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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on April 18, 2025.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Priority
Applicant claims the priority of a Foreign application No. IN 202411034791, filed on May 2, 2024 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/18/2025 appears to be in compliance with the previsions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method for providing ticket resolution, which falls within the statutory category of a process. Claims 8-14 are directed to a device comprising a processor and a memory, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage storing instructions, which falls within the statutory category of a product. Step 1 is satisfied.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 1 recites the limitations of “registering at least one queue owner upon successful completion of an onboarding, receiving a ticket data from the at least one queue owner, loading the ticket data into a data repository to train a model, receiving at least one ticket, identifying a resolution for the at least one ticket, executing the identified resolution to solve the at least one ticket”; the dependent claims 2-7 further narrowing the limitations of claim 1, including “receiving onboarding details from the at least one queue owner, authenticating the at least one queue owner, authorizing the at least one queue owner based on the onboarding details, updating a ticket status, transmitting the at least one unresolved ticket to a ticket resolution team for a manual resolution, and transmitting a notification to the user upon successful resolution of the at least one ticket. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by at least one processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claims encompasses a person can manually registering the queue owner, receiving a ticket data from the queue owner, save the ticket data to the data repository, identifying a resolution for the ticket, executing the identified resolution, authenticating the queue owner, authorizing the queue owner, updating the ticket status, sending a notification to the user”, which fall within the “mental processes” grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “by at least one processor” and “via a ticket management platform” do not take the claims out of the mental processes grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements of “by at least one processor” and “via a ticket management platform”. The Specification describes that “The processor 104 may be a general-purpose processor or may be part of an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC). The processor 104 may also be a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a processor chip, a controller, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a state machine, or a programmable logic device” (see ¶ 51). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, the additional element is no more than generic computer components for performing generic computer functions including receiving, storing, and transmitting information over a network. This processor is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). Again, automating an abstract process does not convert it into a practical application. See also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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 effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements of “by at least one processor” and “via a ticket management platform”. The Specification describes that “The processor 104 may be a general-purpose processor or may be part of an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC). The processor 104 may also be a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a processor chip, a controller, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a state machine, or a programmable logic device” (see ¶ 51). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, the additional element is no more than generic computer components. This processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, storing, and transmitting data over a network. However, implementing on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326-27, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claim reciting multiple abstract ideas, i.e., the manipulation of information through a series of mental steps and a mathematical calculation, was held directed to an abstract idea)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-7 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 8-14 and 15-20 parallel claims 1-7—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dake et al., (US 2022/0215323, hereinafter: Dake), and in view of Tremblay et al., (US 2022/0343250, hereinafter Tremblay), and further in view of Caplis et al., (US 2013/0179942, hereinafter: Caplis).
Regarding claim 1, Dake discloses a method for providing an automated ticket resolution, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising:
- receiving, by the at least one processor, a ticket data from the at least one queue owner, wherein the ticket data comprises data associated with a plurality of tickets and corresponding resolution of the plurality of tickets (see ¶ 5-6, ¶ 34-38);
- loading, by the least one processor, the ticket data into a data repository to train a model for the automated ticket resolution (see ¶ 5-6, ¶ 58);
- receiving, by the at least one processor, at least one ticket via a ticket management platform (see ¶ 6, ¶ 22, ¶ 25, ¶ 32, ¶ 51).
Dake does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Caplis in an analogous art for consolidating data discloses
- registering, by the at least one processor, at least one queue owner upon successful completion of an onboarding of the at least one queue owner (see ¶ 51, ¶ 90-95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake to include teaching of Caplis in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for tickets management , in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay in an analogous art for executing custom workflow discloses
- identifying, by the at least one processor, a resolution for the at least one ticket using the model trained from the ticket data (see ¶ 227, ¶ 237, ¶ 259); and
- executing, by the at least one processor, the identified resolution to resolve the at least one ticket (see ¶ 210, ¶ 263, ¶ 603-606).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein for the onboarding of the at least one queue owner, the method further comprises:
- receiving, by the at least one processor, onboarding details from the at least one queue owner (see ¶ 13-14, ¶ 20-22, ¶ 228, ¶ 233-234);
- authenticating, by the at least one processor, the at least one queue owner (see ¶ 272, ¶ 306, ¶ 597-598); and
- authorizing, by the at least one processor, the at least one queue owner based on the onboarding details (see ¶ 186, ¶ 223).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the onboarding details comprise a name, a location, a role, and a department of the at least one queue owner (see ¶ 137, ¶ 172, ¶ 181, ¶ 277, ¶ 552).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4, Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
- updating, by the at least one processor, a ticket status of the at least one ticket as an unresolved ticket upon failure of the identification of the resolution for the at least one ticket (see ¶ 244-247, ¶ 263, ¶ 586); and
- transmitting, by the at least one processor, the at least one unresolved ticket to a ticket resolution team for a manual resolution of the at least one unresolved ticket (see ¶ 240, ¶ 281, ¶ 491, ¶ 565).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Dake discloses the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the resolution of the at least one unresolved ticket is further loaded into the data repository for self-training of the model for the automated ticket resolution (see ¶ 47, ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 6, Dake does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Caplis discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ticket data is further uploaded in at least one format from among: a javascript object notation (JSON) format, an extensible markup language (XML) format, and a comma separated values (CSV) format (see ¶ 40, ¶ 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake to include teaching of Caplis in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for tickets management , in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
- transmitting, by the at least one processor, a notification to the user via the ticket management platform upon successful resolution of the at least one ticket (see ¶ 2-4, ¶ 240).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Tremblay discloses a computing device configured to implement an execution of a method for providing an automated ticket resolution, the computing device comprising:
a processor (see Fig. 1, # 110);
a memory storing instructions (see Fig. 1, # 130); and
a communication interface coupled to each of the processor and the memory, wherein the processor is programmed to cooperate with the instructions to perform operations (see ¶ 22-23) comprising:
- receiving a ticket data from the at least one queue owner, wherein the ticket data comprises data associated with a plurality of tickets and corresponding resolution of the plurality of tickets (see ¶ 5-6, ¶ 34-38);
- loading the ticket data into a data repository to train a model for the automated ticket resolution (see ¶ 5-6, ¶ 58);
- receiving at least one ticket via a ticket management platform (see ¶ 6, ¶ 22, ¶ 25, ¶ 32, ¶ 51).
Dake does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Caplis in an analogous art for consolidating data discloses
- registering at least one queue owner upon successful completion of an onboarding of the at least one queue owner (see ¶ 51, ¶ 90-95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake to include teaching of Caplis in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for tickets management , in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay in an analogous art for executing custom workflow discloses
- identifying a resolution for the at least one ticket using the model trained from the ticket data (see ¶ 227, ¶ 237, ¶ 259); and
- executing the identified resolution to resolve the at least one ticket (see ¶ 210, ¶ 263, ¶ 603-606).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 9, Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay discloses the computing device as claimed in claim 8, wherein to onboard the at least one queue owner, the operations further comprise:
- receiving onboarding details from the at least one queue owner (see ¶ 13-14, ¶ 20-22, ¶ 228, ¶ 233-234);
- authenticating the at least one queue owner (see ¶ 272, ¶ 306, ¶ 597-598); and
- authorizing the at least one queue owner based on the onboarding details (see ¶ 186, ¶ 223).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay discloses the computing device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the onboarding details comprise a name, a location, a role, and a department of the at least one queue owner (see ¶ 137, ¶ 172, ¶ 181, ¶ 277, ¶ 552).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay discloses the computing device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise:
- updating a ticket status of the at least one ticket as an unresolved ticket upon failure of the identification of resolution for the at least one ticket (see ¶ 244-247, ¶ 263, ¶ 586); and
- transmitting the at least one unresolved ticket to a ticket resolution team for a manual resolution of the at least one unresolved ticket (see ¶ 240, ¶ 281, ¶ 491, ¶ 565).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Dake discloses the computing device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the resolution of the at least one unresolved ticket is further loaded into the data repository for self-training of the model for the automated ticket resolution (see ¶ 47, ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 13, Dake does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Caplis discloses the computing device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the ticket data is further uploaded in at least one format from among: a javascript object notation (JSON) format, an extensible markup language (XML) format, and a comma separated values (CSV) format (see ¶ 40, ¶ 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake to include teaching of Caplis in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for tickets management , in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay discloses the computing device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise transmitting a notification to the user via the ticket management platform upon successful resolution of the at least one ticket (see ¶ 2-4, ¶ 240). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 15, Tremblay discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instruction for providing an automated ticket resolution, the instructions comprising executable code which when executed by a processor (see ¶ 25, ¶ 61), causes the processor to perform operations comprising:
- receiving a ticket data from the at least one queue owner, wherein the ticket data comprises data associated with a plurality of tickets and corresponding resolution of the plurality of tickets (see ¶ 5-6, ¶ 34-38);
- loading the ticket data into a data repository to train a model for the automated ticket resolution (see ¶ 5-6, ¶ 58);
- receiving at least one ticket via a ticket management platform (see ¶ 6, ¶ 22, ¶ 25, ¶ 32, ¶ 51).
Dake does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Caplis in an analogous art for consolidating data discloses
- registering at least one queue owner upon successful completion of an onboarding of the at least one queue owner (see ¶ 51, ¶ 90-95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake to include teaching of Caplis in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for tickets management , in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay in an analogous art for executing custom workflow discloses
- identifying a resolution for the at least one ticket using the model trained from the ticket data (see ¶ 227, ¶ 237, ¶ 259); and
- executing the identified resolution to resolve the at least one ticket (see ¶ 210, ¶ 263, ¶ 603-606).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium as claimed in claim 15, wherein for the onboarding of the at least one queue owner, the operations further comprise:
- receiving onboarding details from the at least one queue owner (see ¶ 13-14, ¶ 20-22, ¶ 228, ¶ 233-234);
- authenticating the at least one queue owner (see ¶ 272, ¶ 306, ¶ 597-598); and
- authorizing the at least one queue owner based on the onboarding details (see ¶ 186, ¶ 223).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 17, Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium as claimed in claim 16, wherein the onboarding details comprise a name, a location, a role, and a department of the at least one queue owner (see ¶ 137, ¶ 172, ¶ 181, ¶ 277, ¶ 552).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 18, Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium as claimed in claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
- updating a ticket status of the at least one ticket as an unresolved ticket upon failure of the identification of resolution for the at least one ticket (see ¶ 244-247, ¶ 263, ¶ 586); and
- transmitting the at least one unresolved ticket to a ticket resolution team for a manual resolution of the at least one unresolved ticket (see ¶ 240, ¶ 281, ¶ 491, ¶ 565).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 19, Dake discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium as claimed in claim 15, wherein the resolution of the at least one unresolved ticket is further loaded into the data repository for self-training of the model for the automated ticket resolution (see ¶ 47, ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 20, Dake and Caplis do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tremblay discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium as claimed in claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise transmitting a notification to the user via the ticket management platform upon successful resolution of the at least one ticket (see ¶ 2-4, ¶ 240). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dake and in view of Caplis to include teaching of Tremblay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhancing computational efficiency in information processing. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Srivastava et al., (US 10380520) disclose an automated ticket resolution system for resolving ticket issue using machine learning and natural language processing to classify ticket data and implement a resolution to the issue associated with a project.
Agarwal et al., (US 2017/0103400) discloses a method for monitoring a ticket resolution process including detecting a ticket resolution initiation and identifying at least one work activity within the captured user activity.
Ramadoss et al., (US 2025/0267081) discloses a ticket management system for generating a resolution for an incident and prioritizing the tickets based on urgency and overall impact.
Kokubo (JP 2007226650) discloses a method for providing ticket management for generating and displaying ticket information of an event related to the ticket.
Lewis et al., “Extending Trouble Ticket Systems to Fault Diagnostics”, IEEE Network, 7(6), 1993, pp. 44-51.
Zhou et al., “Resolution Recommendation for Event Tickets in Service Management”, IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 2016.
Zhou et al., “A System for Ticket Analysis and Resolution”, Computer Science, Florida International University, Miami, USA. KDD’17, August 13-17, 2017, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights