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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 11 June 2026. Claims 1, 10, and 12 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 10, and 12 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment is insufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The rejection remains pending and is updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but provide a “processor-implemented technical solution to the computer-centric problem of noisy multi-threaded collaborative-channel conversations that are not effective for handling future incidents,” wherein the recited steps, that similar to McRo cannot be performed mentally. Applicant further asserts that the claimed “resolution steps” are “performed by computer code accessed/ executed by the processor,” citing paragraphs [0048], [0070], and [0073] of the Specification, in a manner that goes beyond data processing and requires that the final coherent interaction summary be populated into an incident management system and used by that system to mitigate an incident request by implementing one or more resolution steps identified in the summary. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per paragraph [0027] of the Specification, “A virtual Room 208 is established to enable experts, such as SREs, Developers, Development and Operations (DevOps) experts, and the like, to communicate via a network regarding a reported or otherwise detected outage. For example, a first SRE 216-1 and a second SRE 216-2 may issue messages to one or more of the experts assigned to the incident report. Once the issue is resolved, one or more of the experts manually populates the close notes that document, among other details, the solution that was implemented to resolve the incident. Such close notes may prove useful in addressing future similar incidents, in developing new systems or modifying existing systems, and the like.” The inventive concept is for providing service related issue resolution notes using clustering and context analysis of human subject matter expert conversations/messages “by generating close notes that are more complete than manually generated close notes; and effectively reducing the number of unnecessary utterances of a conversation that take place on collaborative channels during incident resolution to efficiently generate incident summaries.” See Specification at paragraphs [0010-0011]. While the amended claim language of the independent claims uses the computer processor as a tool to implement the recited abstract idea of collecting conversation data, analyzing it by clustering messages, generating a combined interaction summary, and populating the summary into an incident management system using an API call, each of the steps could be performed mentally or manually by a human reviewing notes or transcripts of conversations or interactions to determine solutions or resolutions to an issue that was previously resolved. Further, the claim limitations do not recite an improvement to the processor used to gather, analyze, output, and store information. As a result, the computer processor merely implements the recited abstract idea, and does not confer patent subject matter eligibility. Similarly, the recited API call is broadly and generically claimed to include generic API implementation, such that the API is merely a tool to implement the abstract idea of storing, displaying, or retrieving data. Therefore, the claimed API call does not confer patent subject matter eligibility, either alone or in combination with the claimed processor.
Lastly, the amended claim language for “implementing, using the at least one hardware processor and the incident management system, one or more resolution steps identified in the final coherent interaction summary to mitigate an incident request” is broadly claimed. While the Specification is clear that the hardware processor analyzes the data using rules/filters with “high-level computer code using comparison statements and other logic,” the Specification at paragraph [0048] does not provide details regarding how the resolutions steps are implemented and further does not specify that the implementation of a resolution step is performed by a hardware processor. Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, a hardware implementation of a resolution step could include transmitting the resolution to a user in response to a user query. Therefore, the implementing step is construed as results based claiming that fails to provide specific implementation details regarding how the step is performed in a manner that would provide a practical application of the recited abstract idea or amount to significantly more because as described and claimed any and all modes in “implementation” may suffice. As a result, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is proper, maintained, and updated below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a process, independent claim 10 recites a product, and independent claim 12 recites a device for obtaining composite conversations from a collaborative channel and creating an interaction summary. Independent claims 1, 10, and 12 recite substantially similar limitations.
Taking independent claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations:
obtaining, using at least one hardware processor, a composite conversation from a collaborative channel;
separating, using the at least one hardware processor, independent conversations within the composite conversation, wherein the separating comprises applying a plurality of rule-based criteria to each message of the composite conversation, selecting for each message a highest-priority satisfied rule from among the plurality of rule-based criteria, and separating each message in accordance with the selected rule;
determining, using the at least one hardware processor, an intent of each message in each of the independent conversations;
clustering together, using the at least one hardware processor, messages of each of the independent conversations having a same issue intent to form corresponding artifact clusters;
generating, using the at least one hardware processor, a summary for each artifact cluster;
combining, using the at least one hardware processor, the summaries of the artifact clusters;
creating, using the at least one hardware processor, a final coherent interaction summary based on the artifact clusters;
populating, using the at least one hardware processor and in response to an application programming interface (API) call, the final coherent interaction summary into an incident management system; and
implementing, using the at least one hardware processor and the incident management system, one or more resolution steps identified in the final coherent interaction summary to mitigate an incident request.
Under Step 1, independent claims 1, 10, and 12 recite at least one step or act, including separating independent conversations within the composite conversation. Thus, the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One, the limitations of claim 1 for obtaining a composite conversation, separating independent conversation based on rules, determining an intent, clustering messages of a same intent, generating a summary for each cluster, combining the summaries, creating a final summary, populating the final coherent interaction summary into an incident management system, and mitigating an incident request, as drafted, illustrates a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (comparing or categorizing information, and applying rules and mental observation and judgment to determine intent and summarization of conversation content) because none of the additional elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, the limitations fall into the mental processes grouping and accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea of gathering communication/interaction data, analyzing the data, and creating a summary of the data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The inventive concept involves managing customer service relationships and aggregating service data to create a summary for reconfiguring a network-based computer system, and is construed as steps of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including commercial or legal interaction to carry out a legal obligation, and following rules or instructions), which are certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, The judicial exception of claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, he claims only recite a processor, API, and storage device for performing the recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0072] states: “PROCESSOR SET 110 includes one, or more, computer processors of any type now known or to be developed in the future.” Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the 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.
Per paragraph [0044] of Applicant’s Specification “Once the summary is prepared, it is automatically utilized to populate the close notes, streamlining the incident reporting process and ensuring that essential information is captured effectively. The close notes will also be utilized by predictive algorithms for change risk assessment and code risk assessment, as well as for explaining the risk score.” Per paragraph [0048] “The prepared final coherent interaction summary 220 is presented to an expert 216-1, 216-2 to receive feedback on its quality (such as a good summary or a bad summary) (operation 628). … A given incident request is mitigated using the interaction summary (operation 636). For example, an incident request regarding a server failure may be remedied by implementing resolution steps described in the interaction summary. ” The specification does not disclose how the incident is remedied based on the final coherent interaction summary. As a result, the implementing step is construed as a step that is performed by a user implementing steps described in the interaction summary provided by the processor in response to a user request. While the claimed processor is used to cluster independent conversations to generate a final summary for use in resolving computer system and network issues, the claimed steps could be performed by a human “Site Reliability Engineers (SREs), developers, and development and operations (DevOps) personnel”(see Specification at [0002]) mentally or through use of a pen and paper by comparing and analyzing issue resolution data generated by others to determine and document the most sufficient resolution. Because the claims fall short of automated resolution of an identified or submitted issue, the additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The limitation "wherein the separating comprises applying a plurality of rule-based criteria to each message of the composite conversation" is part of the abstract idea of receiving and manipulating data based on rules and does not provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Data can be clustered and separated based on rules mentally or through the use of pen and paper.
The limitation "populating, using the at least one hardware processor and in response to an application programming interface (API), the final coherent interaction summary into an incident management system" is part of the abstract idea of analyzing and manipulating data input to generate an output. The API additional element is used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Using an API for implementing the functionality of the populating step does not amount to implementing the judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture, effecting a particular transformation or reduction of an article, or applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. There is nothing about the combination of a hardware processor, a collaborative channel, and use of an API beyond the individual benefits from each of these technological requirements.
Further, the step for “implementing, using the at least one hardware processor and the incident management system, one or more resolution steps identified in the final coherent interaction summary to mitigate an incident request” is construed as an intended result of the data collection, analysis, and summarization steps because the claim fails to detail how the recited mitigation is executed by the processor in a manner that goes beyond generic data processing and output in response to a user command. As a result, the output of the summarization is construed to be interpreted by a human agent for business decision making purposes, and not as an automated machine implemented technical solution to a technical problem. Accordingly, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Specification does not provide additional details about the computer system/server that would distinguish it from any generic processing devices that communicate with one another in a network environment. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and storage device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 include the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The limitations of the dependent claims merely narrow the mental process abstract idea by describing the how data is gathered and manipulated to generate the summary for each artifact cluster. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly independent claims 10 and 12 and the claims that depend therefrom are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis applied to claim 1 above. Therefore claims 1 - 20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Kummamuru (US 2008/0154579) - Analyzing transcripts of conversation between at least two users by receiving input information from a first user via a voice call, creating conversational transcripts from the information received from the first user, selecting at least one defined situation from a list of defined situations, identifying the selected situation in the conversational transcripts, identifying a set of procedural sequences by comparing the at least one identified situation in the conversational transcripts with knowledge derived from a corpus of historical conversational transcripts; and providing the set of procedural sequences to the first user.
Gupta et al. (US 2022/0210372) - the bridge service is configured to analyze a meeting transcript and to determine word frequency of each word and/or phrase in the document. Thereafter, by utilizing an algorithm such as term frequency, inverse document frequency (TF-IDF), the bridge service may be able to infer which timestamps of a meeting transcript or video call contain the most relevant information. A listing of relevant timestamps can be included in a summary document.
Jayaraman (US 2020/0349199) - specific implementations of machine learning (ML) analysis of incident, online chat, knowledgebase, skills, and perhaps other types of databases. The ML techniques described herein may include various forms of semantic analysis of textual information in these databases, such as clustering, term frequency, word embedding, paragraph embedding, and potentially other techniques. Advantageously, use of ML in the specific ways described herein can provide insights into this textual information
De et al. (US 11,811,707) - receiving a historical incident data set with the historical incident data set including a plurality of data records, for each given data record of the plurality of data records, applying a causal analysis algorithm to determine a set of causal factor(s) for the historical instance of an incident corresponding to the given data record to obtain a problems and solutions data set, and automatically, and by machine logic, generating a chatbot based, at least in part, on the problems and solutions data set.
Mallette et al. (US 11,170,173) - Chat transcripts are analyzed to classify the utterances into intents and identify products discussed in the chat transcripts. The data of the chat transcripts are divided into categories of utterances associated with products and intents by applying tags to the chat transcripts. The categories of utterances associated with products and intents are then clustered into clusters based on sentence similarity. Once the utterances are grouped, a representative utterance is extracted from a cluster, where the representative utterance is an utterance that has the highest semantic similarity to the utterances in the cluster.
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 LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rutao WU can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights