DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are claims that are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8 and 15: The limitation of “determining an error in an execution of a software application; determining, based on a decision tree representing the software application, an error code associated with the error, the error code being a subset of a plurality of identifiers indicating a path of the execution of the software application and data associated with the path” as drafted, are functions thus under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompasses a human mind carrying out the function of observation and analysis of a software application execution and an associated decision tree to determine/identify an error code associated with execution path through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
The claims have been identified to recite an abstract idea, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 8 and 15: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the following additional element “A system comprising a processor; and a memory device storing instructions that are executable by the processor for causing the processor to perform operation including:” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that is executable by a processor for causing the processor to perform operations including:” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Further, the claims recites the additional elements of “performing an action in response to the error code” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require and particular application of the recited “performing an action” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims, 1, 8 and 15 not only recite an abstract idea but that the claims are directed to the abstract idea as the abstract idea has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 8 and 15: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A system comprising a processor; and a memory device storing instructions that are executable by the processor for causing the processor to perform operation including:” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that is executable by a processor for causing the processor to perform operations including:” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Further, the addition elements of “performing an action in response to the error code“ does not require any particular application of the recited performing an action and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere instructions to apply an exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 8 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101
As to claims 2, 9 and 16 the limitation of “wherein each node of a plurality of nodes of the decision tree represents a function of the software application, each edge of a plurality of edges of the decision tree represents a set of expected values for the function, and each node and each edge is associated with an identifier of the plurality of identifiers, and wherein the operations further comprise: accessing the decision tree to determine the error code, wherein the decision tree is configured to be generated by:” and “generating the plurality of nodes and the plurality of edges based on the source code and the set of expected values, wherein each node and each edge is labelled with the identifier prior to the execution of the software application” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Additionally, claims 2, 9 and 16 recite additional elements of “receiving source code indicating a plurality of functions of the software application” and “receiving an indication of the set of expected values for the plurality of functions” which are merely insignificant extra solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing and conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data where the receiving source code limitation and receiving an indication limitation is akin to receiving/transmitting that information. Moreover, claims 2, 9 and 16 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2, 9 and 16 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 9 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claims 3, 10 and 17 recite additional elements of “a user device” recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. The claims further recite additional elements of “outputting an indication of the error code to a user device, wherein the user device is configured to provide an update to a test suite for the software application, and wherein the update comprises a test for detecting the error prior to a subsequent execution of the software application” which are merely insignificant extra solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data and presenting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing and conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data and ii. presenting offers and gathering statistics where the outputting an indication of an error code limitation is akin to transmitting and/or presenting that information and the providing an update limitation is akin to transmitting that update information. Moreover, claims 3, 10 and 17 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3, 10 and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 10 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claims 4, 11 and 18 the limitation of performing a lookup of a database using the error code” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Additionally, claims 4, 11 and 18 recite additional limitation of “receiving documentation associated with the error in response to the lookup” which is merely insignificant extra solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing and conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data where the receiving documentation limitation is akin to receiving/transmitting that information. Moreover, claims 4, 11 and 18 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4, 11 and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4, 11 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claims 5 and 12 the limitation of “wherein the lookup comprises a regular expression associated with the error code” which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claim 5 and 12 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 and 12 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claims 6, 13 and 19 the limitation of “wherein the execution is a first execution, the error is a first error, and the error code is a first error code, and wherein the operations further comprise: in response to a second execution of the software application, determining a second error in the second execution; determining a second error code associated with the second error based on the decision tree, the second error code being a different subset of the plurality of identifiers than the subset of the plurality of identifiers for the first error code; and determining, based on the first error code and the second error code, a root cause of the first error and the second error” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Moreover, claims 6, 13 and 19 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6, 13 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6, 13 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claims 7, 14 and 20 recite additional elements of “receiving an approval to send the error code and the data to a user device; and in response to receiving the approval, sending the error code and the data to the user device” which are merely insignificant extra solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing and conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data where the receiving an approval limitation and sending the error code limitation are akin to transmitting that information. Moreover, claims 7, 14 and 20 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7, 14 and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7, 14 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0357660 A1) in view of Agarwal et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0229547 A1).
As to claims 1, 8 and 15 Dean discloses a system comprising: a processor (Dean [0068] lines 1-7); and
a memory device storing instructions that are executable by the processor for causing the processor to perform operations including (Dean [0069] lines 1-9):
determining an error in an execution of a software application (Dean [0062] lines1-18, [0063] lines 1-17 and [0066] lines 1-16; which shows being able to monitor execution of an application to determine/identify problematic code function/portions/errors associated with the execution of the application);
determining, based on a decision tree representing the software application, error information associated with the error, (Dean [0042] lines 1-7, [0060] lines 1-14; which shows based on determining a problem/error in code being able to use a decision tree, that includes the path of execution of the application and associated context information of each path, to find the root cause/error information of the problem/error viewed as code portion causing the problem/error, where the specifics of an error code/identifier error information associated with an error being identified is seen specifically disclosed in the teachings of Agarwal below)
performing an action in response to the error code (Dean [0066] 16-22; which shows in response to determining the error and associated root cause being able to search for known fixes and can deploy the identified fix for the associated defect/error/problem, viewed as performing an action in response to determining the root cause of the error associated with problematic code, where the specifics of the error code/identifier associated with the error is seen disclosed below in the teachings of Agarwal).
Dean does not specifically disclose determining, based on a decision tree representing the software application, an error code associated with the error, the error code being a subset of a plurality of identifiers indicating a path of the execution of the software application and data associated with the path.
However, Agarwal discloses determining, based on a decision tree representing the software application, an error code associated with the error, the error code being a subset of a plurality of identifiers indicating a path of the execution of the software application and data associated with the path (Agarwal [0003] lines 11-16, [0064] lines 1-20 and [0100] lines 1-10; which shows based on traversing the associated directed acyclic graph associated with the application, viewed as a type of decision tree/graph being able to determine an error identifier/error code associated with the error where the error identifier where the identifier can be a plurality of different identifiers includes events encountered while traversing the DAG, and other descriptors representing the error thus a type of identifier indicating the path of execution and data/descriptors associated with the path of the error)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Agarwal showing the specifics of determining an error identifier associated with determined error into the identifying error of Dean for the purpose of being able to improve efficiency of error handling by being able to determine and retrieve other information associated with the error to be used to identify additional data recommendations to troubleshoot the error, as taught by Agarwal [0003] lines 11-20.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean and Agarwal as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of M.V. et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0113799 A1).
As to claims 2, 9 and 16 Dean does not specifically disclose, however, Agarwal discloses wherein the operations further comprise: accessing the decision tree to determine the error code (Agarwal [0003] lines 11-16, [0064] lines 1-20 and [0100] lines 1-10; which shows based on traversing, and thus accessing, the associated directed acyclic graph associated with the application, viewed as a type of decision tree/graph, the specifics of a decision tree representing the flow of the graph seen specifically in the teachings of Dean above, being able to determine an error identifier/error code associated with the error)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Agarwal showing the specifics of determining an error identifier associated with determined error into the identifying error of Dean for the purpose of being able to improve efficiency of error handling by being able to determine and retrieve other information associated with the error to be used to identify additional data recommendations to troubleshoot the error, as taught by Agarwal [0003] lines 11-20.
Dean as modified by Agarwal do not specifically disclose wherein each node of a plurality of nodes of the decision tree represents a function of the software application, each edge of a plurality of edges of the decision tree represents a set of expected values for the function, and each node and each edge is associated with an identifier of the plurality of identifiers, and wherein the operations further comprise: wherein the decision tree is configured to be generated by: receiving source code indicating a plurality of functions of the software application; receiving an indication of the set of expected values for the plurality of functions; generating the plurality of nodes and the plurality of edges based on the source code and the set of expected values, wherein each node and each edge is labelled with the identifier prior to the execution of the software application.
However, M.V. wherein each node of a plurality of nodes of the decision tree represents a function of the software application, each edge of a plurality of edges of the decision tree represents a set of expected values for the function, and each node and each edge is associated with an identifier of the plurality of identifiers, and wherein the operations further comprise (M.V. [0046] lines 12-16, [0049] lines 5-14, [0050] lines 1-4, [0051] lines 1-8, [0059] lines 1-9 and [0078] lines 1-27; which shows though code flow analysis of the software generating a model graph, viewed as a type of control flow/decision tree of the functions of software, with annotations/labels that include nodes and edges, where the nodes are seen as representing the associated functions of the code/software are the edges shows the input criteria/expected values for those functions, where the nodes and edges/input can be annotated/labeled with specific name/identification/number used to show the path of execution), and
wherein the decision tree is configured to be generated by: receiving source code indicating a plurality of functions of the software application (M.V. [0046] lines 12-16 and [0078] lines 1-6; which shows as part of generation of the graph models/control flow/decision tree of the software application the source code is analyzed a plurality of ways and being able to determine the functions of the code/application that are part of the code, thus the source code being received);
receiving an indication of the set of expected values for the plurality of functions (M.V. [0046] lines 12-16, [0051] lines 1-8 and [0078] lines 1-27; which shows being able to specify/modify by the user and receive for use in the generated model the input criteria/expected values for each function for the model); and
generating the plurality of nodes and the plurality of edges based on the source code and the set of expected values, wherein each node and each edge is labelled with the identifier prior to the execution of the software application (M.V. [0046] lines 12-16, [0049] lines 5-14, [0050] lines 1-4, [0051] lines 1-8, [0059] lines 1-9 and [0078] lines 1-27; which shows though code flow analysis, parsing and analysis of the source code without execution of the software, generating a model graph, viewed as a type of control flow/decision tree of the functions of software, with annotations/labels that include nodes and edges, where the nodes are seen as representing the associated functions of the code/software are the edges shows the input criteria/expected values for those functions where the annotations/labels/names/identifier can be user supplied and provided additional information for functions where annotations/labels can be applied to edges information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of M.V. showing specifics of generation of a model graph of the control flow of a program into the analysis of the decision tree representation of program flow to determine errors of Dean and modified by Agarwal for the purpose of simplifying testing and enhance the software development process as taught by M.V. [0034] lines 5-25.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean and Agarwal as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Elliott et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0382208 A1)
As to claims 3, 10 and 17 Dean discloses wherein performing the action comprises: outputting an indication of the error code to a user device (Dean [0050] lines 1-17 and [0057] lines 1-6; which shows the monitor is able to output/provided feedback to developers, viewed as to the developer device, and provided feedback regarding code assessment/behavior which can include the error information where the specifics of the error code/identifier error information is seen specifically disclosed in the teachings of Agarwal above).
Dean as modified by Agarwal do not specifically disclose wherein the user device is configured to provide an update to a test suite for the software application, and wherein the update comprises a test for detecting the error prior to a subsequent execution of the software application.
However, Elliott discloses the specifics of wherein the user device is configured to provide an update to a test suite for the software application, and wherein the update comprises a test for detecting the error prior to a subsequent execution of the software application (Elliott [0014] lines 8-15, [0032] lines 11-15 and [0075] lines 5-18; which shows being able to update the test suite in response to change of conditions at the testing venue, viewed as including error condition, where the testing, where the testing suite is update to test features and functions that need to be testing, types of testing to be performed, viewed as testing for a specific error function based on change of condition in the venue but not require change/additional execution and as test suite can include types of test to be performed viewed as an updated test on the same data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Elliott showing the specifics of updating testing suite used to test the software application into the software application testing of Dean as modified by Agarwal for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of software testing to update based on change in testing conditions, as taught by Elliott [0075] lines 5-18.
Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean and Agarwal as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Palanisamy et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0231991 A1)
As to claims 4, 11 and 18 Dean as modified by Agarwal do not specifically disclose wherein performing the action comprises: performing a lookup of a database using the error code; and receiving documentation associated with the error in response to the lookup.
However, Palanisamy discloses wherein performing the action comprises: performing a lookup of a database using the error code (Palanisamy [0069] lines 1-12; which shows being able to perform a search/lookup in a knowledge base database using specific error code); and
receiving documentation associated with the error in response to the lookup (Palanisamy [0008] lines 1-7, [0060] lines 1-6 and [0069] lines 1-12; which show is response to a search for information associated with error code/description being able to match and be provided with all knowledge base/database articles associated with the error code, where the articles include such information as error description associated with the error code of the previous fixed error, location in software where error occurred and symptoms associated with the error, viewed as documentations associated with the error code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Palanisamy showing the specifics of a searchable database of error codes with error information into the software analysis for errors of Dean as modified by Agarwal for the purpose of improving handling of errors by being able to determine other data documents associated with the error and pervious solutions to determine most relevant way to address error, as taught by Palanisamy [0068] lines 1-6 and [0069] lines 1-12
As to claims 5 and 12 Dean as modified by Agarwal do not specifically disclose, however, Palanisamy discloses wherein the lookup comprises a regular expression
associated with the error code (Palanisamy [0008] lines 1-7, [0060] lines 1-6, [0068] lines 1-6 and [0069] lines 1-12; which shows being able to use error details and logs, viewed as a type of regular expression, associated with the error code to search/lookup information pertaining to the associated error code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Palanisamy showing the specifics of a searchable database of error codes with error information into the software analysis for errors of Dean as modified by Agarwal for the purpose of improving handling of errors by being able to determine other data documents associated with the error and pervious solutions to determine most relevant way to address error, as taught by Palanisamy [0068] lines 1-6 and [0069] lines 1-12
Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean and Agarwal as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Manning et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0246824 A1)
As to claims 6, 13 and 19 Dean discloses wherein the execution is a first execution, the error is a first error, and the error code is a first error code, and wherein the operations further comprise: in response to a second execution of the software application, determining a second error in the second execution (Dean [0042] lines 1-7, [0043] lines 1-14, [0062] lines1-18, [0063] lines 1-17 and [0066] lines 1-16; which shows as part of the testing, monitoring of the execution code there can be a plurality of monitored/testing phases that can be compared against each other, data collected in pervious testing phases, thus viewed as having a first and second execution of the software application where as part of testing can determine error associated with code path at different testing thus in light of the specifics of the error code/identifier seen in Agarwal above can be seen as determining first error and associated error code with first execution while also having other/additional execution to determine second error).
Dean does not specifically disclose determining a second error code associated with the second error based on the decision tree, the second error code being a different subset of the plurality of identifiers.
However, Agarwal discloses determining a second error code associated with the second error based on the decision tree, the second error code being a different subset of the plurality of identifiers (Agarwal [0003] lines 11-16, [0064] lines 1-20 and [0100] lines 1-10; which shows based on traversing the associated directed acyclic graph associated with the application, viewed as a type of decision tree/graph being able to determine an error identifier/error code associated with the error where the error identifier where the identifier can be a plurality of different identifiers includes events encountered while traversing the DAG, thus for different error the identifier can be different as different paths traversed associated with the generated error and thus viewed as a second error code being a different subset of plurality of identifiers)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Agarwal showing the specifics of determining an error identifier associated with determined error into the identifying error of Dean for the purpose of being able to improve efficiency of error handling by being able to determine and retrieve other information associated with the error to be used to identify additional data recommendations to troubleshoot the error, as taught by Agarwal [0003] lines 11-20.
Dean as modified by Agarwal do not specifically disclose determining, based on the first error code and the second error code, a root cause of the first error and the second error.
However, Manning discloses determining, based on the first error code and the second error code, a root cause of the first error and the second error (Manning [0026] lines 1-11; which shows as part of error analysis a plurality of error codes can be used together to determining the root cause behind both errors, that in light of the teachings of Dean and Agarwal above showing the analysis/monitoring of code flow for errors that can have a plurality of monitoring phases of execution to determine fingerprint/code associated with an error can together be viewed as showing determining, based on the first error code and the second error code, a root cause of the first error and the second error).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Manning showing the specifics of using a plurality of error codes to determine root cause of the error into the determining error associated with software analysis of Dean as modified by Agarwal for the purpose of improving the adaptability of error determination by being able to take a plurality of error codes to determine the associated root cause, as taught by Manning [0026] lines 1-11
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean and Agarwal as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of DeLuca et al. (Patent No. US 8,938,708 B2)
As to claims 7, 14 and 20 Dean as modified by Agarwal do not specifically disclose wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an approval to send the error code and the data to a user device; and in response to receiving the approval, sending the error code and the data to the user device.
However, DeLuca discloses receiving an approval to send the error code and the data to a user device; and in response to receiving the approval, sending the error code and the data to the user device (DeLuca Col. 3 lines 16-25, Col. 7 lines 53-66, Col. 8 lines 11-22 and Col. 9 lines 40-48; which shows being able to receive approval/permission to send information associated with software development to a specific requesting device/user device, with the information sent about development can include status update on the program including real time, static and other activity information about the status of program development including associated bug/error information that in light of the teachings of Agarwal above can be viewed as including associated error identifier/code and data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of DeLuca showing the specifics of receiving permission to send additional software development data to specific user device, into the software development by testing software of Dean as modified by Agarwal for the purpose of increasing security by transmitting status information associated with software development requested by a user only to those authorized to receive the status data information, as taught by DeLuca Col. 8 lines 6-22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193