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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 11-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 11, Applicant argues:
“For example, Winnick may develop a log within the automated troubleshooting system (120), but does not disclose transferring a troubleshooting log to a technical support service. The rejection of claim 11 further asserts that Phillips discloses "detecting an alert indicating that a technical issue has occurred on a computing device (para 0052-0054; fig. 7, para 0066-0067 - adding user input to logfile after error is detected)." (Office Action dated Nov. 26, 2025; page 5, lines 19-21; emphasis added). This limitation of claim 11 is similar to the limitation of claim 3 and the Applicant reasserts its comments set out above in support of claim 3.” (Remarks, pages 17-18).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points out that claim 11 is lot broader than claim 1. So all the arguments do not apply. With respect to “transferring a troubleshooting log to a technical support service”, Winnick states after not resolving the problem with the automated system, then forwarding the session to human representative for the solution along with the failure code (“Failure code reflects the steps taken while guiding the user”) (see para 0015). Furthermore, Winnick states in para 0063 – “all failure codes that were generated are collected and exported along with the identification to a human representative in order to help resolve the problem”.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that Phillips does not disclose “detecting an alert indicating that a technical issue has occurred on a computing device”. Applicant seems to suggest that “dialog screen or window” generated by Phillips is not a alert.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Phillips disclosure of a “dialog screen or window” generated is an alert. Phillips discloses “At block 706, a dialog screen or window is generated indicating that an error has occurred” (para 0064) and “At block 710, a dialog screen or window is generated requesting additional user information regarding the occurrence of the error and requirement of the reset”. Therefore, those dialog screen or windows are considered to be alerts.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues:
“[T]he Applicant asserts that generating a dialog screen requesting additional user information to be manually input by the user does not disclose "monitoring of the one or more actions" performed by a user on a computing device that are directed to troubleshooting the technical issue on the computing device. Furthermore, the rejection does not articulate any reasoning explaining how Phillips' requesting additional user information is being interpreted as disclosing monitoring of the one or more actions performed by a user on a computing device that are directed to troubleshooting the technical issue on the computing device.” (Remarks, page 18).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The user manually inputting “user actions that will help developers to reproduce the problems” at a dialog screen is interpreted as the monitoring of the actions. The actions being user typing in the dialog screen.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues:
“…asserts that there is no apparent disclosure by Permenter that ‘scanning the barcode enables the smartphone to obtain the troubleshooting log" as set out in claim 14.” (Remarks, page 23).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Permenter discloses “the issue information entered by the user and/or other information/data from the issue report 116 may be encoded into a QR code which links to a website on the IT support company systems 130, and the QR code may be displayed on the display of the end-user computer 102. The end user may be able to scan the QR code with a smartphone or other mobile device to access support for the issue through the ticketing system 132” (para 0074). The QR code is a barcode and Permenter states that a user may scan that QR code with a smartphone which contains information entered by the user and data from the issue report which is interpreted as troubleshooting log.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues:
“The cited portions of Winnick are directed to collecting failure codes and exporting them to a human representative to help resolve the problem. This exporting or transferring of information regarding unsuccessful steps taken during the troubleshooting call with the automated troubleshooting system (120) to a human representative as disclosed by Winnick does not disclose ‘wherein the troubleshooting log is transferred to the technical support service during the active phone call.’”. (Remarks, page 20).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Winnick states after not resolving the problem with the automated system, then forwarding the session to human representative for the solution along with the failure code (“Failure code reflects the steps taken while guiding the user”) (see para 0015). Furthermore, Winnick states in para 0063 – “all failure codes that were generated are collected and exported along with the identification to a human representative in order to help resolve the problem”. Winnick further discloses a call to a human representative (para 0041). Therefore, the troubleshooting log is interpreted as being transferred to a technical support service.
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 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winnick, Daniel (US Pub 2015/0032669) in view of Phillips et al. (US Pub 2005/0193036).
Regarding claim 11, Winnick discloses a computer program product comprising a non-volatile computer readable medium and non-transitory program instructions embodied therein, the program instructions being configured to be executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
monitoring one or more actions performed by a user on a computing device that are directed to troubleshooting the technical issue on the computing device (see abstract; para 0014, 0047-0048 – “step taken”);
storing a troubleshooting log that includes the one or more actions performed by the user (see abstract; para 0014, 0047-0048 – “step taken” are stored in a log); and
transferring the troubleshooting log to a technical support service (see abstract – “forwarding includes classifying the event by at least one failure code. The failure code reflects the steps taken while guiding the user”; para 0048, 0063).
Winnick does not disclose detecting an alert indicating that a technical issue has occurred on a computing device.
Phillips detecting an alert indicating that a technical issue has occurred on a computing device (para 0052-0054; fig. 7, para 0064-0067 – adding user input to logfile after error is detected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Winnick with the teachings of Phillips in order to assists developers in recreating the incident that caused the error on the mobile device (Phillips, para 0067).
Regarding claim 12, Phillips discloses wherein the monitoring of the one or more actions and the storing of the troubleshooting log are performed in response to detecting the alert (para 0052-0054; fig. 7, para 0066-0067 – adding user input to logfile after error is detected).
Regarding claim 15, Winnick discloses wherein the computing device is a smartphone, the operations further comprising:
initiating an active phone call with the technical support service, wherein the troubleshooting log is transferred from the computing device (see abstract; para 0048, 0063) to the technical support service during the active phone call (para 0041).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winnick, Daniel (US Pub 2015/0032669) in view of Phillips et al. (US Pub 2005/0193036) and in further view of Permenter et al. (US Pub 2022/0129287).
Regarding claim 14, Winnick in view of Phillips discloses the product of claim 11.
Winnick in view of Phillips does not disclose displaying a barcode uniquely associated with the troubleshooting log; and using a smartphone to scan the displayed barcode, wherein scanning the barcode enables the smartphone to obtain the troubleshooting log.
Permenter discloses displaying a barcode uniquely associated with the troubleshooting log; and using a smartphone to scan the displayed barcode, wherein scanning the barcode enables the smartphone to obtain the troubleshooting log (para 0074 – QR code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Winnick in view of Phillips with the teachings of Permenter in order to scan the QR code with a smartphone or other mobile device to access support for the issue through the ticketing system (Permenter, para 0074).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-10 and 16-20 are allowed. Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NAFIZ E HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at (571)272-7488. 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.
/NAFIZ E HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693