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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Amended claims 1-20 are pending and remain for further examination.
The New Grounds of Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the claims 1-20 filed on September 22, 2025 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new references. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Chin et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0357625 A1) in view of Jacobsen et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0153372 A1).
As to claim 1, Chin et al teach a method (figures 1 & 4-5) comprising: injecting a server probe script into one or more servers one or more times according to a preset schedule (figure 2, par. 0035, POS device installed scanner and self-healing and communication programs and POS device periodically performs scanning and self-healing), wherein the server probe script is configured to: scan the one or more servers for operational health data; and collect operational health data of the one or more servers; comparing the operational health data to baseline data associated with a predetermined compliance baseline state for the one or more servers (figure 2, par. 0035 lines 5-24, figure 4, pars. 0051-0052, POS device scans for health information and compares with a predetermined threshold); and identifying based on comparing, one or more non-compliant servers (figure 4, pars. 0053-0054, POS device identifies each healthy/unhealthy health markers).
However, Chin et al do not explicitly teach that remove server prob script from the one or more servers after collection of the operational health data.
Jacobsen et al teach that injecting a server probe script into one or more servers (figure 4, par. 0065,figure 6A, par. 0075, injecting one or more probe scripts (input option) into analysis system); and removing server prob script from the one or more servers after collection of the operational health data (figure 6B, par. 0080, removing input option from the analysis system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Jacobsen et al as stated above with the method of Chin et al for removing server prob script from the one or more servers because it would have improved efficiency over network traffic throughput & bottleneck) and also improved system utilization by efficiently utilizing system elements.
As to claim 2, Chin et al teach that updating the one or more non-compliant servers to a compliant state (figure 4, pars. 0058-0059, changing the status from unhealthy to healthy marker by self-healing process).
As to claim 3, Chin et al teach that identify and delete residual code of a previous server probe script from the one or more servers (figure 5, pars. 0065-0066, updating a self-healing process installer).
As to claims 4-5, Chin et al teach that server probe script generates a JSON document of the operational health data, wherein operational health data comprises one or more of: information associated with an operating system version of the one or more servers, access settings of the one or more servers, performance metrics of the one or more servers, and an uninstalled patch of the one or more servers (figure 1, pars. 0022 & 0024health information associated with software and hardware of the POS device).
As to claim 6, Chin et al teach that the preset schedule comprises a predetermined server maintenance schedule (figure 1, pars. 0027 & 0035, figure 4, par. 0057, POS device maintain periodically the enterprise server).
As to claim 7, Chin et al teach that the operational health data is stored by a NoSQL database management application with additional operational health data (figure 1, pars. 0031-0032, figure 3, par. 0045).
As to claims 8-14, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-7 above, since claims 8-14 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the claims 1-7 and claims 8-14 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-7.
As to claims 15-20, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-7 above, since claims 15-20 are merely a program product for the method of operations defined in the claims 1-7 and claims 8-14 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the claims 1-20 filed on September 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new references. The examiner has attempted to answer (response) to the remarks (arguments) in the body of the Office Action (see new rejection of claims 1-20).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453December 17, 2025