DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application, filed February 5, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
The present application was filed on November 1, 2023, which is on or after March 16, 2013, and thus is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degaonkar et al. (US 2020/0334125 A1) in view of Lasher et al. (US 10,097,609 B1) and further in view of Beish et al. (US 2009/0012748 A1).
As per claim 1: A method comprising:
detecting a defect of a computing system;
receiving problem analysis data associated with the defect of the computing system;
Degaonkar discloses [0027] receiving data such as log files from IoT devices. The disclosed technology can identify the data created before and/or after a failure.
determining a bandwidth value associated with the computing system;
determining a size limit for a debug data file for storing the problem analysis data based on the bandwidth value;
performing a diagnostic of the computing system associated with the defect; and
Degaonkar discloses [0283] size limit of the log file can be determined from a plurality of parameters, where one of the parameters is bandwidth. A predetermined number of log file data entries can be generated based on the bandwidth constraints. Degaonkar further discloses [0325-0346] IoT monitors and data agents that control transmission of IoT device data over a network, where the communication modules support various protocols. Because these protocols have different transmission capacities, the system inherently determines or considers bandwidth available to the computing system (IoT monitor) during error data transfers.
wherein the bandwidth value is determined based on a connection type of the computing system and current traffic of the computing system;
Degaonkar discloses determining the bandwidth value available to the computing system, but fails to explicitly disclose determining the bandwidth value based on a connection type of the computing system and current traffic of the computing system. Lasher discloses a similar method, which further teaches [col. 9, lines 36-67 and col. 10, lines 1-8] a computing device can determine, based on one or more of the factors discussed, such as network connection, packets in the memory buffer (current traffic), and/or time period since last adjustment to adjust the data rate (bandwidth value) by an increment based on these factors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Degaonkar with that of Lasher. One would have been motivated to determine bandwidth value based on connection type and current traffic because it allows to maintain higher quality stream while minimizing latency [Lasher; col. 10, lines 18-30].
adjusting the size limit for the debug data file based on a severity of a reference code associated with the defect of the computing system, wherein the reference code is indicative of a diagnostic result of the diagnostic performed on the computing system.
Degaonkar discloses [0283] adjusting size limit of the log file based on a plurality of parameters, but fails to explicitly disclose adjusting the size limit based on severity of the defect. Beish discloses a similar method, which further teaches [0018] a plurality of triggering event types, such as critical event, error event, or warning event. Based on the event type, the configuration determines which information is to be collected and stored. Beish further discloses [Fig. 3; 0022-0026] adjusting the verbosity level based on the triggering event allows the system to collect diagnostic information to a trace log based on the triggering event type. The diagnostic information includes more detailed diagnostic information during the time of the error condition based on the triggering event type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Degaonkar and Lasher with that of Beish. One would have been motivated to adjust size based on the severity of the defect because it allows to collect more detailed diagnostic information for critical events [Beish; 0025].
As per claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the reference code is indicative of a relative severity of the defect.
Beish discloses [0018] a plurality of triggering event types, such as critical event, error event, or warning event. Based on the event type, the configuration determines which information is to be collected and stored. Beish further discloses [Fig. 3; 0022-0026] adjusting the verbosity level based on the triggering event allows the system to collect diagnostic information to a trace log based on the triggering event type.
As per claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the severity of the reference code is based on an association of severity data to the defect related to the reference code.
Beish discloses [0018] a plurality of triggering event types, such as critical event, error event, or warning event. Based on the event type, the configuration determines which information is to be collected and stored. Beish further discloses [Fig. 3; 0022-0026] adjusting the verbosity level based on the triggering event allows the system to collect diagnostic information to a trace log based on the triggering event type.
As per claim 4: The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a priority value of the problem analysis data.
Degaonkar discloses [0365] determining a priority level of the diagnostic data.
As per claim 5: The method of claim 4, further comprising determining to include the problem analysis data in the debug data file based on the priority value.
Degaonkar discloses [0365] determining a priority level of the data. Degaonkar further discloses [0283] adjusting size limit of the log file based on a plurality of parameters, such as the priority level of the data.
As per claim 6: The method of claim 5, further comprising storing the problem analysis data in the debug data file.
Degaonkar discloses [0027] receiving data such as log files from IoT devices. The disclosed technology can identify and store the data created before and/or after a failure.
As per claim 7: The method of claim 4, wherein determining the priority value of the problem analysis data includes determine the priority value of the problem analysis data based on usage data of previous problem analysis data associated with the defect, a size of the problem analysis data, and a confidence score associated with the previous problem analysis data.
Degaonkar discloses [0365] the previously stored information determines if it is necessary or unnecessary to retrieve further information based on the storage policy and the priority level of the data.
As per claim 8: The method of claim 7, further comprising calculating the confidence score associated with the previous problem analysis data based on an amount of time necessary to resolve the defect.
Degaonkar discloses [0283] SLA requirements for fixing the error, such as error is to be fixed within 5 minutes of detection (providing only necessary data to fix error within 5 mintues).
As per claim 9: The method of claim 7, further comprising calculating the confidence score associated with the previous problem analysis data based on whether additional problem analysis data was requested to resolve the defect.
Degaonkar discloses [Fig. 5; 0313-0314] although log files are sent from the IoT device, other types of information can be sent depending on the device or policy (additional data based on confidence policy).
As per claim 10: The method of claim 5, wherein determining to include the problem analysis data in the debug data file comprises determining that the priority value is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value.
Degaonkar discloses [0283] determining a threshold number of log file entries are transferred as part of the log file based on priority.
As per claim 11: The method of claim 1, wherein the defect comprises a software defect of the computing system.
Degaonkar discloses [0372] IoT device data may be transferred through the network for analysis and testing for software fixes (software defect).
As per claim 12: The method of claim 1, wherein the problem analysis data comprises a data file.
Degaonkar discloses [0374] in response to determining that the triggering event has occurred, receiving a log file (data file) from the IoT device.
As per claim 13: The method of claim 1, further comprising sending the debug data file to a server.
Degaonkar discloses [0374] in response to determining that the triggering event has occurred, receiving a log file (data file) from the IoT device over a network to a management server.
As per claims 14-17: Although claims 14-17 are directed towards an apparatus claim, they are rejected under the same rationale as the method claims 1-13 above.
As per claims 18-20: Although claims 18-20 are directed towards a medium claim, they are rejected under the same rationale as the method claims 1-13 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, and 18 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 following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
· US 2011/0209091 A1 – Bucciarelli discloses determining the bandwidth/connection that is available by transferring a file of known size and measuring the time taken for the transfer. The throughput is then calculated and based on the throughput, data is adjusted to the user based on the available bandwidth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGAR P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5067. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 10AM-6PM.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIGAR P PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114