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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed November 6, 2025.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims in the filed amendment, and canceled claim 5. Claims 1,3,6-10 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/6/25, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made based on modified citations of Josyula, in view of Kuroki in further view of Allen in further view of Wannamaker.
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 1,3,6-10 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.
In claim 1:
Line 12 recites “a log of the specific signal”, and line 15 recites “a first type log” for the specific signal. It is unclear how these logs relate to each other, and if these are the same or different logs;
Lines 15-17 recite “…store a first type log that includes…”. It is unclear if this means that only a log is stored (that includes both location and value), or if a log is stored and a value is stored separate from the log. It is also unclear how a first type log and a value are stored as “the log information”, and how this relates to the “log information” of line 3. It is further unclear how this relates to the “log of the specific signal” in line 12 which also refers back to the “log information” of line 3, and thus unclear if these are all the same or are different;
Lines 20-22 recites “… store the second type log… as the log information”. Firstly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, “the second type log”, in the claim. Secondly, “the log information” is unclear for the same reasons given above regarding lines 15-17. It is unclear if this replaces all log related information.
Claim 3 recites: “an importance level” in each of lines 3,6,9, and 11. This is in addition to the recitation of “an importance level” in line 21 of claim 1. The multiple recitations make it unclear if these are all the same instance of “an importance level”, or if each of these recitations represents different instances of “an importance level”.
Claim 8 recites: “the second type event” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are thus rejected.
Claims 9-10 are slight variations of claim 1 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
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 1,3,7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josyula et al (US Publication 20040028059) in view of Kuroki (US Publication 20070266237) in further view of Allen (US Patent 9781053) in further view of Wannamaker et al (US Publication 20230333962).
In reference to claim 1, Josyula teaches a communication device, comprising:
a communication interface for communication with a server; a memory storing log information that indicates a list of logs of events occurring in the communication device; and a controller, (see at least ¶s 21,24 and 26, which teaches communication interface, memory for storing event-triggered log messages) wherein the controller is configured to:
repeatedly transmit a specific signal to a specific server via the communication interface; (see at least ¶s 33,34,37, which teaches a line card or application repeatedly transmitting a specific log message to a secondary log manager/server) and
execute a transmitting process for transmitting, to an external device different from the communication device, a log of the specific signal included in the log information stored in the memory, (see at least ¶ 33,36, which teaches transmitting to a primary log manager/device a log message which is the specific log message, and ¶ 38 where the transmitting can be to an external server device)
in a case where the specific signal is transmitted first, store a first-type log that includes a specific URL indicating a location of the specific server on the Internet and a first value to the memory as the log information (see at least ¶s 39,40, which teaches storing first type log metadata for a log message that includes specific line card ID indicating a location of the log message, and prioritizing the log when it is transmitted first); and
in a case where the specific signal is transmitted again after the first-type log including the specific URL has been stored to the memory as the log information, store the second-type log that includes the specific URL and a second value indicating a lower importance level than an importance level indicated by the first value to the memory as the log information (see at least ¶s 37,39,43, which teaches in the case of log messages being repeated, the log metadata indicates location ID and the prioritization level is lower since it is a repeated log, and thus not transmitted),
wherein, in the transmitting process, the first type log in the memory is transmitted to the external device due to the first value included in the first type log, and in the transmitting process, the second type of log is not transmitted to the external device due to the second value included in the second-type log (see at least ¶s 33,37,43, which teaches a first type log that is transmitted to the primary log manager/external device due to an initial priority level, and the second repeated type is not transmitted due to the prioritization level being lower than the initial first type).
From the above-mentioned limitations, Josyula fails to explicitly teach execute a predetermined communication with a specific server on the Internet via the communication interface, a list of log events, and where the logs include a specific URL indicating a location of the specific server on the Internet. However, Kuroki teaches accurately managing and tracing log data (see Kuroki, Abstract). Specifically, Kuroki discloses internet communications and logging communications with specific network print servers, discloses a list/table of log events, and discloses where the logs include the IP addresses of the print server (see Kuroki, at least ¶s 33,34,45 & 64-66). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Josyula based on the teachings of Kuroki for the purpose of efficiently and accurately managing communication logs in a network environment.
From the above-mentioned limitations, Josyula fails to explicitly teach in a case where the specific signal is transmitted again after the first-type log… store the second-type log that includes … a second value indicating a lower importance level indicated by the first value. However, Allen teaches request message management (see Allen, Abstract and column 2). Specifically, Allen discloses duplicate request messages being stored with a lower priority than a priority of an initial message that is not a duplicate (see Allen, at least column 7 line 45 – column 8 line 12). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Josyula based on the teachings of Allen for the purpose of efficient use of resources when handling duplicate messages.
From the above-mentioned limitations, Josyula fails to explicitly teach in the transmitting process, the first type log… is transmitted … due to the first value, and in the transmitting process, the second type of log is not transmitted … due to the second value. However, Wannamaker teaches transmitting message logs based on log context information (see Wannamaker, Abstract & ¶ 10). Specifically, Wannamaker discloses transmitting a log when their importance level value is greater than a threshold, and not transmitting the log when the importance value is lower than the threshold (see Wannamaker, at least ¶ 71). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Josyula based on the teachings of Wannamaker for the purpose of ensuring that only relevant logs are transmitted according to a log context that designates them as important.
In reference to claim 3, Josyula teaches in the transmitting process, transmitting high priority first log messages, and not transmitting lower priority log messages that are duplicates (see at least ¶ 36-37). Furthermore, Wannamaker teaches the predetermined importance level triggers settable by a user (see Wannamaker, at least ¶s 46-50), and also transmitting a log when their importance level value is greater than a threshold, and not transmitting the log when the importance value is lower than the threshold (see Wannamaker, at least ¶ 71). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Josyula based on the teachings of Wannamaker in accordance to the rationale given in claim 1.
In reference to claim 5, Josyula teaches a list of log messages from application programs, and where the first and second log types are different events (see Josyula, at least ¶s 35-37).
In reference to claim 7, Josyula teaches that the second repeating type is transmitted when less than a set value, and is not transmitted when more than a set value (see at least ¶ 37,43).
In reference to claim 8, Josyula teaches storing the first log type which includes metadata related to the second log type (see Josyula, at least ¶s 39-40).
Claims 9-10 correspond to claims 1,3,5,7,8 and are slight variations thereof. Therefore claims are rejected based upon the same rationale as given for claims 1,3,5,7,8.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josyula et al (US Publication 20040028059) in view of Kuroki (US Publication 20070266237) in further view of Allen (US Patent 9781053) in further view of Wannamaker et al (US Publication 20230333962) in further view of Plestid et al (US Publication 20080045277).
In reference to claim 6, Josyula fails to explicitly teach the application having a function for sending keep alive messages. However, Plestid teaches sending and tracking event messages (see Moss, Plestid). Specifically, Plestid discloses tracking when keep alive messages are sent by an application (see Plestid, at least ¶s 19,34). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Josyula based on the teachings of Plestid for the purpose of utilizing applications which incorporate presence agents and tracking communication signals.
Conclusion
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.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/RAMY M OSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Uni 2457
January 23, 2026