DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing 09/24/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully examined.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed toward abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims generally link the abstract ideas to a generic computer. The rejected claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites,
determining an association of one or more reference codes with one or more defects within the problem analysis data; This limitation describes performing a determination, or forming a judgement, based on gathered data. Therefore this claim recites a mental process in the form of a judgement that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
determining a portion of the problem analysis data to utilize as training data for a model based on data usage associated with the one or more defects, This limitation describes performing a determination, or forming a judgement, based on gathered data. Therefore this claim recites a mental process in the form of a judgement that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional Elements
Claim 1 additionally recites,
detecting defects of the computing system This limitation, when recited at a high level of generality, is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).;
receiving problem analysis data associated with the defects of the computing system This limitation, when recited at a high level of generality, is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).;
wherein the data usage is indicative of a frequency of access, a frequency of use, or a frequency of creation of data during at least one of an occurrence of the defects or attempts to resolve the defects; This limitation merely describes data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
inputting a representation of each of the one or more reference codes within the portion of the problem analysis data to the model, Inputting collected data into a computer algorithm ("the model") is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal to the claim. See MPPE 2106.05(g)(3).
the model configured to output one or more data confidence scores based on the one or more reference codes; Outputting collected data is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
updating the association of the one or more reference codes with the one or more defects based on the one or more data confidence scores; This limitation merely describes manipulating gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
and generating a debug data file to resolve a defect based on updating the association of the one or more reference codes with the one or more defects, This limitation, recited at a high level of generality, merely describes manipulating gathered data to generate an output, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
wherein generating the debug data file comprises including a subset of the portion of the problem analysis data in the debug file based on updating the association of the one or more reference codes with the one or more defects. This limitation merely describe a format of data as containing the previously-gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the abstract ideas to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Significantly More
Claim 1 additionally recites,
detecting defects of the computing system This limitation, when recited at a high level of generality, is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).;
receiving problem analysis data associated with the defects of the computing system This limitation, when recited at a high level of generality, is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).;
wherein the data usage is indicative of a frequency of access, a frequency of use, or a frequency of creation of data during at least one of an occurrence of the defects or attempts to resolve the defects; This limitation merely describes data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
inputting a representation of each of the one or more reference codes within the portion of the problem analysis data to the model, Inputting collected data into a computer algorithm ("the model") is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal to the claim. See MPPE 2106.05(g)(3).
the model configured to output one or more data confidence scores based on the one or more reference codes; Outputting collected data is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
updating the association of the one or more reference codes with the one or more defects based on the one or more data confidence scores; This limitation merely describes manipulating gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
and generating a debug data file to resolve a defect based on updating the association of the one or more reference codes with the one or more defects, This limitation, recited at a high level of generality, merely describes manipulating gathered data to generate an output, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
wherein generating the debug data file comprises including a subset of the portion of the problem analysis data in the debug file based on updating the association of the one or more reference codes with the one or more defects. This limitation merely describe a format of data as containing the previously-gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the abstract ideas to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 recites,
… to determine the portion of the problem analysis data to utilize as training data for the model
This limitation describes performing a determination, or forming a judgement, based on gathered data. Therefore this claim recites a mental process in the form of a judgement that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 2 further recites,
wherein determining the portion of the problem analysis data to utilize as training data for the model based on the data usage associated with the one or more defects [addressed above in Claim 1] comprises tracking the data usage associated with the one or more defects …
This limitation, when recited at a high level of generality, is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the abstract ideas to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites,
wherein tracking the data usage associated with the one or more defects comprises tracking the data usage associated with the one or more defects using a heatmap.
This limitation, when recited at a high level of generality, is a step that merely describes displaying. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the abstract ideas to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites,
wherein determining the portion of problem analysis data to utilize as training data for the model [addressed above in Claim 1] further comprises semantically parsing the problem analysis data to determine a portion of the problem analysis data relevant to the one or more defects.
This limitation merely describes manipulating (via parsing) gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the abstract ideas to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites,
wherein the representation of each of the one or more reference codes comprises a vector-based representation.
This limitation describes a format of data and is therefore is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal to the claim. See MPPE 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the abstract ideas to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites,
wherein the one or more reference codes are each indicative of a diagnostic result of the computing system associated with the one or more defects.
This limitation describes a formatting of data and is therefore is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal to the claim. See MPPE 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the abstract ideas to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites,
further comprising determining the subset of the portion of problem analysis data to include in the debug data file based on the one or more data confidence scores.
This limitation describes performing a determination, or forming a judgement, based on gathered data. Therefore this claim recites a mental process in the form of a judgement that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding Claim 8, the practical application of performing an action to resolve the defect based on information gathered results in significantly more than the judicial exception in conjunction with the abstract idea of Claim 1. As claimed, the act of performing a resolution is a direct consequence of the "determining," mental process-type abstract ideas as recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation of "performing an action to resolve the defect based on the information regarding the resolution of the defect" is beyond generally linked to the use of the judicial exception and justifies a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The above limitation integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Under Prong 2, Claim 8 is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 recites,
wherein the defect comprises a software defect of the computing system.
This limitation describes data and is therefore is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal to the claim. See MPPE 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the abstract ideas to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites,
wherein the problem analysis data comprises a data file.
This limitation describes data and is therefore is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal to the claim. See MPPE 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the abstract ideas to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites,
further comprising sending the debug data file to a server.
This limitation describes data and is therefore is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal to the claim. See MPPE 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the abstract ideas to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 12 recites a shift in statutory category containing the same mental process-type abstract idea as Claim 1, above. Claim 12 additionally recites “perform an action to resolve the defect based on the resolution of the defect.” Accordingly, Claim 12 is patent eligible under Prong 2 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as Claim 8, above. Claims 13-16 depend from the practical application of Claim 12.
Claims 17 recites a shift in statutory category containing the same mental process-type abstract idea as Claim 1, above. Claim 17 additionally recites “perform an action to resolve the defect based on the resolution of the defect.” Accordingly, Claim 17 is patent eligible under Prong 2 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as Claim 8, above. Claims 18-20 depend from the practical application of Claim 17.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9940187) in view of Markle et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11954216), further in view of Grier et al. (US 2006/0095230 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jain teaches,
A method performed by a computing system, the method comprising: detecting defects of the computing system (execution-related data may be provided in response to a bug ("detecting defects") [Col. 19, lines 44-46]);
receiving problem analysis data associated with the defects of the computing system ("As used herein, a 'nexus' is a set of circumstances or state, or an underlying issue or cause, that triggered a bug or caused the bug to manifest itself" [Fig. 6; Col. 4, lines 4-25]);
determining an association of one or more reference codes with one or more defects within the problem analysis data (" 'Nexus data' and 'nexus indications' can include description(s), meaningful to programmers, of a nexus." [Col. 4, lines 4-25]);
determining a portion of the problem analysis data to utilize as training data for a model based on data usage associated with the one or more defects, … (a portion of the problem data is determined [Fig. 4; Col. 18, lines 29-65]; "The computational model 302 can map execution-related data to nexus data" and "The execution-related data can include data useful in determining nexus data of a bug," where processor usage level and memory usage level are included in the execution-related data [Col. 13, line 37-Col. 14, line 25])
inputting a representation of each of the one or more reference codes within the portion of the problem analysis data to the model ( "In some examples, nexus data includes an integer code corresponding to one of the rows in the table, e.g., 1 for 'memory depletion' through 10 for 'low/insufficient battery,' as shown in the 'Example Nexus Data' column in Table 1" [Col. 4, lines 4-63]; " 'Nexus data' and 'nexus indications' can include description(s), meaningful to programmers, of a nexus" [Col. 4, lines 4-25]),
the model configured to output one or more data confidence scores based on the one or more reference codes ( "In some examples, nexus data includes an integer code corresponding to one of the rows in the table, e.g., 1 for 'memory depletion' through 10 for 'low/insufficient battery,' as shown in the 'Example Nexus Data' column in Table 1" [Col. 4, lines 4-63]; " 'Nexus data' and 'nexus indications' can include description(s), meaningful to programmers, of a nexus" [Col. 4, lines 4-25]);
and generating a debug data file to resolve a defect based on updating the association of the one or more reference codes with the one or more defects Jain discloses a notification system including at least a portion of the nexus data and a resolution indicator for a bug [Col. 17, lines 57 - Col. 18, line 17],
Jain does not appear to disclose and Markle teaches,
wherein the data usage is indicative of a frequency of access, a frequency of use, or a frequency of creation of data during at least one of an occurrence of the defects or attempts to resolve the defects (information relevant to events may be used to train a detection model, where relevant information includes, at least: creation of the data object, a combination of frequency of occurrence and type of event, a combination of frequency of occurrence and frequency of event/error with a certain prefix [Col. 6, line 65-Col. 7, line 27]; a prefix may store, at least: a logical data container of the data object and creation data of the data object [Col. 2, lines 43-61]);
updating the association of the one or more reference codes with the one or more defects based on the one or more data confidence scores (the model itself processes new event data as an input into which the model generates an output, where the model's output is generated based on associations previously learned by the model and may include event data responsible for the detected anomaly [Col. 10, lines 22-34]; when the output indicates an anomaly, the output may be fed back into the relevant model only when a confidence score is above a threshold [Col. 11, lines 24-31]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jain's teaching of accuracy scores to determine the applicable reference codes from analysis data to incorporate a variety of data usage indicators and updating the association between reference codes and defects based on the scores as taught by Markle. The resulting combination ensures that the model is trained on accurate training data [Markle; Col. 11, lines 24-31] and by using various dimensions to train the machine learning model, the model may provide more accurate and quicker identification of events [Markle; Col. 2, lines 57-61].
While Jain discloses a notification system including at least a portion of the nexus data and a resolution indicator for a bug [Col. 17, lines 57 - Col. 18, line 17], Jain in view of Markle do not appear to disclose and Greir teaches,
and generating a debug data file to resolve a defect based on updating the association of the one or more reference codes with the one or more defects (“At the end of the review, any changes are stored in a new version of the diagnostic tool and incorporated into new versions of the diagnostic tool. The new and improved diagnostic tool is then typically distributed to service units in the field, or made available on-line" and further stated is an example of a diagnostic tool is (e.g., diagnostic fault tree) [0032]),
wherein generating the debug data file comprises including a subset of the portion of the problem analysis data in the debug file based on updating the association of the one or more reference codes with the one or more defects ("The revised fault trees or other diagnostic aids generated using this disclosure can be distributed to technicians … or by posting the revised diagnostic aids as a file on a central server that the technicians access over a computer network (e.g., a local or wide area network, e.g., Internet), a telephone line, or wireless networking technique" and "The individual modules in the fault tree may have other attributes in addition to confidence scores, such as a numerical value indicating the number of times a test module in a fault tree was entered or accessed" [0061-0062; Fig. 5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the notification system of Jain to include the debug data file as taught by Grier. The resulting combination of providing a debug data file with updated modification allows, “a technician following the revised fault tree is more likely to arrive at a correct diagnosis in a shorter amount of time than he otherwise would have had he used the previous version fault tree. Thus, in general and as a matter of statistical probability, the revised fault tree allows the technician to work more efficiently" [Grier; 0060] and “Thus, it can be seen that using the feedback from a distributed arrangement of data collection devices, and using the processing features of this disclosure, it is possible to develop a substantial knowledge base of machine diagnostic and repair information, based on actual field experiences, and to actively use such information to improve diagnostic tools such as fault trees and other types of aids" [Grier; 0033].
Regarding Claim 2, Jain teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the portion of the problem analysis data to utilize as training data for the model based on the data usage associated with the one or more defects comprises tracking the data usage associated with the one or more defects to determine the portion of the problem analysis data to utilize as training data for the model (a portion of the problem data is determined [Fig. 4; Col. 18, lines 29-65]; "The computational model 302 can map execution-related data to nexus data" and "The execution-related data can include data useful in determining nexus data of a bug," where processor usage level and memory usage level are included in the execution-related data [Col. 13, line 37-Col. 14, line 25]; "In some examples, the communications module 240 and/or the tracking system 310 can be configured to provide the developer 312 with statistics or reports regarding received execution-related data and corresponding nexus data, e.g., in a 'dashboard' format" [Col. 17, line 50- Col. 18, line 28]).
Regarding Claim 4, Jain teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the portion of problem analysis data to utilize as training data for the model further comprises semantically parsing the problem analysis data to determine a portion of the problem analysis data relevant to the one or more defects (a portion of the problem data is determined [Fig. 4; Col. 18, lines 29-65]; "Conditions can be set, e.g., on the product, product version, hardware, or operating system (OS) under which the bug was exhibited, the status, severity, or priority of the bug, a classification of the bug, a component to which the bug relates, the nexus data, a resolution indicator of the bug, text in comments about the bug, the reporter of the bug, or other types of information, e.g., stored in bug-tracking systems such as BUGZILLA or CODEPLEX" [Col. 18, lines 1-17]).
Regarding Claim 5, Jain teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the representation of each of the one or more reference codes comprises a vector-based representation ("In some examples, nexus data includes an integer code corresponding to one of the rows in the table, e.g., 1 for 'memory depletion' through 10 for 'low/insufficient battery,' as shown in the 'Example Nexus Data' column in Table 1" [Col. 4, lines 4-63; also see Table 1]; "Example nexuses include those listed in Table 1, although others are possible. In some examples, nexus data includes an integer code corresponding to one of the rows in the table, e.g., 1 for 'memory depletion' through 10 for 'low/insufficient battery,' as shown in the 'Example Nexus Data' column in Table 1" [Col. 4, lines 19-30; also see Table 1]).
Regarding Claim 6, Jain teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more reference codes are each indicative of a diagnostic result of the computing system associated with the one or more defects ("'Nexus data' and 'nexus indications' can include description(s), meaningful to programmers, of a nexus. Such description(s) can include, e.g., error codes, line numbers, text strings, or codes representing, e.g., categories of nexuses or specific nexuses" [Col. 4, lines 4-63]).
Regarding Claim 7, while Jain discloses that a portion of the problem data is determined [Fig. 4; Col. 18, lines 29-65], Jain does not appear to disclose and Grier teaches,
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the subset of the portion of problem analysis data to include in the debug data file based on the one or more data confidence scores ("The revised fault trees or other diagnostic aids generated using this disclosure can be distributed to technicians … or by posting the revised diagnostic aids as a file on a central server that the technicians access over a computer network (e.g., a local or wide area network, e.g., Internet), a telephone line, or wireless networking technique" and "The individual modules in the fault tree may have other attributes in addition to confidence scores, such as a numerical value indicating the number of times a test module in a fault tree was entered or accessed" [0061-0062; Fig. 5]).
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9, Jain teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the defect comprises a software defect of the computing system ("Examples described herein provide techniques and constructs to improve the analysis of software failures by determining possible nexuses for software failures or inconsistencies. This determination can permit developers to more rapidly correct software programming errors (bugs) and can permit users to understand whether undesirable program behavior is the result of a bug or another feature" [Col. 2, lines 47-53]).
Regarding Claim 10, Jain does not appear to disclose and Grier teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the problem analysis data comprises a data file ("The revised fault trees or other diagnostic aids generated using this disclosure can be distributed to technicians … or by posting the revised diagnostic aids as a file on an central server that the technicians access over a computer network (e.g., a local or wide area network, e.g., Internet), a telephone line, or wireless networking technique" and "The individual modules in the fault tree may have other attributes in addition to confidence scores, such as a numerical value indicating the number of times a test module in a fault tree was entered or accessed" [0061-0062; Fig. 5]).
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, Jain does not appear to disclose and Grier teaches,
The method of claim 1, further comprising sending the debug data file to a server ("The revised fault trees or other diagnostic aids generated using this disclosure can be distributed to technicians … or by posting the revised diagnostic aids as a file on an central server that the technicians access over a computer network (e.g., a local or wide area network, e.g., Internet), a telephone line, or wireless networking technique" and "The individual modules in the fault tree may have other attributes in addition to confidence scores, such as a numerical value indicating the number of times a test module in a fault tree was entered or accessed" [0061-0062; Fig. 5]).
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 11.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9940187) in view of Markle et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11954216), further in view of Grier et al. (US 2006/0095230 A1), further in view of Samuel et at. (US 20220342738 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Jain teaches,
The method of claim 2, wherein tracking the data usage associated with the one or more defects comprises tracking the data usage associated with the one or more defects… ("In some examples, the communications module 240 and/or the tracking system 310 can be configured to provide the developer 312 with statistics or reports regarding received execution-related data and corresponding nexus data, e.g., in a 'dashboard' format" [Col. 17, line 50 -Col. 18, line 28])
Jain does not appear to disclose and Samuel teaches,
… using a heatmap ( "For purposes of this disclosure, a system resource heat map may indicate the extent or frequency of usage of particular resources" [0053])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teaching of Jain in view of Markle, further in view of Grier, disclosing the use of problem analysis data as training data where the problem analysis data is tracked, to incorporate the use of tracked data being associated with defects via a heatmap as disclosed by Samuel. The resulting combination allows or a visual resource to aid in more-quickly identifying these usage extents and frequencies.
Claims 8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9940187) in view of Markle et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11954216), further in view of Grier et al. (US 2006/0095230 A1), further in view of Samuel et at. (US 20220342738 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Jain discloses that a portion of the problem data is determined [Fig. 4; Col. 18, lines 29-65] but does not appear to disclose and Markle teaches,
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the subset of the problem analysis data … based on updating the association of the one or more reference codes within the one or more defects (the model itself processes new event data as an input into which the model generates an output, where the model's output is generated based on associations previously learned by the model and may include event data responsible for the detected anomaly [Col. 10, lines 22-34]; when the output indicates an anomaly, the output may be fed back into the relevant model only when a confidence score is above a threshold [Col. 11, lines 24-31]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jain's teaching of accuracy scores to determine the applicable reference codes from analysis data to incorporate a variety of data usage indicators and updating the association between reference codes and defects based on the scores as taught by Markle. The resulting combination ensures that the model is trained on accurate training data [Markle; Col. 11, lines 24-31].
Jain in view of Markle do not appear to disclose and Grier teaches [itallics to distinguish from the teachings of Markle],
determining the subset of the problem analysis data in the debug file based on updating the association of the one or more reference codes within the one or more defects (“At the end of the review, any changes are stored in a new version of the diagnostic tool and incorporated into new versions of the diagnostic tool. The new and improved diagnostic tool is then typically distributed to service units in the field, or made available on-line" and further stated is an example of a diagnostic tool is (e.g., diagnostic fault tree) [0032]);
sending the debug data file to a server ("The revised fault trees or other diagnostic aids generated using this disclosure can be distributed to technicians … or by posting the revised diagnostic aids as a file on a central server that the technicians access over a computer network" [0061-0062]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the notification system of Jain to include the debug data file as taught by Grier. The resulting combination of providing a debug data file with updated modification allows, “a technician following the revised fault tree is more likely to arrive at a correct diagnosis in a shorter amount of time than he otherwise would have had he used the previous version fault tree. Thus, in general and as a matter of statistical probability, the revised fault tree allows the technician to work more efficiently" [Grier; 0060] and “Thus, it can be seen that using the feedback from a distributed arrangement of data collection devices, and using the processing features of this disclosure, it is possible to develop a substantial knowledge base of machine diagnostic and repair information, based on actual field experiences, and to actively use such information to improve diagnostic tools such as fault trees and other types of aids" [Grier; 0033].
Jain in view of Markle, further in view of Grier do not appear to disclose and Feigenbaum teaches,
receiving, from the server, information regarding a resolution of the defect (where, upon recognizing an anticipated exception, an error recovery module seeks a solution by sending a message to a server [0047]; when the server is able to find an appropriate solution, the server sends the solution to the error recovery module [0048]);
and performing an action to resolve the defect based on the information regarding the resolution of the defect (upon receiving the solution from the server, the error runtime module applies the solution [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the use of a model configured to output probable reference codes, update the association of reference codes, and provide the updated association to a server as taught by the combined teaching of Jain in view of Markle, further in view of Grier, to include receiving resolution information from the server as taught by Feigenbaum. The resulting combination allows for the solution database to be accessible via the web (on the server), which allows for bug fixes to become available as soon as they are developed regardless of the error type (major, minor, common, uncommon) and therefore expedites the distribution of bug fixes to result in more-rapid resolution of errors and exceptions [Feigenbaum; 0032].
Claims 12-16 recite a system [Jain; Col. 8, lines 7-34] that implements the methods of Claims 1 & 8 (in conjunction), 2, and 4 – 6 and are rejected on the same grounds as Claims 1 & 8 (in conjunction), 2, 4 - 6, respectively, under Jain in view of Markle, further in view of Grier, further in view of Feigenbaum. Please also see the rejection under Jain in view of Markle, in view of Grier, for clarity.
Claims 17-20 recite the articles of manufacture [Jain; Col. 8, lines 7-34] that implement the method of Claims 1 & 8 (in conjunction), 2, 4, and 5 and are rejected on the same grounds as Claims 1 & 8 (in conjunction), 2, 4, and 5, respectively, under Jain in view of Markle, further in view of Grier, Further in view of Feigenbaum. Please also see the rejection under Jain in view of Markle, in view of Grier, for clarity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim objections to Claims 1, 7, 12, and 17 have been considered. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to Claims 1, 7, 12, and 17 and withdraws the objection,
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claims 4, 14, and 19 have been fully considered. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to Claims 4, 14, and 19 and withdraws the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered. The Applicant argues that the Claim 1 recites a technical solution to the technical problem of a gap in the collection of data that is needed to resolve a defect of a computing system and of loss of data is necessary to resolve a defect of a computing system, pointing to pars. 0009 and 0021 of the specification. The Applicant argues, “the gap in the collection of data and/or the loss of the data that is necessary to resolve the defect may cause an improper resolution (for the defect) to be determined” [Pg. 10] and “advantages of the technical solution prevent negative affect on a performance of the computing system, prevent additional defects of the computing system, and prevent downtime and/or […] disruption of actions performed by the other systems,” emphasis added. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Claim 1 recites the technological improvement. As presently filed, Claim 1 merely performs mental process-type abstract ideas to, as a downstream consequence, generate a debug file. Presently filed Claim 1 fails to use this debug file to perform a proper resolution, as the improvement of the specification provides. Merely generating the file containing a proper resolution, without positively reciting the act of resolution, is not sufficient to recite the technical solution as recited by the instant specification.
Conversely, dependent Claim 8 recites the act of performing a resolution is a direct consequence of the abstract ideas as recited in Claim 1; Claim 8’s recitation of, "performing an action to resolve the defect based on the information regarding the resolution of the defect" is beyond generally linked to the use of the judicial exception and justifies a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Independent Claims 12 and 17 recite similarly.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained on Claims 1-7 and 9-11. Claims 8 and 12-20 recite sufficiently more than the judicial exception and overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Applicant argues the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, arguing that Jain and Markle do not disclose the claimed limitation recited by Claims 1, 12, and 17,
determining a portion of the problem analysis data to utilize as training data for a model based on data usage associated with the one or more defects, wherein the data usage is indicative of a frequency of access, a frequency of use, or a frequency of creation of data during at least one of an occurrence of the defects or attempts to resolve the defects; …
and generating a debug data file to resolve a defect based on updating the association of the one or more reference codes with the one or more defects, wherein generating the debug data file comprises including a subset of the portion of the problem analysis data in the debug file based on updating the association of the one or more reference codes with the one or more defects. (enumerated for clarity)
Regarding (1), the Applicant specifically argues that Jain does not disclose that the data usage is indicative of a frequency of access, a frequency of use, or a frequency of creation of data during at least one of an occurrence of the defects or attempts to resolve the defects on pages 12-13. No specific argument is provided for Markle. The Examiner respectfully points to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, above, relying on Col. 6, line 65-Col. 7, line 2,7 and Col. 2, lines 43-61, of Markle as teaching frequency of use and frequency of creation of data during at least one of an occurrence of the defect. While no specific argument is provided for (2) or challenging Grier, the Examiner similarly points to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 above under Grier, specifically [0032 and 0061-0062].
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY E WHITESELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4767. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm MST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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.
/A.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights