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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 12/11/2025 have been entered.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 12 – 14, and 29 – 37, are pending.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 7, 8, 10, 12 – 14, and 29 – 37, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step One of eligibility analysis, the claims recite a method (process); therefore, the claims recite appropriate subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims, as a whole, set forth steps to determine the reason (intent) of a support ticket, by providing a most predictable intent from a set of known intents. The claims then, describe a method of processing a support ticket, (an end user request), which is key when supporting the relationship among the end user and an organization, Thus, the claims describe this business relation in the form of a commercial interaction. A commercial interaction is categorized as a certain method of organizing human activity and an abstract idea.
Claim 7 contains the following elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method of predicting an intent associated with a support ticket, comprising:
processing, with a masked intent model, the support ticket, wherein;
the masked intent model comprises a modified logit function and a classification head, and
processing the support ticket with the masked intent model comprises:
masking a subset of intents from a set of predictable intents by setting, based on the modified logit function, a probability of at least one intent of the subset of intents to a probability value such that the at least one intent is never predicted, wherein the at least one intent comprises an invalid intent for an organization:
providing, as input to the classification head, a second subset of intents of the set of predictable intents, the second subset of intents comprising one or more unmasked intents from the set of predictable intents, and
obtaining, as output from the classification head, at least one unmasked intent from the second subset of intents, and
providing, as output from the masked intent model, one or more predicted intents associated with the support ticket,
wherein the one or more predicted intents comprise the at least one unmasked intent from the second subset of intents.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply 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.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claim 7 recites only the following additional elements:
a masked intent model, compris[ing] a modified logit function and a classification head.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applicant has described this computing element generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0133] and Figure 9, as filed. Particularly, “[t]he means may include various hardware and/or software component(s), (logic) and/or module(s), including, but not limited to a circuit, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or processor.” “Further, the various operations of methods described above may be performed by any suitable means capable of performing the corresponding functions.” The newly added classification head is “configured to process its various inputs” with example architecture within Figure 6, “but other architectures can be used.” Specification [0072]. Simply implementing the abstract ideas on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (a masked intent model, compris[ing] a modified logit function and a classification head), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. Therefore, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 8 contains limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 7. Recitations to intents associated with an organization, is an element that forms a core facet of the commercial interaction – the reason for the end user request. Further, the claim uses generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract ideas; the model of claim 7. The claims are directed to the abstract idea per MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 10, 13, and 29 – 33, contains limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 7. Recitations to an intent model, masking subsets, probability of subsets, and historical data used as inputs for the model, are refinements to the method of determining the intent of a support ticket. Therefore, they are directed to the concept of the support ticket, or more germanely, the steps to determine the reason (intent) of the support ticket – an abstract idea. These recitations further rely on the generically recited devices to perform the method steps. The claims are directed to the abstract idea per MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 12 and 14 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 7. Recitations to predicting and adjusting probabilities are refinements to the method described to determine a probability of the intent. Therefore, they are directed to the concept determining the reason (intent) of the support ticket, which is an abstract idea. These recitations further rely on the generically recited devices to perform the method steps. The claims are directed to the abstract idea per MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claims 35 – 37 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 7. Recitations to a subject of the support ticket, a description, or, an industry, are refinements to the information contained within the support ticket, and are inherent within the reason (intent) of the support ticket. Therefore, they are directed to the abstract idea. These recitations further rely on the generically recited devices to perform the method steps. The claims are directed to the abstract idea per MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 7, 8, 10, 12 – 14, and 29 – 37, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 6. Applicant argues that amended claim 7 provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer having an intent model in predicting an intent classification, transforming the claim into a patent-eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong Two. See page 7. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues a solution that combines the best qualities of generic models and domain-specific model in order to overcome predicting an intent that is not relevant to a given organization, or, routing end users to the wrong support assets. See Remarks, page 8 and Specification [0005]. The Examiner maintains the conclusion outlined in the Non-Final Office Action, that relevant intent prediction is not a technical field. Recitations directed to processing of a support ticket (an end user request) to predict an intent is more descriptive of performing an abstract idea of conducting the business relation between the “end user who has an issue or a request” and the “support service of the organization”. Specification [0003]. Thus, any improvement would be to the finding of a reason (intent) for the user request implicit within the support ticket, and is directed at improving the abstract idea of a commercial interaction or a certain method of organizing human activity. An improvement to an identified abstract idea is not an improvement to a technology issue. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next points to claim 3 of Example 47. See page 8. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the instant claims include additional elements that similarly provide for an improvement to the functioning of a computer. First, Applicant argues the masked intent model enables the “improvement in intent classification accuracy”. See page 9. Similar to the discussion above, an improvement to accuracy for classifying a reason for an end user request is an improvement to the relationship between end user and organization. This would be an improvement directed to the working relationship rather than improving any technology as claimed within Example 47. This argument is not persuasive.
Next, is further defining the claimed steps or components within the Example that reflected the asserted improvements. These include, as detailed, “step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f).” No such similar steps are claimed within the instant amended claim 7. As noted above, claim 7 sets forth steps to provide the most predictable intent from a set of known intents – these steps use a model to determine intents relative to an organization. Finding reasons that are germane to a specific organization (intent classification accuracy) cannot be read as providing a technical solution such as the Example’s proactively preventing network intrusion. The instant claim 7 merely relies on a technical environment without providing a technical solution to operate therein. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next points to Desjardins as showing similar technical benefits of an improvement to how a machine learning model operates. See page 10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Desjardins was explicit in detailing technological improvements such as “reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks” as disclosed in the specification. In Desjardins, the claims discerned the steps that optimized performance of the model. No such improvements are within the instant claims. Amended claim 7 may show how the masked intent model is refined, however, the claim limitations recite no improvement to performance of the system; certainly, none that are tantamount to how the masked intent model operates or functions. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 7 to include the classification head and remarks that Figure 5 (element #514) shows supports for this inclusion. The Examiner notes that Figure 5 illustrates generic architecture to implement steps performed by element 514; however, Figure 6 includes further details about different inputs and how they are classified and moved through a plurality of layers which lead to and intent output, ‘624. Perhaps these steps are more aligned as the claim elements within Desjardins that would show a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of an outcome.
Claims Distinguished Over Prior Art
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Upon updated research and in view of amendments to claim 7, the Examiner maintains the conclusion detailed within the Office Action filed 09/11/2025. Accordingly, the current claim set is distinguished over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629