DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination and are pending further prosecution by the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "responsive to the computer determining that the error had previously occurred on one of the computer or the at least one other computing system having the similar system configuration as the system configuration of the computer at the time of the error, determining, by the computer, whether one or more solutions were found during a search that successfully fixed the error on one of the computer or the at least one other computing system having the similar system configuration as the system configuration of the computer at the time of the error; and responsive to the computer determining that one or more solutions were found during the search that successfully fixed the error on one of the computer or the at least one other computing system having the similar system configuration as the system configuration of the computer at the time of the error, generating, by the computer, a list of solutions that successfully fixed the error corresponding to the application." when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "determine whether one or more solutions were found during a search that successfully fixed the error on one of the computer system or the at least one other computing system having the similar system configuration as the system configuration of the computer system at the time of the error in response to determining that the error had previously occurred on one of the computer system or the at least one other computing system having the similar system configuration as the system configuration of the computer system at the time of the error; and generate a list of solutions that successfully fixed the error corresponding to the application in response to determining that one or more solutions were found during the search that successfully fixed the error on one of the computer system or the at least one other computing system having the similar system configuration as the system configuration of the computer system at the time of the error." when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 8.
With respect to claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "responsive to the computer determining that the error had previously occurred on one of the computer or the at least one other computing system having the similar system configuration as the system configuration of the computer at the time of the error, determining, by the computer, whether one or more solutions were found during a search that successfully fixed the error on one of the computer or the at least one other computing system having the similar system configuration as the system configuration of the computer at the time of the error; and responsive to the computer determining that one or more solutions were found during the search that successfully fixed the error on one of the computer or the at least one other computing system having the similar system configuration as the system configuration of the computer at the time of the error, generating, by the computer, a list of solutions that successfully fixed the error corresponding to the application." when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 14.
Note, however, that claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 16-18 and 20 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 Objections
The following claims are objected to because of informalities. It is suggested Applicants amend these claims as follows:
Claim 12
-- rank each respective solution in the list of solutions to form a ranked list of solutions based on a degree of system configuration similarity associated with a particular solution to the system configuration of the computer system when the error occurred and a rate of success of each respective solution in the ranked list of solutions in fixing the error. --
Claim 18
-- ranking, by the computer, each respective solution in the list of solutions to form a ranked list of solutions based on a degree of system configuration similarity associated with a particular solution to the system configuration of the computer when the error occurred and a rate of success of each respective solution in the ranked list of solutions in fixing the error. --
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method for resolving software errors. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 would fall under the category of mental processes as the claim features limitations performable as mental steps, with the assistance of pen & paper, but without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. An analysis of claim 1 according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility test follows:
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 is directed to a method and, therefore, a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes, claim 1 recites an abstract idea as the following limitations are performable as mental processes with the assistance of pen & paper: detecting, - A developer can receive a verbal indication from a tester that an error occurred upon executing an application on a computer; determining, - The developer can identify a system configuration of the computer by reading corresponding documentation; determining, The developer can consult the tester to determine whether the error occurred on the computer in the past; responsive to the computer determining that the error had previously occurred on one of the computer...determining, more solutions were found during a search that successfully fixed the error on one of the computer- - Upon the tester confirming occurrence of the error in the past, the developer can query the tester if solutions were found for remediating the past error; responsive to the computer determining that one or more solutions were found during the search that successfully fixed the error on one of the computer...generating, - Upon the tester confirming resolution of the past error, the developer can generate a list of solutions on paper after consulting with the tester.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites the additional element of a computer for performing the method steps. However, as recited, the computer is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea and, therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception?
Claim 1 recites the additional element of a computer for performing the method steps. However, as recited, the computer is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea and, therefore, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as analogous claim 1. While claim 8 recites other additional elements, including a computer system, a communication fabric, a storage device storing program instructions, and a processor for executing the program instructions, these additional elements merely constitute generic computing components for performing the abstract idea and, therefore, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as analogous claim 1. While claim 8 recites other additional elements, including a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer, these additional elements merely constitute generic computing components for performing the abstract idea and, therefore, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 9 and 15 recite the additional element of applying, by the computer, a solution automatically to the application in which the error occurred based on a selection of the solution from the list of solutions, which amounts to an insignificant post-solution activity as applying the solution naturally follows discovery of a solution. Thus, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This additional element is also a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see US 20170060735 A1, [0016], for example) and, thus, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 recite the additional element of wherein the computer utilizes a system agent that runs once at each startup of the computer to collect information regarding a current system configuration of the computer, which amounts to an insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of data gathering. Thus, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This additional element is also a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see JP 3573960 B2, bottom of page 4, for example) and, thus, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2017134677 A1 discloses methods and systems for automatically cross-referencing problem information between users. US 20170344460 A1 discloses mechanisms for exception resolution in a software development session. US 20200097389 A1 discloses a system and method for providing assistance to programmers to detect and predict the existence of errors in code and predict fixes for erroneous code. US 20050172272 A1 discloses a method, system and article of manufacture for generating and utilizing debug history to improve the debugging process. WO 2016122517 A1 discloses defect reporting in application testing. US 20170344461 A1 discloses automated exception resolution during software development sessions based on previous encounters with the same exceptions. US 20070266371 A1 discloses a method and system for change tracking featuring a change tracking database for determining whether the same error has been encountered and solved previously. US 20150269060 A1 discloses systems, methods and computer program products for debugging software. US 20200192344 A1 discloses correlating the attributes of failed edge devices with other devices having similar profiles or similar attributes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY R ST LEGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7720. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (IFP) ~9:00-5:00 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/GEOFFREY R ST LEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192