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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
This Office Action is Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9*, 15
train, based on historical transmission information, a quantum analysis model, wherein training the quantum analysis model configures the quantum analysis model to identify predicted solutions and output actual solution actions based on input of information of failed transmissions;
receive, based on a failed transmission from a first device to a second device, information of a file corresponding to the failed transmission;
identify, based on inputting the information of the file…, a root cause of the failed transmission;
identify, based on identifying the root cause of the failed transmission…, a predicted solution for the failed transmission;
cause, based on identifying the predicted solution for the failed transmission, initiation of a response to the failed transmission, wherein the response to the failed transmission comprises:
identifying… whether the predicted solution is resolvable by the quantum analysis model;
based on identifying that the predicted solution is resolvable…*
implementing an actual solution action corresponding to the failed transmission; and
based on identifying that the predicted solution is not resolvable…*
erasing the file corresponding to the failed transmission;
cause, based on the initiation of the response to the failed transmission and to the first device, output of a notification of the response to the failed transmission; and
update, based on the predicted solution, the quantum analysis model.
*Note: Claim 9 recites “when” instead of “based on identifying” in limitations #7, 9. However, “when” is determined in the “identifying” of limitation #6. Thus, although not identical to Claims 1 and 15, Claim 9 is analyzed in a similar manner without changing scope.
Step 1: is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 1 is a machine
Claim 9 is a process
Claim 15 is an article of manufacture
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘identify[ing]’ limitations in #3-4, 6-7, and 9 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an identification about data.
Step 2A, Prong II: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘train’ and ‘update’ limitations in #1 and 12 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply the exception. For example, “train” and “update” in the context of this claim encompasses applying the quantum analysis model, a generic computing component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and below.
The ‘receive' limitation in #2 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “receive” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and [0015] of instant spec.
The ‘cause… initiation of a response,’ ‘implementing an actual solution,’ and ‘cause… output of a notification’ limitations in #5, 8, 11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “cause” and “implementing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely sending a notification. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and [0002]-[0003] of instant spec.
The ‘erasing’ limitation in #10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following elements:
Computing platform (Claim 1, 15)
At least one processor (Claim 1, 9, 15)
Communication interface (Claim 1, 9, 15)
Memory (Claim 1, 9, 15)
[Computer-readable] instructions (Claim 1, 15)
Quantum analysis model (Claim 1, 9, 15) – [0015]: ML model
Computing device (Claim 9)
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media (Claim 15)
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere
instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the
abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits
on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
With regards to #2, 5, 8, 11, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
With regards to #10, per MPEP 2106.05(I)(2), the following prior art(s) support the following additional elements as well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Patil et al. (US 9298724 B1) -- Col 1, lines 17-27: when a conventional backup system attempts to back up data to such a deduplicated data system but fails before the attempt is completed, new unique data segments transmitted to and stored within the deduplicated data system during the attempt may become unreferenced within the deduplicated data system, and may, as a result, be deleted before the backup system can again attempt to backup the data to the deduplicated data system
Nakatsuma (US 5335085 A) -- Col 1, lines 9-17: in a conventional facsimile apparatus which stores image data read from an original in a memory and transmits the stored data, if some kind of transmission error is produced during image transmission, error image data stored in the memory remains there and is preserved until the data is erased after the completion of retransmission instructed by the operator, or until the operator instructs the apparatus to erase the error image data
Satoh et al. (US 20030016407 A1) -- [0011]: in failing data transfer, conventional data communications apparatus 900 attempts to transfer data repeatedly at a certain time interval for a limited number of times. If the data transfer cannot be completed even after the maximum number of attempts, the data communications apparatus 900 outputs a hard copy report reporting the failure of the transmission… Then, data communications apparatus 900 deletes the data from the memory 901
Claims 2, 10, 16
generating, using the quantum analysis model (Step 2A, Prong II: mere instructions to apply the exception – generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(f)), executable code configured to resolve one or more errors associated with the failed transmission (Step 2A, Prong I: mental process and/or with pen-and-paper aid – person writing code on paper), or
sending, to the first device, a recommendation of one or more actions configured to resolve one or more errors associated with the failed transmission (
Step 2A, Prong II: insignificant extra-solution activity – merely sending a notification. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
).
Claims 3, 11, 17
comparing, using the quantum analysis model (Step 2A, Prong II: mere instructions to apply the exception – generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(f)), the information of the file corresponding to the failed transmission to one or more stored correlations corresponding to the historical transmission information (Step 2A, Prong I: mental process – person comparing data); and
identifying, based on the comparison, whether the root cause corresponds to a historical root cause of a historical failed transmission (Step 2A, Prong I: mental process – person making an identification about data).
Claims 4, 12, 18
wherein the memory stores additional instructions (Step 2A, Prong II: mere instructions to apply the exception – further generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) that, when executed by the at least one processor, further configure the computing platform to:
generate, based on identifying the root cause of the failed transmission, a reason log corresponding to the failed transmission (Step 2A, Prong I: mental process – person forming an opinion about data); and
store the reason log as a training record (
Step 2A, Prong II: insignificant extra-solution activity – merely storing data. See MPEP 2105.05(g).
Step 2B: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;),
wherein the updating the quantum analysis model is further based on the stored reason log (Step 2A, Prong II: insignificant extra-solution activity – merely retrieving stored data. Additionally or alternatively, mere instructions to apply the exception – applying quant analysis model, a generic computing component. Step 2B: see limitation above regarding storing and retrieving info in memory).
Claim 5
wherein the historical transmission information comprises one or more reason logs, wherein a given reason log of the one or more reason logs comprises one or more of: an indication of a reason for a failed transmission, an indication of information sent during a failed transmission, timing information related to a failed transmission, or a speed associated with a failed transmission (Step 2A, Prong II: field of use – merely describes historical transmission info of Claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 6, 13, 19
wherein the memory stores additional instructions (Step 2A, Prong II: mere instructions to apply the exception – further generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) that, when executed by the at least one processor, further configure the computing platform to: monitor, via a shared connection over a network, communications between the first device and the second device for failed transmissions (
Step 2A, Prong II: insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
).
Claim 7
wherein the information of the file corresponding to the failed transmission comprises one or more of: a size of the file corresponding to the failed transmission, a count corresponding to a number of additional files corresponding to the failed transmission, a time corresponding to creation of the file corresponding to the failed transmission, a description of the file corresponding to the failed transmission, or a speed corresponding to the failed transmission (Step 2A, Prong II: field of use – merely describes file info of Claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 8, 14, 20
wherein the memory stores additional instructions (Step 2A, Prong II: mere instructions to apply the exception – further generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) that, when executed by the at least one processor, further configure the computing platform to: cause, based on initiation of the response to the failed transmission, completion of the failed transmission (
Step 2A, Prong II: insignificant extra-solution activity – merely transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and [0051] of instant spec – initiate a new transmission.
Step 2B: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phadnis et al. (US 20250053307 A1) in view of KHAN et al. (US 20200410381 A1, hereinafter “KHAN”), in view of Kundu et al. (US 20230068513 A1, hereinafter “Kundu”), in further view of Narayan et al. (US 20140273820 A1, hereinafter “Narayan”).
Regarding Claim 1, Phadnis discloses a computing platform (Fig. 1A-1B: information reconciliation platform 102) comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 1B: processor(s) 111);
a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (Fig. 1B: communication interface(s) 113); and
memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Fig. 1B; [0026]: memory(s) 112 having instructions executed by processor 111), configure the computing platform to:
train, based on historical transmission information, an analysis model, wherein training the… analysis model configures the… analysis model to identify predicted solutions and output actual solution actions based on input of information of failed transmissions ([0028]: info reconciliation platform 102 may train the info reconciliation model to identify predicted errors resulting from information migrations between various systems. For example, platform 102 may receive historical migration information, system metadata, and/or other information… For example, platform 102 may receive… historical migration error information… In doing so, platform 102 may train the info reconciliation model to identify, based on a given migration, corrective actions that may be performed to address any predicted and/or otherwise identified errors. [0029]: platform 102 may train the model to identify a confidence score for given errors (e.g., indicating a confidence that a predicted error will occur) and/or the corresponding corrective actions (e.g., indicating a confidence that the corrective action will remediate the predicted error). The model may be trained to compare these confidence scores to one or more thresholds, and select the corresponding predicted errors/corrected actions if their corresponding confidence scores meet or exceed the given thresholds. Trains, based on historical error migration info, an information reconciliation model to identify corrective actions (“predicted solutions”) and select corrective actions whose confidence scores meet or exceed given thresholds (“output actual solutions”));
receive, based on a failed transmission from a first device to a second device, information of a file corresponding to the failed transmission ([0032]-[0034]: source system 103 may execute an information migration [to] target system 104… In doing so, there may be errors in the information that result from the migration For example, the migrated information may include missing records, missing values, incorrect values, duplicate records, formatting errors, broken integrity between information/tables, and/or other errors… Platform 102 may monitor target system 104 to detect the migration [and/or] receive notifications from the source system 103 and/or target system 104 indicating that the migration has occurred… Platform 102 may input metadata, parameters, or the like corresponding to source system 103, target system 104, and migration information into the info reconciliation model to identify predicted errors (and/or corresponding actions). Effectively receives metadata, parameters or the like corresponding to migration information to input into the model. Migration itself interpreted as a failed transmission as data may be missing or corrupted (e.g., incorrect); failed to deliver all complete and correct data. Consistent with [0014] of instant spec, where “[T]ransmission may fail to complete successfully based on being blocked and/or hampered… As a result, the cause of transmission failure might not be remedied, and transmitted data may be distorted, incorrect, incomplete, or delayed because the source system is unable to address the transmission error”);
identify, based on inputting the information of the file into the… analysis model, a root cause of the failed transmission ([0034]: platform 102 may input metadata, parameters, or the like corresponding to source system 103, target system 104, and migrated information into the information reconciliation model to identify predicted errors (and/or corresponding actions). [0005]: identifying list of predicted migration errors and list of real-time errors may include identifying one or more of: missing records, missing rows, missing values, incorrect values, duplicate records, formatting issues, or broken relationships. Predicted errors interpreted as root cause of failed transmission – e.g., migration deemed a failure instead of a success due to missing records);
identify, based on identifying the root cause of the failed transmission and using the… analysis model, a predicted solution for the failed transmission ([0034]: platform 102 may input metadata, parameters, or the like corresponding to source system 103, target system 104, and migrated information into the information reconciliation model to identify predicted errors (and/or corresponding actions). For example, the info reconciliation model may output a number of predicted errors and the corresponding corrective actions. Based on the predicted errors, corresponding corrective actions are identified. Since the errors are predicted, the corresponding corrective actions/solutions are also predicted);
cause, based on identifying the predicted solution for the failed transmission, initiation of a response to the failed transmission ([0029]; [0034]; [0036]: as explained below), wherein the response to the failed transmission comprises:
identifying, using the… analysis model, whether the predicted solution is resolvable by the quantum analysis model ([0034]: info reconciliation model may output a number of predicted errors and the corresponding corrective actions. [0029]: confidence score of corresponding corrective actions refers to indicating a confidence that the corrective action will remediate the predicted error);
based on identifying that the predicted solution is resolvable by the… analysis model, implementing an actual solution action corresponding to the failed transmission ([0034]: for predicted errors with confidence scores that meet or exceed the confidence threshold, the model may add the predicted errors and their corresponding corrective actions to a predicted errors list. [0036]: list of predicted errors and their corresponding corrective actions may be used to modify the migrated information. Once the predicted errors and their corresponding corrective actions have been identified, the migrated information may be modified accordingly (e.g., using the corrective actions) to remediate the predicted errors… these predicted errors may be remediated by platform 102 immediately upon identification, or once real time errors have been identified (and thus the real time errors and predicted errors may both be addressed together)); and
based on identifying that the predicted solution is not resolvable by the… analysis model, select another predicted solution ([0034]: info reconciliation model may add the predicted errors and their corresponding corrective action to a predicted errors list (whereas predicted errors with confidence scores that do not need or exceed the confidence threshold might not be added). Info reconciliation model identifies a predicted error/action below a confidence threshold ([0029]: will not remediate error) and adds those that meet or exceed the threshold instead);
cause, based on the initiation of the response to the failed transmission…, output of a notification of the response to the failed transmission ([0036]: regarding list of predicted errors and corresponding corrective actions; performing corrective actions once real time errors have been identified to address both predicted and real time errors. [0045]-[0047]: platform 102 may further generate the configuration information based on predicted errors (e.g., in instances where such errors have not yet been remediated)… Platform 102 may perform reconciliation of the migrated information at target system 104. For example, platform 102 may perform the corrective actions to remediate the additional (real time) errors and/or the predicted errors… based on the configuration information… Platform 102 may generate a reconciliation report based on the reconciled migration information… [and] send the reconciliation report to client device 105 [to] identify whether there are any remaining discrepancies/errors); and
update, based on the predicted solution, the… analysis model ([0049]: platform 102 may update the info reconciliation model based on the configuration information (e.g., which includes the identified errors and corresponding corrective actions)).
Phadnis does not disclose:
…a quantum analysis model…
…erasing the file corresponding to the failed transmission;
…to the first device…
However, KHAN teaches:
…quantum analysis model… ([0005]: Quantum Machine Learning (QML) techniques are being developed that can solve machine learning (ML) problems faster than the best known classical algorithms for the same problems. Supervised (e.g. support vector machines), un-supervised (e.g. clustering) and reinforcement quantum machine learning techniques have been proposed that provide exponential speed-ups as compared to their classical counterparts)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Phadnis and KHAN by implementing the QML techniques taught by Khan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification since any model may be used (Phadnis: [0030]) and QML can solve ML problems faster than best known classical algorithms, providing exponential speed-ups (KHAN: [0005]).
Phadnis in view of KHAN does not teach:
…erasing the file corresponding to the failed transmission;
…to the first device…
However, Kundu teaches:
…erasing the file corresponding to the failed transmission ([0002]: data cleaning or data cleansing is the process of detecting and correcting (or removing) corrupt or inaccurate records from a record set, table, or database and refers to identifying incomplete, incorrect, inaccurate or irrelevant parts of the data and then replacing, modifying, or deleting dirty or course data… The inconsistencies detected or removed may have been originally caused by… corruption in transmission or storage…);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Phadnis, KHAN, and Kundu by performing a simple substitution of one known element (Phadnis: [0032]; [0034]; [0036]: generic corrective action to remediate against errors in the information that result from the migration) for another (Kundu: [0002]: data cleansing to remediate against data errors from corruption in transmission) to obtain predictable result (remediate data errors from a migration/data transmission). Additionally, the data cleansing process taught by Kundu remediates against corrupt or inaccurate records (Kundu: [0002]).
Phadnis, in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu does not teach:
…to the first device…
However, Narayan teaches:
cause, based on the initiation of the response to the failed transmission and to the first device, output of a notification of the response to the failed transmission ([0004]: a first user equipment (UE; personal electronic devices used to store data content) can connect to a second UE and exchange data content via a created pairing or communication channel… Occasionally, an attempt by a first UE to pair with a second UE fails because one of the devices may not support the specific pairing technology. [0016]: in response to at least one trigger condition indicating that the first communication mode is not supported at either the first UE or second UE, generate a notification alerting a user of the first UE that (1) a different communication mode is required for the first UE to communicate with the second UE and (2) an authorization QR code is required to be exchanged between the first UE and second UE as an authentication mechanism before the communication can be established via the different communication mode);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Phadnis, KHAN, Kundu, Narayan by implementing the notification taught by Narayan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification because a remediation against a failed data exchange may require action from the device initiating the data transfer (Narayan: [0016]).
Regarding Claim 2, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the computing platform of claim 1, wherein implementing the actual solution action comprises one or more of:
generating, using the quantum analysis model, executable code configured to resolve one or more errors associated with the failed transmission, or
…a recommendation of one or more actions configured to resolve one or more errors associated with the failed transmission (Phadnis: [0036]: list of predicted errors and their corresponding corrective actions may be used to modify the migrated information. Once the predicted errors and their corresponding corrective actions have been identified, the migrated information may be modified accordingly (e.g., using the corrective actions) to remediate the predicted errors… these predicted errors may be remediated by platform 102 immediately upon identification, or once real time errors have been identified (and thus the real time errors and predicted errors may both be addressed together). [0045]: platform 102 may further generate the configuration information based on predicted errors (e.g., in instances where such errors have not yet been remediated). For example, the configuration information may provide instructions for reconciling the migrated information with the original information).
Narayan further teaches:
sending, to the first device, a recommendation of one or more actions configured to resolve one or more errors associated with the failed transmission (Narayan: [0004]; [0016]: in response to at least one trigger condition that indicates that the first communication mode is not supported at either the first UE or the second UE, generate a notification alerting a user of the first UE that (1) a different communication mode is required for the first UE to communicate with the second UE and (2) an authorization QR code is required to be exchanged between the first UE and the second UE as an authentication mechanism before the communication can be established via the different communication mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Phadnis, KHAN, Kundu, Narayan by implementing the notification taught by Narayan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification because a remediation against a failed data exchange may require action from the device initiating the data transfer (Narayan: [0016]).
Regarding Claim 3, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the computing platform of claim 1, as referenced above, wherein identifying the root cause of the failed transmission comprises:
comparing, using the quantum analysis model, the information of the file corresponding to the failed transmission to one or more stored correlations corresponding to the historical transmission information (Phadnis: [0028]: Platform 102 may receive… historical migration information… For example, platform 102 may receive… historical migration error information… [and] may input the information into the information reconciliation model to train the info recon model to establish stored correlations between such information and the systems involved in the corresponding migrations. [0034]-[0035]: uses info recon model to output a number of predicted errors and corresponding corrective actions… In identifying the predicted errors, information reconciliation platform 102 may identify the predicted errors based on historical migrations between the source system 103 and target system 104. May identify predicted errors based on historical migrations between different systems, which may e.g., be similar (e.g., at least a predetermined amount of matching parameters, metadata, formats, or the like) to source system 103 and/or target system 104. Compares information of the file (source system 103 format) corresponding to the failed migration ([0033]-[0034]) to historical migrations, stored on information reconciliation model, to determine predicted error. See Claim 1 for substituting info recon model with QML); and
identifying, based on the comparison, whether the root cause corresponds to a historical root cause of a historical failed transmission (Phadnis: [0028]; [0034]-[0035]: identifies predicted error (root cause) from (and corresponding to) historical migration error information. Historical migration error information is also a historical root cause).
Regarding Claim 4, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the computing platform of claim 1, wherein the memory stores additional instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further configure the computing platform to:
generate, based on identifying the root cause of the failed transmission, a reason log corresponding to the failed transmission (Phadnis: [0045]: platform 102 may further generate configuration information based on the predicted errors (e.g., in instances where such errors have not yet been remediated). For example, the configuration information may provide instructions for reconciling the migrated information with the original information (and subsequently updating the information reconciliation model). [0049]: further describes config info includes the identified errors); and
store the reason log as a training record, wherein the updating the quantum analysis model is further based on the stored reason log (Phadnis: [0045]; [0049]: updates info reconciliation model based on configuration information (which includes, e.g., the identified errors and corresponding corrective actions) [to] increase the accuracy and effectiveness of the model. Generating and updating via configuration info occurs within platform 102, thus effectively stored on platform 102. See Claim 1 for substituting model with QML).
Regarding Claim 5, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the computing platform of claim 1, wherein the historical transmission information comprises one or more reason logs, wherein a given reason log of the one or more reason logs comprises one or more of:
an indication of a reason for a failed transmission, an indication of information sent during a failed transmission (Phadnis: [0035]: platform 102 may identify predicted errors based on historical migrations between source system 103 and target system 103. Platform 102 may identify the predicted errors based on historical migrations between different systems, which may e.g., be similar (at least a predetermined amount of matching parameters, metadata, formats, or the like) to the source system 103 and/or target system 104), timing information related to a failed transmission, or a speed associated with a failed transmission.
Regarding Claim 6, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the computing platform of claim 1, as referenced above, wherein the memory stores additional instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further configure the computing platform to:
monitor, via a shared connection over a network, communications between the first device and the second device for failed transmissions (Phadnis: Fig. 1A; [0032]-[0033]: source system 103 may execute an information migration from source system 103 to target system 104… In doing so, there may be errors in the information that result from the migration… Platform 102 may monitor target system 104 to detect the migration. Additionally, or alternatively, platform 102 may receive notifications from the source system 103 and/or the target system 104 indicating that the migration has occurred. Shown monitored over shared network 101).
Regarding Claim 7, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the computing platform of claim 1, as referenced above, wherein the information of the file corresponding to the failed transmission comprises one or more of:
a size of the file corresponding to the failed transmission, a count corresponding to a number of additional files corresponding to the failed transmission, a time corresponding to creation of the file corresponding to the failed transmission, a description of the file corresponding to the failed transmission (Phadnis: [0034]: platform 102 may input metadata, parameters, or the like corresponding to source system 103, target system 104, and migrated information into the information reconciliation model to identify predicted errors (and/or corresponding actions)), or a speed corresponding to the failed transmission.
Regarding Claim 8, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the computing platform of claim 1, as referenced above, wherein the memory stores additional instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further configure the computing platform to: cause, based on initiation of the response to the failed transmission, completion of the failed transmission (Phadnis: [0036]: list of predicted errors and their corresponding corrective actions may be remediated once real time errors have been identified (and thus the real time errors and predicted errors may be addressed together). [0045]-[0048]: platform 102 may further generate the configuration information based on the predicted errors (e.g., in instances where such errors have not yet been remediated)… Platform 102 may perform the corrective actions to remediate the additional (real time) errors and/or the predicted errors. For example, platform 102 may identify the corrective actions/errors based on the configuration information… Platform 102 may generate [and send to client device 105] a reconciliation report [to] identify any remaining discrepancies/errors… In some instances, the reconciliation report may indicate that no additional errors/discrepancies remain, or that an error/discrepancy was identified. No additional errors/discrepancies indicates completion of the failed transmission, no further actions are needed).
Regarding Claim 9, the platform of Claim 1 performs the same steps as method of Claim 9, and Claim 9 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan. Please see 35 U.S.C. 101 addressing wording differences between Claims 1 and 9. “When the predicted solution [is/is not] resolvable by the quantum analysis model” of Claim 9 recites the same scope as “based on identifying that the predicted solution [is/is not] resolvable by the quantum analysis model” in Claim 1; both claims previously established the quantum analysis model identifies whether the predicted solution is resolvable by the quantum analysis model.
Regarding Claims 10, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the method of Claim 9 above. The platform of Claim 2 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 10, and Claim 10 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 by the teachings of Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan.
Regarding Claims 11, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the method of Claim 9 above. The platform of Claim 3 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 11, and Claim 11 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 by the teachings of Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan.
Regarding Claims 12, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the method of Claim 9 above. The platform of Claim 4 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 12, and Claim 12 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4 by the teachings of Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan.
Regarding Claims 13, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the method of Claim 9 above. The platform of Claim 6 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 13, and Claim 13 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 6 by the teachings of Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan.
Regarding Claims 14, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the method of Claim 9 above. The platform of Claim 8 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 14, and Claim 14 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 8 by the teachings of Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan.
Regarding Claim 15, the platform of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the media of Claim 15, and Claim 15 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan.
Phadnis further discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a computing platform comprising at least one processor, a communication interface, and memory, cause the computing platform to perform operations described herein (Fig. 1B; [0026]; [0057])
Regarding Claims 16, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the media of Claim 15 above. The platform of Claim 2 performs the same steps as the media of Claim 16, and Claim 16 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 by the teachings of Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan.
Regarding Claims 17, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the media of Claim 15 above. The platform of Claim 3 performs the same steps as the media of Claim 17, and Claim 17 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 by the teachings of Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan.
Regarding Claims 18, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the media of Claim 15 above. The platform of Claim 4 performs the same steps as the media of Claim 18, and Claim 18 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4 by the teachings of Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan.
Regarding Claims 19, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the media of Claim 15 above. The platform of Claim 6 performs the same steps as the media of Claim 19, and Claim 19 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 6 by the teachings of Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan.
Regarding Claims 20, Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan teaches the media of Claim 15 above. The platform of Claim 8 performs the same steps as the media of Claim 20, and Claim 20 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 8 by the teachings of Phadnis in view of KHAN, in view of Kundu, in further view of Narayan.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sanders et al. (US 12147400 B1) -- after migration failure, backout (undo) any changes to target database. Relates to “erasing” limitation
Gilderman et al. (US 10509696 B1) – sends a notification to the user of a responsive action/recommendation in response to errors during performance of migration tasks. Relates to “notification” and “recommendation” limitations
Gu et al. (US 10810089 B1) – analyzes file metadata (file size, type, number of files, etc.) to determine anomalous backup activity from client to cloud. Relates to “file info” limitations
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE MARIE NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ASHISH THOMAS can be reached at (571) 272-0631. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/C.M.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights