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 .
Acknowledgments
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
Claim 13 is cancelled.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 14-16 that the claims provide a technical improvement, the Applicant states
Consistent with Ex Parte Desjardins and Enfish, the amended claim is directed to an improvement in computer functionality, namely a backend, asynchronous processing architecture that decouples ticket assignment from ticket creation and update processes. For example, the claim reflects how the ITSM system itself operates more efficiently, reducing contention and performance impact, rather than merely reciting an abstract business practice. Under Ex Parte Desjardins and McRO, the amended claim integrates any abstract concept into a practical application by reciting a specific, automated temporal computation performed by the apparatus. For example, the claim is directed to how the system synchronizes and evaluates machine generated time data, which constitutes a technical improvement in automated ticket assignment rather than human judgment.
For example, claim 1 recites polling an incident table while ticket creation and update operations continue to occur, querying a separate roster table maintained independently by the ITSM system, and enabling parallel execution of backend routines without performance impact
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are not solving a technical problem but a business problem. Assigning tickets to users is not a technical problem but a business problem. Applicant’s Specification in para 0001-0003 also recite the business problem of managing employee issues. A technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes.
In addition, a user is able to assign tickets and create/update tickets separately or together. Merely stating that this is done on a computer is not enough for patent eligibility. The claims are merely improving a business process of assigning tickets which is not a technical process.
Applicant argues on page 16
Instead, it recites a specific, non-conventional arrangement of ITSM system
components, including: • a continuously running backend assignment routine;
• asynchronous execution relative to ticket creation and update;
• a roster table that is distinct from and separately maintained from the incident table; and • automated correlation of machine-generated ticket open times with machine-readable agent working time periods stored in the roster table.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
These components are not additional elements, but further limitations that fall in the abstract idea grouping of a mental process. For example, the limitation of a continuously running backend assignment routine is merely a method that user can run. The limitations, asynchronous execution relative to ticket creation and update;
• a roster table that is distinct from and separately maintained from the incident table; and are merely steps to run an execution separately and have a roster table which doesn’t not require a computer. Finally, the limitation, automated correlation of machine-generated ticket open times with machine-readable agent working time periods stored in the roster table is merely a step that analyzes data that also can be done without the use of computer.
Applicant argues on page 17
For example, although ticket assignment may involve human agents as end recipients, the amended claim is not directed to managing people or business relationships.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims deal with ticket management which includes managing agents with respect to a roster table and assigning tickets to them. The tickets are also with respect to customers. In addition, the Applicant’s drawings in figure 7 also show interactions between people. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations, interactions between people).
Applicant argues that claims are similar to Desjardins on page 18, Applicant states
In Desjardins, for example, the Board held claims patent eligible where they recited a backend processing architecture that operated asynchronously and independently of frontend user interaction, thereby improving system performance and scalability. The Board emphasized that such claims were directed to how the system itself operates, rather than to an abstract business practice.
In the claims presented herein, for example, the claimed limitations similarly recites a continuous backend assignment routine that executes independently of user interaction, asynchronously with respect to ticket creation and update operations, and in a manner that improves system throughput without performance impact. As in Desjardins, for example, the claimed invention does not merely automate a known practice, but instead introduces a specific backend architecture that decouples processing tasks, enables parallel execution, and avoids interference with front-end operations
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The case of Desjardins corresponds to Improvements to computer component or system performance based upon adjustments to parameters of a machine learning model associated with tasks or workstreams; Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision). The instant application doesn’t teach machine learning model or any training of a model. Therefore the court case of Desjardins is not analogous.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-12 are directed to a method, apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-12 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 10 and 12 recite the limitations of
Executing…continuous backend assignment routine… polling…an incident table…said incident table comprising ticket entries, a ticket entry of said ticket entries relating to an incident requiring an action of resolution, and ticket information about the incident, the ticket information comprising at least a ticket status field, an assigned-to field, and an open time field of a ticket open time, selecting…from the incident table an active ticket to be assigned to an agent…said selecting comprising obtaining the ticket from said incident table, checking, according to one or more validation criteria, if one or more pieces of said ticket information match expected values, said expected values comprising a status of the ticket is set to a new or in-progress value, and that an assigned to description field is not filled in, validating the active ticket…comparing… ticket status and open time fields to the expected value, searching, in response to validation of the ticket, for at least one candidate agent by querying a roster table…, said roster table comprising entries corresponding to agents, said entries comprising agent information, said agent information comprising a working time period, said searching being based on one or more search criteria generated from one or more of said ticket information comprising the ticket open time and applied to said agent information… determining…whether a candidate agent of said at least one candidate agent matches said one or more search criteria, by…correlating…ticket open time with…agent working time periods stored in the roster table to identify said at least one candidate agent, wherein the querying of the roster table is performed while ticket creation and update operations continue to occur on the incident table, thereby enabling parallel execution of multiple backend assignment routines,
, in case one agent has been found, assigning…the ticket to said one agent, and wherein the method is performed asynchronously with respect to creation or update of tickets in the incident table…
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of executing, polling, selecting, obtaining, checking, validating, comparing, searching, determining, correlating and assigning. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the claim language encompasses simply polling an incident table, selecting/obtaining an active ticket, checking ticket data, validating the ticket which includes the act of comparing data, searching for a candidate agent to resolve the ticket, determining if the candidate data matches a criteria which includes the step of correlating data, and assigning the ticket to the candidate. These are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. Given a real-world example, a manager is able to manage tickets by selecting tickets and assigning them to agents. A manager is also able to poll (i.e. check status) of an incident table.
The claims also deal with ticket management which includes managing agents with respect to a roster table and assigning tickets to them. The tickets are also with respect to customers. In addition, the Applicant’s drawings in figure 7 also show interactions between people. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations, interactions between people). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of apparatus, processor, memory, ITSM system, computer program, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The additional elements also include machine generated data (i.e. tickets and working time periods).
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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.
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe additional details of the abstract idea steps such as selecting comprises a time counter. In addition, the dependent claims further describe additional information about agent and ticket/incident information such as priority level of incident and group that the agent belongs too.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 1 further recites ITSM system, apparatus, processor, machine generated data (i.e. tickets and working time periods), and memory
Claim 6 recites ITSM system
Claim 10 recites ITSM system, apparatus, processor, also include machine generated data (i.e. tickets and working time periods), and memory
Claim 11 recites ITSM system
Claim 12 recites computer program, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, ITSM system, also include machine generated data (i.e. tickets and working time periods), and apparatus.
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states general-purpose computer configurations as seen in para 00123
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 00123. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Ijidakinro (US20080056233A1) Discloses incident support routing. The Internet is utilized to distribute the received customer support calls among a plurality of customer support agents who may be remotely located and geographically distributed. Voice data to voice-over-IP (VOIP) data packet conversion and VOIP to voice conversion may be utilized to facilitate a customer support call between a customer's telephone and a customer support agent's computer system.
Kishore (20120259540) who teaches a ticket table that includes a status field that includes statuses such as assigned, in progress, or closed.
Wendell (20140081691) who teaches a ticket table that includes an open time which corresponds to the age of the ticket.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625