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 .
1. Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-16 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 8-9, and 15-16 are amended as filed on 07/07/2026.
Claims 2 and 10 are canceled as filed on 07/07/2026.
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, 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, 4-9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siebel et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2017/0006135 A1), hereinafter Siebel, in view of Maes et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/0268214 A1), hereinafter Maes, in view of Swanke et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2003/0078826 A1), hereinafter Swanke, in view of Gurdasani et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2017/0171043 A1), hereinafter Gurdasani, in view of Rath et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0014136 A1), hereinafter Rath, and in further view of Dahan (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018/0293379 A1).
2. With respect to claims 1 and 9, Siebel taught a method for triage management (0484, where the sensor and network health applications triage the network in order to reconcile deployment issues), the method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, activity logs from a plurality of sources, each activity log comprising one or more issues for triage (0299, the log data, where data can be historical data as seen in 0234); processing the activity logs associated with each issue (0484); identifying, by the processor, for each issue, relevant resources from a plurality of resources to resolve the issue based on the category of the issue, the priority score associated with the issue, and attributes of the relevant resources comprising historical issue resolution data (0478, where the prioritized equipment is the relevant resource(s), the risk score is the priority, and the attributes can be any of the equipment or system data listed); determining, by the processor, a triage activity based on availability of the identified relevant resources, the categories of the issues, and the priority scores associated with the issues, wherein the triage activity comprises a sequence for resolving the issues, and wherein the sequence is determined based on the priority scores associated with the issues and the availability of the relevant resources (0484 & 0478, where the individual elements are shown above with the previous citations); and generating, by the processor, a report for the triage activity, the report comprising real time information related to the obtained activity logs, the plurality of sources, and the sequence of the issues (0234, the created reports).
However, while Siebel did teach associating the triage with contacting customers (0530, the call centers based on the analyzed activity logs) Siebel did not explicitly state scheduling a call, by the processor, for a predetermined time duration based on the availability of the relevant resources, wherein the predetermined time duration is determined based on the attributes of each of the relevant resources. On the other hand, Maes did teach scheduling a call, by the processor, for a predetermined time duration based on the availability of the relevant resources, wherein the predetermined time duration is determined based on the attributes of each of the relevant resources (0060, where the call/notification is transmitted based on the issue prediction time, which is seen in 0063). Both of the systems of Siebel and Maes are directed towards network issue resolution and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Siebel, to utilize sending a notification/call based on a resolution time, as taught by Maes, in order to more efficiently manage the issue resolutions.
However, Siebel did not explicitly state scheduling a call, by the processor, with relevant resources for a predetermined time duration to resolve the issue, wherein scheduling the call comprises sending invites to the identified relevant resources based on the availability of the relevant resource. On the other hand, Swanke did teach scheduling a call, by the processor, with relevant resources for a predetermined time duration to resolve the issue, wherein scheduling the call comprises sending invites to the identified relevant resources based on the availability of the relevant resource (0025). Both of the systems of Siebel and Swanke are directed towards project management and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Siebel, to utilize automatically scheduling a meeting to diagnose a problem, as taught by Swanke, in order to provide a system that more efficiently handles problems that may arise.
However, while Siebel also implicitly taught the decision tree and categorization in (0484 & 0478), in order to provide a more explicitly showing from the newly applied reference, it is contended that Siebel did not explicitly state processing the activity logs, by the processor, using a decision tree, wherein the decision tree is configured to output a category of each issue in the activity log and a priority score associated with each issue, the priority score being indicative of a criticality of the issue and mapping the category of the issue with the nature of issues handled by the plurality of resources. On the other hand, Gurdasani did teach processing the activity logs, by the processor, using a decision tree, wherein the decision tree is configured to output a category of each issue in the activity log and a priority score associated with each issue, the priority score being indicative of a criticality of the issue and mapping the category of the issue with the nature of issues handled by the plurality of resources (0066, where the monitoring of the logs can be seen in, at least, 0015. Furthermore, the decision tree is given as part of the selection process). Both of the systems of Siebel and Gurdasani are directed towards monitoring log data and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Siebel, to utilize categorizing based on detected logged issues, as taught by Gurdasani, in order to more efficiently manage issue classification.
However, Siebel did not explicitly state that the attributes of the relevant resources comprised at least one of expertise level, experience in resolving similar issues, historical issue resolution data including issues resolved in the past, time taken to resolve the issues, and complexity of issues previously resolved, wherein the call is rescheduled by modifying the sequence for resolving the issues based on changes in the availability of the relevant resources and the attributes of each of the relevant resources. On the other hand, Rath did teach that the attributes of the relevant resources comprised at least one of expertise level, experience in resolving similar issues, historical issue resolution data including issues resolved in the past, time taken to resolve the issues, and complexity of issues previously resolved (0033), wherein the call is rescheduled by modifying the sequence for resolving the issues based on changes in the availability of the relevant resources and the attributes of each of the relevant resources (0064 & 0067, where the customer being contacted is the call). Both of the systems of Siebel and Rath are directed towards managing the assignment of tasks for relevant resources and therefore, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Siebel, to reschedule task resolution based on priorities of the tasks as well as the availability of the associated experts, as taught by Rath, in order to provide a robust system that is able to handle changing tasks.
However, while it could be argued that Siebel taught install the client monitor in 0152-0153 & 0075, for a more compact prosecution, the examiner will provide that Siebel did not explicitly state executing, by the processor, a service module on a client machine associated with a user; and continuously monitoring, by the processor, activities performed by the user on the client machine to retrieve data from a registry of the client machine, based on a predefined set of parameters. On the other hand, Dahan did teach executing, by the processor, a service module on a client machine associated with a user (0071); and continuously monitoring, by the processor, activities performed by the user on the client machine to retrieve data from a registry of the client machine, based on a predefined set of parameters (0071). Both of the systems of Siebel and Dahan are directed towards device management/monitoring and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to modify the teachings of Siebel, to utilize client-side device monitoring, as taught by Dahan, in order to more effectively manage and resolve device issues.
3. As for claims 4 and 12, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). In addition, Siebel taught appending to a database, by the processor, at least one of the obtained activity logs, the generated report, and metadata associated with each issue (0234, where the databases can be seen in 0152).
4. As for claims 5 and 13, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). In addition, Siebel taught wherein the plurality of sources comprises at least one of identity management units, project management units, user-end- applications, and web server (0077, where the custom applications are the user-end-applications).
5. As for claims 6 and 14, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). In addition, Siebel taught wherein the obtained activity logs comprises at least one of attributes of each source of the plurality of the sources, name of an executed function, parameters associated with the executed function, stack traces, name of module, and name of user (0478, where this at least teaches the attributes limitations for similar reasoning to the previous citation in claims 1 and 9).
6. As for claims 7 and 15, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). In addition, Siebel taught wherein the predefined set of parameters comprises at least one of information related to software installed on the client machine, frequency of usage of the software installed on the client machine, registry of the client machine, keywords used in each software installed on the client machine, domain of the client machine, services running on the client machine, and metadata associated with the software installed on the client machine (0077, where the custom applications are software installed on a client machine).
7. As for claims 8 and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). In addition, Siebel taught wherein the data retrieved from the registry of the client machine comprises information relating to a domain associated to the user (0132, where the specific domain is seen. See also 0444).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
