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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/06/2026.
Claims 1-8 have been amended.
Claim 9 has been canceled.
Claims 10, 11 have been added.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each or the users" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as a result.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "each or the users" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recite “the error occurred” in line 10 and “the abnormal value occurred” in line 11 of the claim. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 depend on claim 10 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as a result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-8 have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-11 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 1 and 8, the examiner found no prior arts that teach or fairly suggest each and every limitations of the claim when the claim is taken into the consideration as a whole. In particular, no prior arts teach “notifying, when an abnormality occurs in the system, an administrator of the system of the abnormality and also controlling notification of the abnormality for each of the users, based on the setting information, wherein notifying the administrator includes all detected abnormal values and all detected errors that constitute the abnormality, and the notification to each of the users is filtered based on the setting information to included only the notification target set by each of the users.”
As per claim 10, the examiner found no prior arts that teach or fairly suggest each and every limitations of the claim when the claim is taken into the consideration as a whole. In particular, no prior arts teach “storing, in the memory, an error history in which error information indicating the error is associated with the configuration information of the system, and an abnormal value history in which judgment information indicating the abnormal value is associated with the configuration information of the system, wherein the memory stores, for each of the users, the setting information in which, among errors that occur in an infrastructure of the system, the error set as the notification target and an abnormal value of data transmitted by a device that is a management target of the user are set, and wherein the operations further comprise notifying, when the error occurs, the administrator and the user who sets the error as the notification target, and notifying, when the abnormal value occurs, the administrator and the user who sets the abnormal value as the notification target.”
Claims 2-7 and 11 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 1 or 10 are allowable as a result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PG Pub. 2021/0,374632 A1 discloses method for managing a supply chain and forwarding identified potential problems to relevant users who need to be informed of the potential problems.
PG Pub. 2014/0,143,395 A1 discloses method for detecting a provisioning transaction failure and notifying one or more users of the provisioning transaction failure.
PG Pub. 2005/0,240,550 A1 discloses method for providing a file tracking and monitoring system that allows users to access information based on the users’ roles and access permissions, thereby allowing for role based multilayer tracking information of a file.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHAE M KO whose telephone number is (571)270-3886. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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, 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.
/CHAE M KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights