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 .
This non-Final office action is in response to the applicant’s filing of Request for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 received on 2/20/2026 (“Amendment”).
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 have been amended.
Claim 21 has been added
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claim Objection
Term “a higher-tiered service provider executing …” in the transmitting the escalated service ticket clause should be amended to recite “the high-tiered service provider executing …” in claim 1.
The applicant is advised to amend the other independent claim(s) accordingly.
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 1-21 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.
Per claim 1, the claim is narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. For example, claim 1 recites in part “at an initial service provider executing in a cloud computing region, wherein (a) a higher-tiered service provider provides cloud-service computing resources in the cloud computing region to the initial service provider and (b) the initial service provider executes on a first set of cloud-service computing resources, of the cloud-service computing resources, associated with an operator tenancy executing a first process comprising: providing …; receiving …; based on the initial service …”
For example, given the location of the “wherein”, one of ordinary skill would interpret “(a) a higher-tiered service provider provides cloud-service computing resources in the cloud computing region to the initial service provider and (b) the initial service provider executes on a first set of cloud-service computing resources, of the cloud-service computing resources, associated with an operator tenancy executing a first process comprising …” to be a part of the wherein statement. Continuing this interpretation, it is unclear what constitutes operations at an initial service provider.
On the other hand, one of ordinary skill would interpret only “(a) a higher-tiered service provider provides cloud-service computing resources in the cloud computing region to the initial service provider and (b) the initial service provider executes on a first set of cloud-service computing resources” to be part of the wherein statement. Continuing this interpretation, one of ordinary skill would appreciate that “of the cloud-service computing resources” as modifying “a cloud computing region”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain, however, what claim element is modified by “associated with an operation tenancy executing a first process comprising: …” and what operations comprises at the initial service provider.
Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether the operations comprise executing of the second process.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to properly ascertain the metes and boundaries of the claim.
The other independent claims, i.e., claims 8 and 14, are significantly similar to claim 1. Hence, they too are rejected.
The dependent claims are rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 provides step(s) in determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or 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., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and 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 additional elements in the claim must integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If not, the inquiry continues to see whether 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 mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1, claims 1-7 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, claims 8-13 and 21 are directed to a method (i.e., process), while claims 14-20 are directed to a system. Thus, the claimed inventions are directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 8 recites: A method, comprising:
a) at an initial service provider executing in a cloud computing region, wherein (a) a higher-tiered service provider provides cloud-service computing resources in the cloud computing region to the initial service provider and (b) the initial service provider executes on a first set of cloud-service computing resources, of the cloud-service computing resources, associated with an operator tenancy executing a first process comprising:
b) providing cloud computing services to a customer associated with a customer tenancy, owned by the customer, in the cloud computing region, wherein a second set of cloud-service computing resources, of the cloud- service computing resources, associated with the customer tenancy is located within premises owned and operated by the initial service provider;
c) receiving an initial service ticket for resolution of an issue identified by the initial service ticket, from an affected entity, associated with the customer operating in the customer tenancy, that is affected by the issue, wherein the initial service ticket comprises an access-restricted set of attributes of the affected entity, the access-restricted set of attributes including one or more attributes, and wherein the issue is associated with the second set of cloud-service computing resources;
d) based on the initial service ticket, generating, in the operator tenancy, an escalated service ticket that identifies the issue, wherein the escalated service ticket does not include the access-restricted set of attributes of the affected entity;
e) transmitting the escalated service ticket from the operator tenancy to a higher-tiered service provider executing on a third set of cloud-service computing resources associated with a provider tenancy, isolated from the operator tenancy and the customer tenancy, wherein the higher-tiered service provider is not authorized to access: the operator tenancy, the customer tenancy, and the access-restricted set of attributes comprised in the initial service ticket;
f) in response to transmitting the escalated service ticket: receiving, in the operator tenancy, from the higher-tiered service provider, information corresponding to the resolution of the issue; and
g) processing the initial service ticket based on the information corresponding to the resolution of the issue;
i) wherein: executing a second process that resolves the issue is performed by one of: the higher-tiered service provider based on the escalated service ticket or the initial service provider based on the information corresponding to the resolution of the issue;
j) wherein the method is performed by at least one device comprising a hardware processor.
(Bold emphasis added on the additional element(s))
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a process for resolving an issue among the tiered based hierarchy. The claim achieves this by a) at an initial service provider wherein a higher-tiered service provides resources in a region to the initial service provider (equivalent to initial service provider renting space from the higher-tiered service): b) providing services to a customer (equivalent to subleasing part of the rented space); c) receiving an initial service ticket for resolution of an issue identified by the initial service ticket, from an affected entity, associated with the customer, that is affected by the issue wherein the issue is associated with the services provided by the initial service provider (equivalent to receiving an issue ticket that includes PII of the affected entity and wherein the issue is related to the subleased space); d) based on the initial service ticket, generating at the initial service provider an escalated service ticket that identifies the issue wherein the escalated service ticket does not include the access-restricted set of attributes of the affected entity; e) transmitting the escalated service thicket to the higher-tiered service provider wherein the high-tiered service provider is not authorized to access the operator space of the initial service provider, customer space, and the access-restricted set of attributes comprised in the initial service ticket; and f) in response to transmitting the escalated service ticket: receiving in the operator space from the higher-tiered service provider information corresponding to the resolution of the issue; and g) processing the initial service ticket based on the information corresponding to the resolution of the issue; i) wherein a second process that resolves the issue is performed by one of the higher-tier service provider based on the escalated service ticket or the initial service provider based on the information corresponding to the resolution of the issue. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea, (a certain method of organizing human activities, i.e., tiered based incident resolution process). The recitation of the business arrangement relationship of the initial service provider, customer, and the higher-tiered service provider is analogous to a business arrangement in which company A (higher-tiered) leases a subset of its asset or space to company B (initial service provider) and the company B then leases the part of the subset that has been leased to its customer. As such, the claim further recites a certain method of organizing human activities, i.e., business arrangement.
The claim further recites that the initial service ticket comprises an access-restricted set of attributes of the affected entity, the access-restricted set of attributes including one or more attributes; the escalated service ticket does not include the access-restricted set of attributes of the affected entity; and that a higher-tiered service provider is not authorized to access the access-restricted set of attributes comprised in the initial service ticket. In other words, the information about the affected entity that the higher-tiered service provider is not authorized to access and is included in the original initial service ticket is left out in the escalated service ticket that is sent to the higher-tiered service provider. Hence, this too recites abstract idea, (a certain method of organizing human activities, i.e., business relationship and/or mitigating risk).
The other independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 14, are significantly similar to claim 8. As such, claims 1 and 14 also recite abstract idea.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e., at least one device including a hardware processor and a non-transitory computer readable media, cloud computing as in resource(s), region(s), tenancy(s), are recited at a high-level generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of user, i.e., cloud computing environment– see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claim(s) as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the recited system or the system’s component(s) that is responsible for performing the step(s).
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 expand further on the abstract idea in the independent claim(s) without recitation of additional element(s) with exception to claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, and 18.
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, and 18 recite use of machine learning model in generating of the escalated service ticket using machine learning model. The claims further recites training aspect, particularly, accessing training data sets, a particular training data set of the training data set that include a first set of initial service tickets, and a first set of escalated service tickets generated from the first set of initial set of tickets, training the machine learning model based on the training data sets, obtaining feedback on an accuracy of the trained machine leaning mode, updating a set of training data based on the feedback, and updating the trained machine learning model based on the updated set of training data. These limitations, however, under the broadest reasonable interpretation to be a combination of mental process and mathematical concept.
Response to the Argument(s)/Amendment(s)
112
The claim amendment necessitates 112(b) rejections as described in above 112(b) section.
101
The applicant asserts that the claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer, particularly that limitations (a)-(c) that recite “(a) receiving an initial service ticket for resolution of an issue at the initial service provider (in the operator tenancy from a customer tenancy), (b) generating, in the operator tenancy, an escalated service ticket that identifies the issue, wherein the escalated service ticket does not include the access-restricted set of attributes of the affected entity, and (c) transmitting the escalated service ticket from the operator tenancy to a higher-tiered service provider executing on a third set of cloud-service computing resources associated with a provider tenancy, isolated from the operator tenancy and the customer tenancy, wherein the higher-tiered service provider is not authorized to access: the operator tenancy, the customer tenancy, and the access-restricted set of attributes comprised in the initial service ticket” at least by improving a computer’s storage and data retrieval capabilities and processes (see pages 14-15). The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner would like to point out that there is no recitation of storage or retrieval in the claim(s). Even if the concept of storing and retrieving of the ticket(s) is recited in the claim(s), in arguendo, the removal of one information in the original ticket to escalate the modified ticket is an abstract idea as described above in the 101 analysis and necessarily results in less data in the modified ticket.
The applicant asserts that the claim adds significantly more to the alleged exception of a tiered based incident resolution process, namely, the additional elements of the process occurring among three different tenancies while preserving customer confidentiality amount to more than the alleged exception (page 16 of the Amendment).
The examiner respectfully disagrees in that preservation of customer confidentiality by removing customer information from data that is sent to another party is an abstract idea, i.e., certain method of organizing human activity (i.e., risk mitigation and/or managing relationship such as business). The three different tenancies are mere environment description amounting to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as described in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The applicant further asserts that the claim as a whole is directed to an improvement by reciting a process for resolving issues while preserving confidentiality across tenancies (see page 17 of the Amendment).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner finds that a process for resolving issues using ticketing while preserving confidentiality by removing sensitive information as the ticket escalate or transmitted to another party is an abstract idea as described above in the 101 section, particularly the concept is a certain method of organizing human activities. The tenancies as recited in the claim serve no more that description of technological environment or field of use that the judicial exception is generally linked to.
The claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 20180199217 discloses generating of an issue ticket in order to escalate a case to another level of support and anonymization of sensitive information;
US Patent Publication No. 20190260804 and 20130282725 disclose anonymizing or removing any private, sensitive information from incident/support ticket;
US Patent Publication No. 20210092029 discloses techniques for managing support computing services including analysis of service ticket using machine learning (i.e., vectors) techniques and escalation of the service ticket based on the analysis. The background also discloses multiple support tiers in a support management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on 571-272-7575. 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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698