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 . Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending.
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 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is to a system (i.e., a machine), claim 9 to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 15 to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture or machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
receiving an indication regarding operation of a computer system;
querying a database a first time, wherein the database comprises a dataset of issues that satisfies a first criterion of completeness and a second criterion of relevance, to receive a response to the query that identifies a group of potential issues for the computer system, wherein the group of potential issues for the computer system comprises a subset of the dataset of issues;
performing a first caching of the response to the query;
ranking potential issues of the group of potential issues based on respective frequencies of occurrence during a prior time period, to produce a first ranking;
performing a second caching the respective frequencies of occurrence during the prior time period, to produce respective cached frequencies, wherein the caching comprises storing an indication of the cached frequencies in a cache that is separate from the database;
revising the first ranking based on characteristics of the computer system, to produce a second ranking;
revising the second ranking based on metadata of the indication, to produce a third ranking;
presenting at least part of the third ranking;
updating how to rank potential issues based on feedback data received as input in response to the presenting;
determining a second group of potential issues for a second query based on the first caching, and independently of querying the database a second time; and
performing a subsequent ranking for a second indication regarding operation of the computing equipment or other computing equipment based on the second caching, and independently of querying the database the second time.
The abstract idea of claim 9 is:
querying a database a first time, wherein the database comprises a dataset of issues that satisfies a first criterion of completeness and a second criterion of relevance, to receive a response to the query that identifies a group of potential issues for computing equipment based on receiving an indication regarding operation of the computing equipment, wherein the group of potential issues for the computing equipment comprises a subset of the dataset of issues;
performing a first caching of the response to the query;
ranking potential issues of the group of potential issues based on respective frequencies of occurrence during a prior time period, to produce a first ranking;
performing a second caching the respective frequencies of occurrence during the prior time period, to produce respective cached frequencies, wherein the caching comprises storing an indication of the cached frequencies in a cache that is separate from the database;
revising the first ranking based on characteristics of the computing equipment, to produce a second ranking;
revising the second ranking based on metadata of the indication, to produce a third ranking;
presenting at least a part of the third ranking;
updating a process used to rank potential issues based on feedback data received in response to the presenting;
determining a second group of potential issues for a second query based on the first caching, and independently of querying the database a second time; and
performing a subsequent ranking for a second indication regarding operation of the computing equipment or other computing equipment based on the second caching, and independently of querying the database the second time.
The abstract idea of claim 15 is:
querying a data store a first time, wherein the database comprises a dataset of issues that satisfies a first criterion of completeness and a second criterion of relevance, to receive a response to the query that identifies a group of potential issues for a computing device based on receiving an indication regarding operation of the computing device, wherein the group of potential issues for the computing device comprises a subset of the dataset of issues;
performing a first caching of the response to the query;
ranking potential issues of the group of potential issues based on respective frequencies of occurrence during a prior time period, based on characteristics of the computing device, and based on metadata of the indication, to produce a ranking;
performing a second caching the respective frequencies of occurrence during the prior time period, to produce respective cached frequencies, wherein the caching comprises storing an indication of the cached frequencies in a cache that is separate from the data store;
presenting at least a part of the ranking;
updating a technique for ranking potential issues based on feedback data received in response to the presenting;
determining a second group of potential issues for a second query based on the first caching, and independently of querying the database a second time; and
performing a subsequent ranking for a second indication regarding operation of the computing equipment or other computing equipment based on the second caching, and independently of querying the database the second time.
The abstract idea steps italicized above describe the rules or instructions for ranking potential issues for a computing device, performed in a customer service context, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by [0001] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II articulates that sub-groupings encompass certain activity between a person and a computer (e.g., a user querying a database):
Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: at least one processor; at least one memory that stores executable instructions; user interface.
Claim 9 recites the following additional elements: system comprising at least one processor; user interface.
Claim 15 recites the following additional elements: non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions; system comprising at least one processor; user interface.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [00152] of applicant’s specification as filed.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 2-8, 11-14, 16-19, and 21 include additional abstract steps and/or information that narrow the abstract idea(s) above. There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This narrowing of the abstract idea does not integrate into practical application and/or add significantly more. These claims are also ineligible.
Dependent claim 20 includes additional abstract steps and/or information that narrow the abstract idea(s) above, in addition to reciting further additional elements (cloud computing equipment of a cloud computing platform). Similar to above, these generically recited computing components are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 7/29/26 have been carefully considered. Examiner’s response follows.
Rejection of Claims 1-9 and 11-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant offers, after restating claim amendments and highlighting supporting portions in the specification (bracketed portions correspond to citations to applicant’s specification that have been omitted for brevity):
Assignee's representative submits that claim 1, as amended, satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the reason that it satisfies Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Office's examination framework as a practical application of any abstract idea.
Claim 1, as amended, recites a dual-layer caching mechanism involving "a first caching" and "a second caching." This is a technical solution of caching both different groups of query responses to common queries (as described in the Specification, at [0044]) and different rankings of potential issues (as described in the Specification, at [0029]-[0031]).
These are different caches that store different types of data, and that are populated based on different events. This provides a technical solution to a technical problem of data storage and retrieval that improves the functioning of a computer (e.g., via a reduced confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA) impact as described in the Specification, at [0023] and [0045]).
Additionally, claim 1, as amended, satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2B, Prong Two, of the Office's examination framework as significantly more than any abstract idea. Claim 1 involves a non-conventional arrangement of two different caches that store different types of data, and that are populated based on different events. This combination is neither routine nor conventional.
For at least these reasons, assignee's representative submits that claim 9 satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 101, as do dependent claims 10-14. Assignee's representative requests that the Office rejection the rejection.
While well taken, examiner disagrees. The additional elements, which are considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, appear to be nothing more than generic computing components and processes that merely facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. Applicant has not provided for a technical improvement, as described in MPEP 2106.05(a), with reference to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “first caching” and “second caching” referenced by applicant in the remarks pertain to automating a previously manual task. However, mere automaton of manual tasks does not automatically demonstrate an improvement to technology, as suggested by applicant. MPEP 2106.05(a) is informative:
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:
[…]
iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). (Examiner’s highlight.)
For these reasons, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210091998, which teaches ranking service issues: [0068] Service issue rank 438 can include some type of order or listing of the service issues in data structure 432. The service issue rank 436 can be based off of various characteristics. For example, the service issue rank 438 can be based off of the frequency or number of occurrences of the service issue, the impact of the service issue to the system, or other types of information or parameters. In data structure 432, service issue 1, listed by service issue report ID 1 428, may have the highest service issue rank, and thus be stored in the more significant portion of data structure 432. The lowest rank service issue 420n may be stored in the least significant portion of data structure 432, and thus be lower ranked.
US 20210406973, which teaches intelligent issue resolution: [0044] Example of context include, but are not limited to, client ID, account rules associated with the client, regions that the inquiry or issues involves or affects, priority levels, a client's preferences (e.g., in-person vs. telephone vs. email help, the time of day for help, a single contact point vs. agents of various expertise, male vs. female assistance, a person's accent, etc.), prevalence of issues (e.g., frequency of a same issue, frequency of any issues, complexity of repeat issues, etc.), previous related inquires and/or issues (e.g., slow bandwidth speeds may be related to timeout errors and/or poor battery life), etc.
US 20240073319, which teaches managing customer conversations: [0092] In 810, call center system 100 selects the N highest ranked keywords and compares, in 812, these keywords against N keywords extracted from previously identified topics to identify new keywords. For example, each time N keywords are extracted, they may be stored in a computer database (locally or remotely) and may be subsequently retrieved for future comparisons over time. Keywords may be recognized by semantic use, frequency of use, emphasis or be at least partially based on a pre-stored set of known keywords. In addition, a solution set may also be generated by comparing these N keywords against extracted N keywords for similar customers with similar issues and successful resolutions of previous theme related interactions.
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 JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights