Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/190,781

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ADVANCED ERROR REPORTING USING MULTI-FREQUENCY SIGNALING

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 27, 2023
Examiner
MCNAMARA, SEAN KEVIN
Art Unit
2113
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
DELL PRODUCTS, L.P.
OA Round
4 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
12 granted / 14 resolved
+30.7% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
29
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§103
60.8%
+20.8% vs TC avg
§102
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§112
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 14 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
FINAL 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 arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5 and 9 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant notes that ¶4-5 of Eastman teaches the testing of the CMOS battery as part of a POST. However, Eastman also teaches in ¶35 “When the computer device is waking from a reduced power mode, the computing device draws more power from the system battery. As a result of the increased power, the current supplied by the system battery changes. The transition from the reduced power mode to the normal power mode can therefore trigger the computing device to test the system battery.”. While the methods taught by Eastman primarily focus on pre-boot testing, it does not completely exclude diagnostic tests performed at other times, including changes in state after boot. 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman (US 20090177922) in view of Lee (US 10230414) and Schranz (US 5127007). Regarding claim 1, Eastman teaches An information handling system comprising: a processor; (“The example computing device 200 includes at least one processor 202 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)” ¶19); one or more audio speakers configured to play back audible audio signals; (“In another example embodiment, computing device 100 may generate a sound through speaker 106, such as a series of beeps” ¶17); and a basic input/output system (BIOS) comprising a program of instructions comprising boot firmware configured to be the first code executed by the processor when the information handling system is booted or powered on in order to test (“The transition from the reduced power mode to the normal power mode can therefore trigger the computing device to test the system battery.” ¶35 ); and initialize the information handling system for operation (“Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) instructions 224 may define the functions of the pre-boot sequence and are initiated (or loaded) before the operating system is loaded. In general, BIOS instructions 224 are the firmware code executed by computing device 200 during the pre-boot sequence.” ¶21); the BIOS further configured to: monitor for a diagnostic error occurring during execution of the test; (“An error associated with the system battery may be detected from the parameters at 610 when the computing device is waking from the reduced power mode.” ¶36); and responsive to a diagnostic error occurring during execution of the BIOS, cause the one or more audio speakers to play back a sequence of one or more multi-frequency audio signals encoding an identity of the diagnostic error. (“The processor 202 may provide a specific indication of the identified error, for example by presentation of a specific sequence or pattern lights and/or sounds.…Other sounds that may be generated to signal the error may include, for example, sounds with various tones, music, voice warning, and other sounds.” ¶29). “Sounds with various tones” is being interpreted as equivalent to multi-frequency. Eastman does not teach wherein each multi-frequency audio signal encodes a telephone keypad character. Lee teaches wherein each multi-frequency audio signal encodes a telephone keypad character (“alert tones that are generated for different purposes including, but not limited to indicating the receipt of a transmission… indicating a warning events, such as a transmission time out or low battery event, indicating an evacuation event, signaling tone transmission, such as dual-tone multi-frequency tones…” Column 6 lines 29-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the use of different sounds to indicate different errors as taught by Eastman with the use of simultaneous playback of different tones (i.e., dual-tone multi-frequency which inherently uses simultaneous playback) signals as taught by Lee. Eastman teaches the use of both light and sound to signal the identity of an error in multiple ways, including frequency variation. Eastman also teaches that multiple frequency signals are desirable for the identification of errors. The use of alert tones with dual-tone multi-frequency taught by Lee is an example of using various frequencies of sound to indicate errors like Eastman discloses, therefore it would have been obvious to use dual-tone multi-frequency signals. Eastman and Lee do not teach communicate, via a telephonic service, the one or more multi-frequency audio signals encoding the identity of the diagnostic error to a customer service center. Schranz teaches communicate, via a telephonic service, the one or more multi-frequency audio signals encoding the identity of the error to a customer service center (“ If it is required, such binary-coded warning tone sequences reproduced by the system according to the invention can also be transmitted via a telephone receiver held close to the system, and a telephone network to a remotely located trained service technician who can then analogously determine the operational fault detected so that he can, for example, inform the user of the system of this via the telephone network or can prepare himself for a service visit. “ column 2 lines 60-68). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the signaling of encoded errors over a telephonic interface to a remote service location as taught by Schranz with the use of dual tone multi frequency BIOS error signals as taught by Eastman and Lee. This would allow a service technician to schedule a visit (lines 66-68). Regarding claim 2, Eastman teaches The information handling system of Claim 1 as shown above. Eastman also teaches one or more multi-frequency audio signals (“may signal the error using a light on computing device 200, such as LED 406, incandescent light, or other light emitting devices. For example, processor 202 may blink, flash, illuminate, extinguish, pulse… Similarly, for example, processor 202 may generate a series of beeps to indicate an error” ¶29); and playback of two audio tones at different frequencies from one another (“Other sounds that may be generated to signal the error may include, for example, sounds with various tones, music, voice warning, and other sounds.” ¶29). Lee teaches wherein each of the one or more multi-frequency audio signals comprises simultaneous playback of two audio tones at different frequencies from one another. (“alert tones that are generated for different purposes including, but not limited to indicating the receipt of a transmission… indicating a warning events, such as a transmission time out or low battery event, indicating an evacuation event, signaling tone transmission, such as dual-tone multi-frequency tones…” Column 6 lines 29-37 Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches wherein the one or more audio speakers comprise at least a first audio speaker and a second audio speaker (“the sound may be output by a speaker, such as speakers 145 described for FIG. 1B, speaker 245 described for FIG. 2, or speaker 345 described for FIG. 3” col 14 lines 15-19); and wherein each of the one or more multi-frequency audio signals comprises simultaneous playback of two audio tones at different frequencies from one another. DTMF (dual-tone multi-frequency) signals as already referenced necessarily play two different frequencies at the same time. Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches wherein each of the one or more multi-frequency audio signals is encoded in accordance with dual-tone multi-frequency signaling (“…such as dual-tone multi-frequency tones…” column 6 lines 35-37). Regarding claim 5, Eastman teaches A method comprising: monitoring, by a basic input/output system (BIOS) comprising a program of instructions comprising boot firmware configured to be the first code executed by a processor when an information handling system is booted or powered on in order to test and initialize the information handling system for operation,(“ Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) instructions 224 may define the functions of the pre-boot sequence and are initiated (or loaded) before the operating system is loaded. In general, BIOS instructions 224 are the firmware code executed by computing device 200 during the pre-boot sequence.” ¶21); for a diagnostic error occurring during execution of a test included in the BIOS; (“method 300, in accordance with an example embodiment, for identifying an error associated with a system battery. In an example embodiment, method 300 may be implemented by BIOS instructions 224” ¶23); and responsive to a diagnostic error occurring during execution of the test, causing, by the BIOS, one or more audio speakers of the information handling system to play back a sequence of one or more multi-frequency audio signals encoding an identity of the diagnostic error. (“The processor 202 may provide a specific indication of the identified error, for example by presentation of a specific sequence or pattern lights and/or sounds.…Other sounds that may be generated to signal the error may include, for example, sounds with various tones, music, voice warning, and other sounds.” ¶29). Lee teaches wherein each multi-frequency audio signal encodes a telephone keypad character (“alert tones that are generated for different purposes including, but not limited to indicating the receipt of a transmission… indicating a warning events, such as a transmission time out or low battery event, indicating an evacuation event, signaling tone transmission, such as dual-tone multi-frequency tones…” Column 6 lines 29-37). Schranz teaches communicate, via a telephonic service, the one or more multi-frequency audio signals encoding the identity of the diagnostic error to a customer service center (“ If it is required, such binary-coded warning tone sequences reproduced by the system according to the invention can also be transmitted via a telephone receiver held close to the system, and a telephone network to a remotely located trained service technician who can then analogously determine the operational fault detected so that he can, for example, inform the user of the system of this via the telephone network or can prepare himself for a service visit. “ column 2 lines 60-68). Regarding claims 6-8, Eastman teaches the method of claim 5, and each claim recites the exact same additional limitations as claims 2-4 respectively and are therefore rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 9, Eastman teaches An article of manufacture comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium;(“ The machine-readable medium may include, but is not limited to, magnetic storage medium (e.g., floppy diskette); optical storage medium (e.g., CD-ROM); magneto-optical storage medium; ROM; random access memory (RAM);…” ¶22); and computer-executable instructions carried on the computer-readable medium, the instructions readable by a processor, the instructions, when read and executed,(“Nonvolatile memory 204 includes a machine-readable medium in which is stored one or more sets of BIOS instructions 224 embodying any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein for self test operations, such as identifying errors” ¶22). The rest of the claim recites a substantially similar method with the same limitations described in claim 5, and is also taught by Eastman and Lee. Schranz teaches communicate, via a telephonic service, the one or more multi-frequency audio signals encoding the identity of the diagnostic error to a customer service center (“ If it is required, such binary-coded warning tone sequences reproduced by the system according to the invention can also be transmitted via a telephone receiver held close to the system, and a telephone network to a remotely located trained service technician who can then analogously determine the operational fault detected so that he can, for example, inform the user of the system of this via the telephone network or can prepare himself for a service visit. “ column 2 lines 60-68). Regarding claims 10-12, Eastman teaches The article of Claim 9 and each claim recites the exact same additional limitations as claims 2-4 and 6-8, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion 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 SEAN KEVIN MCNAMARA whose telephone number is (703)756-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 EST. 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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. /SEAN KEVIN MCNAMARA/Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /PHILIP GUYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 27, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 18, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 16, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 02, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12572424
INCORPORATED DEVICE, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING STARTUP OF INCORPORATED DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12561143
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REMEDIATING MISALIGNMENT OF A DATA PIPELINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12536072
METHOD, DEVICE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR ADJUSTING DATA PLACEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12511208
HOST CONTROLLED ELECTRONIC DEVICE TESTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12475007
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR ENHANCED FAULT DETECTION OF A COMPONENT OF A COMPUTING NODE THROUGH PEER-BASED ASSESSMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.6%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 14 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month