set of tickets based on occurrence of one or more predefined patterns corresponding to predefined sequence rules using a mining model; and generating, by the processor, a risk score for each of the one or more services and one or more root-causes for the set of tickets based on the one or more sequence rules, one or more parameters of historical tickets and creation time of the one or more tickets, wherein the catastrophic incidents is predicted based on the risk score and the one or more root-causes. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, not knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings.
The closest prior art of U.S. P.G. Pub. 2019/0132191 (hereinafter, Mann) teaches text data monitoring to create predictive ticketing in IT systems with root cause and aggregating incident patterns. However, Mann does not teach the particular method of identifying incident tickets that occur during and outside of event windows and generating a risk score for each service and root cause based on sequence rules, parameters of historical tickets, and creation time of incident tickets, in the particular manner of Applicant’s claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm EST.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625