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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/10/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended and no claims have been added and/or canceled.
The final rejection dated 3/10/2026 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1, 10, and 19 as independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/28/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on 3/10/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fraenkel et al. (US 2003/0065986, hereafter as Fraenkel).
Claim 1. An apparatus for enabling automated configuration of abstractive context summaries for transmission to one or more integrated collaboration applications, the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including program code, the at least one memory and the program code configured to, with the at least one processor, (Fraenkel discloses in [0056, 0077, and 0080] “a computer 35 that hosts the controller 34 will be referred to as a "controller computer."… The controller 34 also provides functions for specifying alert conditions, and for notifying personnel when such conditions exist… the controller 34 preferably includes or interoperates with a recorder 34A that provides functions for recording and editing transactions to be included within testcases… the controller 34 stores various test control data in local storage 38.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the controller computer 35 may include a processor which executes software components such as recorder 34A stored in storage 38) cause the apparatus to at least:
receive a summary event indication generated in response to generation of an abstractive context summary of a multi-party communication channel associated with an incident identifier that identifies an incident of one or more incidents, wherein the summary event indication comprises a multi-party communication channel identifier that identifies the multi-party communication channel; Fraenkel discloses in [0016, 0084, 0096, and 0139] “When such an alert condition is detected, a notification message may be sent by email, pager, or other communications method to an appropriate person… upon receiving an alert notification, the administrator can use a standard web browser to access the reports server and view the details of the event or events that triggered the notification…. the monitoring session uses a single agent computer, "idopc," which has been assigned a single transaction "flights" and an execution schedule of "Every 5 minutes, Monday-Friday, all day." The monitoring session includes a single alert under which an alert event will be triggered if the response time of the transaction "flights" exceeds 10 seconds… As illustrated in FIG. 16, the controller's UI also provides a browser window through which a user can view report pages from the reports server 36… controller 34 dispatches the testcases and execution schedules to the respective agent computers 40, and sends various session configuration data (session name, transaction identifiers, attributes of agent computers, etc.) to the reports server 36 for storage in the sessions database 42… the performance summary report 124 may provide information on the number and severity of alert notices during the specified time duration. The performance summary report 124 gives the user a summary of the overall transaction performance (based on default or user-specified thresholds), including, in one embodiment, identifying the worst performing transactions 126 and the worst performing locations 128.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the summary event indication may be an alert notification that may be generated indicating a monitored transaction session threshold may be exceeded and a contextual summary report may be generated, wherein the incident identifier may be name of the transaction. the multi-party communication channel an email or pager to notify an appropriate person who defined the alert conditions. in other words, the system monitors, using computer agent 32, an object recites in transactional server 30. A user may define alert conditions that detect an occurrence of an error or a failure defined by parameters and a notification message may be transmitted to the user via a channel defined by the user such as a request to be notified via an email, a pager, etc.,
receive a destination identifier associated with a destination collaboration application of the one or more integrated collaboration applications; Fraenkel discloses in [0016, 0084, 0096, and 0139] “The alert conditions may optionally be specific to a particular location, organization, ISP, or other attribute. For example, a system administrator responsible for an Atlanta branch office may request to be notified when a particular problem (e.g., average response time exceeds a particular threshold) is detected by computers in that office.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the destination ID may be the system administrator and the destination collaboration application may be an application detected by a computer in the Atlanta office. For example, the system administrator in the Atlanta branch wanted to be notified about failures occur in the monitored website in the Atlanta branch,
retrieve the abstractive context summary from a summary storage location based on the multi-party communication channel identifier; Fraenkel discloses in [0096, 0098, 0116, and 0132] “controller 34 dispatches the testcases and execution schedules to the respective agent computers 40, and sends various session configuration data (session name, transaction identifiers, attributes of agent computers, etc.) to the reports server 36 for storage in the sessions database 42… the user can request to be notified whenever the average response time exceeds a specified threshold, or exceeds the threshold with a specified frequency (e.g., 10 times per minute). As shown in FIG. 12, the user can also request to be notified by pager or email of an alert condition… the controller also sends session configuration data to the reports server 36 (preferably using HTTP) for storage in the sessions database 42. The configuration data includes the session name, identifiers and properties (attributes) of the agent computers 40, and identifiers and names of the transactions…. In the event of a transaction failure, the agent 32 sends the sequence of captured screen displays to the reports server 36 (block 120), which in turn stores the screen displays in the sessions database 42 for later viewing… The screen displays could additionally or alternatively be sent by email to a human operator for viewing.” And in [0206-0207] “The user may also view a RCA summary report by selecting a summary report option 238 from the RCA session screens… the RCA summary report 240 displays a summary of performance problems broken down by discrete time intervals, such as 10 or 15 minute intervals.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the user may retrieve a summary report, or abstractive context summary, from the report server 36 based on the request to be notified via an email or a pager,
modify the abstractive context summary of the multi-party communication channel based on a destination parameter set associated with the destination identifier to generate a destination configured abstractive context summary associated with the incident identifier; transmit the destination-configured abstractive context summary to the destination collaboration application. Fraenkel discloses in [0097, 0108, and 0119] “the Alerts Wizard allows the user to specify one or more performance parameters to monitor in real-time for purposes of generation alerts, including response time, availability, pass/fail status, and response data size. By selecting the check box 70, the user can specify certain parameter statistics to monitor, such as the average of the parameter over a specified time frame… the "Report Parameters" window 87 allows the user to modify the time frame and/or the breakdown method used to generate the various graphs and charts. By modifying the breakdown method, the user can view the performance data separately for each transaction and for each attribute of the agent computers… the agent 32 interacts with (e.g., sends HTTP Post and Get messages to) the transactional server 30 while monitoring one or more predefined performance parameters such as response time.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the report summary 240 may customized (or modified) based on parameters defined by the user (or destination parameters) and the generated summary report 240 may be transmitted via an email, for example, for the user for viewing as shown in fig. 37.
Claims 2, 11, and 20. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, wherein the abstractive context summary is associated with a first data structure and the destination collaboration application is associated with a second data structure that is different from the first data structure. Fraenkel discloses in [0082, 0113 and 0207] “The report generation component 36D is implemented using Microsoft ActiveX Data Objects (ADO), which provides functions for generating dynamic web pages. The dynamic web pages includes various pre-defined graphs and charts (see FIGS. 13-16) that are used to build customized, web-based reports… The reports server 36 also preferably provides access to an Alerts chart (not shown) which contains information about the various alert events that have occurred. For each alert event, this chart may include, for example, an alert name, a color-coded indication of the alert severity, the time of the alert event, the action taken (e.g., "email sent to admin@merc-int.com" or "logged only"), and the text of any alert message sent… the RCA summary report 240 displays a summary of performance problems broken down by discrete time intervals, such as 10 or 15 minute intervals. Additionally, using the alert notification procedures described above, the RCA summary report 240 may be automatically generated and sent along with defined alert notifications.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the first data structure may be the alert message and the second data structure may be Microsoft ActiveX Data Objects (ADO), which provides functions, destination collaboration application, for generating dynamic web pages that includes various pre-defined graphs and charts.
Claims 3 and 12. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 2 is incorporated, wherein the destination parameter set defines the second data structure associated with the destination collaboration application, and the destination-configured abstractive context summary is generated to have a data structure that corresponds to the second data structure associated with the destination collaboration application. Fraenkel discloses in [0097 and 0108] “the Alerts Wizard allows the user to specify one or more performance parameters to monitor in real-time for purposes of generation alerts, including response time, availability, pass/fail status, and response data size. By selecting the check box 70, the user can specify certain parameter statistics to monitor, such as the average of the parameter over a specified time frame… the "Report Parameters" window 87 allows the user to modify the time frame and/or the breakdown method used to generate the various graphs and charts.” (emphasis added).
Claims 4 and 13. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, wherein transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary comprises transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary to a destination summary database associated with the destination collaboration application. Fraenkel discloses in [0107] “As illustrated in FIG. 13, the report pages preferably include various links and controls for allowing the user to generate customized and attribute-filtered views of the performance data. For example, if the user selects the "drill down" link for the "browse order status" transaction, a page appears which includes the graphs 84, 86 shown in FIG. 15.” (emphasis added).
Claims 5 and 14. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, wherein transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary comprises transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary to a workspace associated with the destination collaboration application. Fraenkel discloses in [0014 and 0020] “The server agent component is preferably located local to the monitored transactional server. The performance data generated by the client and server agents is aggregated in a centralized database that is remotely accessible through a web reports server. The reports server provides various user-configurable charts, tables and graphs displaying the response times and server resource utilization parameters, and provides functions for facilitating an evaluation of whether a correlation exists between changes in the response times and changes in values of specific server resource utilization parameters. Using this feature, a user can identify the server-side sources of performance problems seen by end users.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the workspace associated with the destination collaboration application may be the centralized database.
Claims 6 and 15. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, wherein transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary comprises ingesting the destination-configured abstractive context summary into a post-incident report template associated with the destination collaboration application for rendering a post-incident report for the incident identifier on a display of a client computing device. Fraenkel discloses in [0020, 0120, 0159, and 0206-0207] “The performance data generated by the client and server agents is aggregated in a centralized database that is remotely accessible through a web reports server. The reports server provides various user-configurable charts, tables and graphs displaying the response times and server resource utilization parameters, and provides functions for facilitating an evaluation of whether a correlation exists between changes in the response times and changes in values of specific server resource utilization parameters. Using this feature, a user can identify the server-side sources of performance problems seen by end users… the controller 34 forwards the transaction execution data and any satisfied alert conditions to the web reports server 36 (preferably using the HTTP protocol) for insertion into the sessions database 42… the user is presented with a list 242 of the most probable sources of the problem and a numerical severity grade assigned to each of the sources by the RCA system 168… using the alert notification procedures described above, the RCA summary report 240 may be automatically generated and sent along with defined alert notifications.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the summary report 240 may represent a template that incident data may be ingested in different regions of the summary report such as links 242, graph chart 244, and a numerical severity grade 248 as shown in fig. 37.
Claims 7 and 16. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, wherein transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary comprises ingesting the destination-configured abstractive context summary into an alert notification template associated with the destination collaboration application for rendering an alert notification for the incident identifier on a display of a client computing device. Fraenkel discloses in [0207] “using the alert notification procedures described above, the RCA summary report 240 may be automatically generated and sent along with defined alert notifications.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the alert notification message and the summary report may sent together to be displayed to the user.
Claims 8 and 17. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, wherein transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary comprises ingesting the destination-configured abstractive context summary into an incident timeline template associated with the destination collaboration application for rendering an incident timeline associated with the incident identifier on a display of a client computing device. Fraenkel discloses in [0181-0182] “The user is also presented with options 220, 222 to specify a particular time frame and start date for the RCA session. For example, as depicted in FIG. 32, the user has defined filters for analyzing the "Login," "Home," "BuyAStock," and "SellAStock" transactions occurring on Nov. 23, 2000 between 16:30 and 17:30 hours (i.e., between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.). After specifying any desired filters, the start date and the time frame of interest, the user initiates the RCA process by selecting an option (such as button 224) to generate the RCA session.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the summary report 240 may display incident timeline represented by component region 248 monitoring transaction data for Login, Home, BuyStock, and SellStock as shown in fig. 37.
Claims 9 and 18. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, wherein the destination collaboration application comprises an incident management application configured to provide one or more incident management services. Fraenkel discloses in [0082] “The report generation component 36D is implemented using Microsoft ActiveX Data Objects (ADO), which provides functions for generating dynamic web pages. The dynamic web pages includes various pre-defined graphs and charts (see FIGS. 13-16) that are used to build customized, web-based reports. The reports server 36 could also be configured to disseminate the reports by email, fax, a push protocol, or other communications method.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the incident management services may be providing component 36D, which provides functions for generating dynamic webpages.
Claim 10. The claim is directed towards a computer-implemented method for implementing the steps of the apparatus of claim 1, therefore, is similarly rejected as claim 1.
Claim 19. The claim is directed towards at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for implementing the apparatus steps of claim 1, therefore is similarly rejected as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHAMED I NAZAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3174. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am to 7 pm Mon-Fri.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at 571-272-4124. 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.
/AHAMED I NAZAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 6/18/2026
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights