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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 have overcome the 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112 rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant essentially argues that Wilding and Ansari, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest "selecting, from a database, a message based at least in part on the performance metric of the application" and "sending the message to the application associated with the at least one user identifier," because “Ansari merely describes the ability to adjust or program the triggering events and other conditions of the self-healing facility”.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Ansari teaches additional functionalities as admitted by applicant’s description of Ansari, before the “Ansari merely describes…” statement.
Applicant essentially argues that "software errors" or "software faults" are not considered a performance metric.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because when software errors or faults occur, the system either slows down and/or uses additional resources to correct these errors/ faults, or completely stalls if not correctable. In either case it doesn’t perform as well.
Applicant essentially argues that Ansari or Wilding does not teach obtaining a user identifier or sending any message to an application associated with such an identifier, as required and recited thus, Ansari does not describe "selecting, from a database, a message based at least in part on the performance metric of the application" and "sending the message to the application associated with the at least one user identifier," as recited
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. See additional mapping clarifications added in the rejections hereafter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilding (US 2023/0004432 A1) and further in view of Ansari (US 2004/0153823 A1).
For claim 1,
Wilding teaches a method of troubleshooting an application (see paragraphs [0011], [0013], [0039], abstract, and other locations: view identifying/investigating root cause/underlying problem/source of a problem, as said troubleshooting), the method comprising: receiving, from an analytics engine, data representing a performance metric of the application and a tenant identifier associated with the application (see [0035], [0002], and other locations: view metrics of problems as said performance metric; both user and tenant are identified when analysis engine reporting something/change in their behavior, since particular telemetry of a problem is associated with a particular tenant and user; also, ticket and response thereto identifies both user and tenant); sending, to an analytics service, a request to receive at least one user identifier associated with the tenant identifier (see figue1 block 520, figure 3 output 322: analytics engine is commanded/requested to produce output; output is based on telemetry from identified user and tenant as explained above including mechanism for accepting ticket with said identifying); receiving, from the analytics service, the at least one user identifier (see [0035], figure 3 output 322: the analysis output is in response to problems of (identified) user and tenant); [].
Wilding does not explicitly teach selecting, from a database, a message based at least in part on the performance metric of the application; and sending the message to the application associated with the at least one user identifier (database and queries thereto and responses are taught)
However, Ansari teaches selecting, from a database, a message based at least in part on the performance metric of the application; and sending the message to the application associated with the at least one user identifier (see abstract, [0004] figure 2 block 212, [0022], and other locations: view communicated fix/solution as said message; view knowledgebase and/or remote databases as said database; the fix/solution is based on performance/problem and metrics; all associated of course with identification of who and where the problem is)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilding to include “selecting, … user identifier”, as taught by Ansari, because each one of Wilding and Ansari teach analytics engine to solve problems therefore, they are analogous arts and because knowledgebases are often used to associate problems and fixes (see [0004] and other locations).
For claim 2,
The combination of Wilding and Ansari teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Ansari further teaches causing a user interface of the application to present a user interface element configured to cause, responsive to a user selection of the user interface element, an action to be performed on a client computing device executing the application (see abstract and other locations: view patch as fix as perfomrd at client by UI as said)
For claim 3,
The combination of Wilding and Ansari teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Wilding further teaches receiving, from the application associated with the at least one user identifier, a user service request (see [0025] and other locations).
For claim 5,
The combination of Wilding and Ansari teaches the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons above.
Wilding further teaches sending, to a ticketing service, a service ticket request based on the user service request (see [0035] and other locations).
For claim 6,
The combination of Wilding and Ansari teaches the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons above.
Wilding further teaches retrieving, from a knowledge base, a knowledge base document based on the user service request; and sending the knowledge base document to the application associated with the at least one user identifier (see locations pointed to in rejection to claims 1-2: view by example, patch as said document).
For claim 7,
The combination of Wilding and Ansari teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Wilding further teaches the data is first data, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from the analytics engine, second data representing performance metrics of the application hosted on a plurality of virtual computing sessions (see [0016], [0024], and other locations); and sending, responsive to receiving the second data, the message to an administrator of the virtual computing sessions (see [0013], [0035], and other locations).
For claims 8-10 and 12-14,
The claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 1-3 and 5-7 respectively. Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are a computer program product.
For claims 15-17 and 19-20,
The claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 1-3 and 5-6 respectively. Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are a system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wikipedia “Issue tracking system” page, in support of what a problem ticket includes, including identifying details.
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 YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights