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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to amendment and the claimed listing filed on 06/11/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed in the Action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed as replacement submitted on 06/24/2026 is accepted by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
This is in response to the argument remarks filed on 06/11/2026.
-The indication of ‘claim 19’ in section ‘allowable subject matter’ in prior office action is corrected as ‘claim 18’ and it is addressed in this office action.
- In view of the amendment, the claim objection is withdrawn.
- In view of the amendment, the rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
- In view of the amendment, the rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
- In regard to the rejection of claims 17, 19-20 under 35 USC 103, over Jonathan Lefebvre, in view of Burman et al., US Pat. US 10,929,107 B2, especially, directed to the limitations “transmitting a query for any new configuration computer code for a telemetry management agent.”, Applicant submits, in Lefebvre,
“it is disclosed merely that the Telemetry Agent at the endpoint sends collected telemetry data (Office solution inventory, usage data) to a shared folder. It does not transmit a query asking for new configuration code. The data flow is: Agent - Shared folder - Telemetry Processor - Database - Dashboard.
At no point does the endpoint transmit a query asking "do you have new configuration
code for me?".
Furthermore, Applicant submitted
“It does not supply the missing architectural elements of claim 17. More particularly,
Burman does not teach an endpoint that polls/queries a centralized system for new
configuration code. In Burman, the centralized computational instance executes
workflows by transmitting queries to remote service AP ls. There is no endpoint-initiated
polling. And
“Further, Burman does not teach an endpoint that receives a configuration file
for reconfiguring a resident agent. Rather, in Burman, the computational instance
receives structured data responses from remote APIs during workflow execution.”.
Examiner would submit that the claim as a whole is to perform a functionality for transmitting a query to a telemetry management agent, and receiving, in response to the query, a “configuration file” and performing the “configuration”. The claimed functionality is replaced with queries for “any new configuration” and “reconfiguration” and the query is for “reconfiguration code.” It should be noted that the reconfiguration code in the claim is not different from the configuration code because this act is to transmit data by users and servers in communications, where the user can send as many times the query, and the server’s response is only to fulfill the query request. In general, these acts are common in network communications.
Therefore, the assertion, 'At no point does the endpoint transmit a query asking, "do you have new configuration code for me?"', is not appropriate, and moreover, the claimed functionality does not require the Lefebvre reference to assert such a query. However, Figures p. 2 and p.3, to obtain a Telemetry dashboard, and Figures in p. 6 and p. 7, as a GUI, and “Once we get the prerequisites done, we can begin the configuration of the first component” (in p. 6) and data entered in the GUI as a query reads on configuration/reconfiguration data. Examiner submitted that Lefebvre’s is only being deficit for addressing the query is for configuration/reconfiguration code. This deficit is in combined with the teaching of Burman in return to a query request in a GUI with the configuration items and configure code because GUIs in a shared application network would be common for transmitting queries and receiving the data as user’s specified in the GUI.
Because the claims17, 19-20 recite common things of network communications, the arguments would not be persuasive.
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 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonathan Lefebvre, “How to setup Telemetry Dashboard for Office 2016”, 2023, System Center Dudes, Retrieve from https://www.systemcenterdudes.com/how-to-setup-telemetry-dashboard-for-office-2016/, 24 pages in view of Burman et al., US Pat. US 10,929,107 B2.
As per Claim 17: Lefebvre discloses the limitations in bold below:
17. A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
transmitting a query for any new configuration [computer code] for a telemetry management agent;
(See in the Figure, scenarios given from TechNet, in p. 2, the user with Share folder and Telemetry processor send data to Telemetry database. The data is such as queries in the low Figures in p. 13 and in p. 14. [The Figure in p. 14 show the empty box of Query with drop-down selections]
receiving, responsive to the query, a configuration file for reconfiguring the telemetry management agent; and
(The Figure, scenarios given from TechNet, in p. 2, and Figures within Configure Telemetry Database, from p. 13 to p. 16. The function of Dashboard in Configure Telemetry Database, performed through the pages 13-16 is the function of a configuration that provides reconfiguring based on the user selection with query inputs )
and
reconfiguring the telemetry management agent in accordance with the received configuration file.
(The Figure, scenarios given from TechNet, in p. 2, and Figures in Configure Telemetry Database)
Lefebvre does not explicitly mention with the query as read from Figure in p. 2, and Figures in p. 5-6, for transmitting “the code”, but for ‘configuration data’ collected and converted through the queries in the GUI by user’s selections and interactions.
Burman discloses with selected features as input queries it is for transmitting “computer code” (Column 24: within lines 48-65:
“The user need not write any code and also need not be conversant in the remote service API. Instead, the user can specify, through menu options of a GUI, structured data obtained from the remote service API and how to use it. Example GUIs that support the workflow design phase are 65 shown in FIGS. 6A-6K and l0A-l0C.”
And column 34, lines 22-32:
“…for display on a set of integration action design GUIs, options that allow a specification of an integration action involving the remote service, wherein the integration action defines a structured data query to the remote service API of the remote service that provides access to the structured data and an indication that the metadata action is to be used to represent a result of the structured data query…”
Thus, In Burman, GUI and with selections of features on the GUI as the GUI’s agents, the selections will transfer queries for computer code as API from remote service.
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary of skills in the art before the effective filing of the application to combine the teaching of Lefebvre using GUI to provide user’s interaction with visual features as input queries for converting and transferring configure data used for Telemetry data ‘Office 2016’ with the GUI selections of features for computer code of Burman. The combination would yield predictable results because GUI is a popular alternative to traditional software development, where non-professional developers can use a low-code interface to with queries used for transferring remote code for apps quickly and easily, and thus it would be necessary for developers to provide such GUIs in a shared application network to help non-professional developers.
As per Claim 19: Lefebvre and combining Burman, where
Lefebvre further discloses,
19. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17 wherein the telemetry data management software agent configuration information comprises instructions to store telemetry data at the endpoint and instructions when to transmit the stored telemetry data.
(See in p. 3, TechNet’ scenarios show the data stored at end server, Telemetry database receiving configuring data from other servers. See in p. 11 with low figure, using path to store data)
As per Claim 20: Lefebvre and combining Burman, where
Lefebvre further discloses,
20. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17 wherein the telemetry data management software agent configuration information comprises instructions to conduct synthetic user testing.
(See in pages 20-21, started with “For testing only” and the Figure in p. 21 with “Results”, using feature “Solutions”. It appears “Solution” being self-test selected by User using configuring features in dashboard, and this user test shows results within columns such as success%, critical, informative, load time, etc., for each of solution name.
Note: The specification broadly mentions “synthetic user testing” on in [00072] “resource intensive
operations such as turning on a profiler or conducting synthetic user testing”.
Without descriptions for “synthetic user testing”, the test shown as in p. 20-21 meets “synthetic user testing” of the claim.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed. Claim 18 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 Ted T Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-3706. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm 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, Wei Y Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
TTV
August 8, 2026
/Ted T. Vo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights