DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application 18/750660 filed on June 21, 2024 in which Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10 and 19 have been amended. Claims 2-4 and 11-13 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 5-10 and 14-19 are pending, of which claims 1, 5-10 and 14-19 are rejected under 103.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqui (US Patent Application 2016/0147884) in view of Calder (US Patent Application 2015/0350316) in view of Chincisan (US Patent 8,788,576) in view of Sakaguchi (US Patent Application 2010/0293412) in view of Achiwa (US Patent Application 2004/0064659) and further in view of Tam (US Patent Application 2024/0317262).
Claim 1, Siddiqui teaches a method for automatically generating an audit report for an event (View Siddiqui ¶ 18, 38, 46; generate audit report), the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising: submitting, by the at least one processor to a records repository, a first request for at least one record that relates to the first data transfer event (View Siddiqui ¶ 56; database); second receiving, by the at least one processor in response to the first request, the at least one record (View Siddiqui ¶ 19, 39; query result); generating, by the at least one processor based on a result of the comparing, an audit report that relates to the first data transfer event (View Siddiqui ¶ 18, 38, 46; generate audit report); transmitting, by the at least one processor to at least one predetermined destination, the audit report (View Siddiqui ¶ 46; output audit report).
Siddiqui does not explicitly teach first receiving, by the at least one processor, a notification that a first data transfer event has commenced; obtaining, by the at least one processor in response to the first receiving, intended destination and an intended timing of the first data transfer event; comparing, by the at least one processor, the intended destination and the intended timing with the at least one record of an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event; including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that intended destination and the intended timing is accurate and that the first data transfer event has been successful, information that relates to an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event; including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that there is an error associated with the first data transfer event, the audit report includes an error alert and the at least one predetermined destination includes a work station that is associated with at least one user that is affected by the error; and repairing the error.
However, Calder teaches first receiving, by the at least one processor, a notification that a first data transfer event has commenced (View Calder ¶ 49, 134; receiving notification that indicates a data transfer job has been created).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Siddiqui with first receiving, by the at least one processor, a notification that a first data transfer event has commenced since it is known in the art that an alert can be sent for the start of an event and events to be compared (View Calder ¶ 49, 134). Such modification would have allowed an alert to be sent.
Siddiqui and Calder do not explicitly teach obtaining, by the at least one processor in response to the first receiving, intended destination and an intended timing of the first data transfer event; comparing, by the at least one processor, the intended destination and the intended timing with the at least one record of an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event; including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that intended destination and the intended timing is accurate and that the first data transfer event has been successful, information that relates to an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event; including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that there is an error associated with the first data transfer event, the audit report includes an error alert and the at least one predetermined destination includes a work station that is associated with at least one user that is affected by the error; and repairing the error.
However, Chincisan teaches obtaining, by the at least one processor in response to the first receiving, intended destination and an intended timing of the first data transfer event (View Chincisan Col. 22, Lines 41-59; destination of file and start time of transfer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with obtaining, by the at least one processor in response to the first receiving, intended destination and an intended timing of the first data transfer event since it is known in the art that a time for a data transfer can be generated (View Chincisan Col. 22, Lines 41-59). Such modification would have allowed a data transfer time to be generated.
Siddiqui, Calder and Chincisan do not explicitly teach comparing, by the at least one processor, the intended destination and the intended timing with the at least one record of an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event; including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that intended destination and the intended timing is accurate and that the first data transfer event has been successful, information that relates to an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event; including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that there is an error associated with the first data transfer event, the audit report includes an error alert and the at least one predetermined destination includes a work station that is associated with at least one user that is affected by the error; and repairing the error.
However, Sakaguchi teaches comparing, by the at least one processor, the intended destination and the intended timing with the at least one record of an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event (View Sakaguchi ¶ 21, 72, 151; the estimator 1D is able to estimate a data migration completion time by comparing the respective parameters (parameters such as data size, data transfer rates of migration-source storage device and migration-destination storage device, and communication line speed) of the data migration to be executed from here on out against history information having either the same or similar parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with comparing, by the at least one processor, the intended destination and the intended timing with the at least one record of an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event since it is known in the art that the destination and timing are compared (View Sakaguchi ¶ 21, 72, 151). Such modification would have allowed data transfer event information to be compared.
Siddiqui, Calder, Chincisan and Sakaguchi do not explicitly teach including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that intended destination and the intended timing is accurate and that the first data transfer event has been successful, information that relates to an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event; including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that there is an error associated with the first data transfer event, the audit report includes an error alert and the at least one predetermined destination includes a work station that is associated with at least one user that is affected by the error; and repairing the error.
However, Achiwa teaches including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that intended destination and the intended timing is accurate and that the first data transfer event has been successful, information that relates to an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event (View Achiwa ¶ 26, 27; report, data transfer, destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that intended destination and the intended timing is accurate and that the first data transfer event has been successful, information that relates to an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event since it is known in the art that a time for a data transfer can be recorded on an audit report (View Achiwa ¶ 26, 27). Such modification would have allowed a data transfer time to be included on a report.
Siddiqui, Calder, Chincisan, Sakaguchi and Achiwa do not explicitly teach including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that there is an error associated with the first data transfer event, the audit report includes an error alert and the at least one predetermined destination includes a work station that is associated with at least one user that is affected by the error; and repairing the error.
However, Tam teaches including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that there is an error associated with the first data transfer event, the audit report includes an error alert and the at least one predetermined destination includes a work station that is associated with at least one user that is affected by the error (View Tam ¶ 228; failed inspection, user computing device); and repairing the error (View Tam ¶ 220, 221; details related to the repair and/or maintenance corresponding to the AV subsystem component that failed inspection can be displayed on the maintenance ticketing interface associated with the AV maintenance and repair ticketing system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that there is an error associated with the first data transfer event, the audit report includes an error alert and the at least one predetermined destination includes a work station that is associated with at least one user that is affected by the error; and repairing the error since it is known in the art that an audit report includes an error (View Tam ¶ 228). Such modification would have allowed an error to be included on an audit report and repaired.
Claim 10 is the apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 19 is the medium corresponding to the method of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Chincisan further teaches the obtaining comprises extracting the intended destination and an intended timing from an interaction with a customer that corresponds to the first data transfer event (View Chincisan Col. 22, Lines 42-59; destination of file and start time of transfer).
Claim 17 is the apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqui (US Patent Application 2016/0147884) in view of Calder (US Patent Application 2015/0350316) in view of Chincisan (US Patent 8,788,576) in view of Sakaguchi (US Patent Application 2010/0293412) in view of Achiwa (US Patent Application 2004/0064659) in view of Tam (US Patent Application 2024/0317262) and further in view of Jesudoss (US Patent Application 2008/0016398).
Claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination above does not explicitly teach displaying the audit report on a digital dashboard that functions as a user interface (UI) for a user that is associated with the at least one predetermined destination.
However, Jesudoss teaches displaying the audit report on a digital dashboard that functions as a user interface (UI) for a user that is associated with the at least one predetermined destination (View Jesudoss ¶ 27; display audit report).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with displaying the audit report on a digital dashboard that functions as a user interface (UI) for a user that is associated with the at least one predetermined destination since it is known in the art that an audit report can be displayed (View Jesudoss ¶ 27). Such modification would have allowed an error to be displayed on an audit report.
Claim 14 is the apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqui (US Patent Application 2016/0147884) in view of Calder (US Patent Application 2015/0350316) in view of Chincisan (US Patent 8,788,576) in view of Sakaguchi (US Patent Application 2010/0293412) in view of Achiwa (US Patent Application 2004/0064659) in view of Tam (US Patent Application 2024/0317262) and further in view of Masser (US Patent Application 2012/0017123).
Claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 5. The combination above does not explicitly teach displaying, in conjunction with the audit report on the digital dashboard, second information that relates to an entirety of a customer journey that relates to the first data transfer event.
However, Masser teaches displaying, in conjunction with the audit report on the digital dashboard, second information that relates to an entirety of a customer journey that relates to the first data transfer event (View Masser ¶ 16; display user interaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with displaying, in conjunction with the audit report on the digital dashboard, second information that relates to an entirety of a customer journey that relates to the first data transfer event since it is known in the art that a user interaction can be displayed (View Masser ¶ 16). Such modification would have allowed a user interaction to be displayed on an audit report.
Claim 15 is the apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqui (US Patent Application 2016/0147884) in view of Calder (US Patent Application 2015/0350316) in view of Chincisan (US Patent 8,788,576) in view of Sakaguchi (US Patent Application 2010/0293412) in view of Achiwa (US Patent Application 2004/0064659) in view of Tam (US Patent Application 2024/0317262) and further in view of Golden (US Patent Application 2023/0325272).
Claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination above does not explicitly teach generating, based on the intended destination and an intended timing and the audit report, a response to a request to prove compliance with an applicable governmental regulation.
However, Golden teaches generating, based on the intended destination and an intended timing and the audit report, a response to a request to prove compliance with an applicable governmental regulation (View Golden ¶ 162; government regulation compliance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with generating, based on the intended destination and an intended timing and the audit report, a response to a request to prove compliance with an applicable governmental regulation since it is known in the art that the audit report can be government compliant (View Golden ¶ 162). Such modification would have allowed an audit report to be government compliant.
Claim 16 is the apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqui (US Patent Application 2016/0147884) in view of Calder (US Patent Application 2015/0350316) in view of Chincisan (US Patent 8,788,576) in view of Sakaguchi (US Patent Application 2010/0293412) in view of Achiwa (US Patent Application 2004/0064659) in view of Tam (US Patent Application 2024/0317262) and further in view of Mestres (US Patent Application 2021/0090138).
Claim 9, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 8. The combination above does not explicitly teach capturing a legal consent from the customer to indicate that the customer has successfully received correct and complete data as a result of the interaction.
However, Mestres teaches capturing a legal consent from the customer to indicate that the customer has successfully received correct and complete data as a result of the interaction (View Mestres ¶ 18; legal consent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with capturing a legal consent from the customer to indicate that the customer has successfully received correct and complete data as a result of the interaction since it is known in the art that a legal consent can be obtained from a user (View Mestres ¶ 18). Such modification would have allowed a legal consent to be obtained from a user.
Claim 18 is the apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues that Siddiqui does not teach “generating, by the at least one processor based on a result of the comparing, an audit report that relates to the first data transfer event”, in Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. Siddiqui teaches an audit report can be generated as a result of an audit to identify improvements to a network component. The audit report can be generated by extracting data or configuration information from a database and comparing extracted data/information with rules of best practice, in Paragraph 18.
On page 13, Applicant argues that Chincisan does not teach “obtaining, by the at least one processor in response to the first receiving, intended destination and an intended timing of the first data transfer event”, in Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chincisan teaches a number of jobs are listed in the transfer status pane. Job 0 is selected and details regarding this job are shown in the details pane. The details pane may include details regarding the source and destination of the file, the start time of the transfer, the duration of the transfer, the transfer rate, the estimated time remaining for the transfer, the number of connections (e.g., parallel data transfer connections) used, the overall file size, the amount of file that has been transferred, the status of the transfer, the type of transfer, the throttle setting, the percentage of the job complete, the owner the file, and the bit rate per connection., in Col. 22, Lines 41-52.
On page 14, Applicant argues that Carey does not teach “comparing, by the at least one processor, the intended destination and the intended timing with the at least one record of an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event”, in Claim 1.
Examiner agrees. However, Sakaguchi teaches comparing the respective parameters (parameters such as data size, data transfer rates of migration-source storage device and migration-destination storage device, and communication line speed) of the data migration to be executed from here on out against history information having either the same or similar parameters, in Paragraph 72.
On page 14, Applicant argues that Achiwa does not teach “including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that intended destination and the intended timing is accurate and that the first data transfer event has been successful, information that relates to an actual destination and an actual timing of the first data transfer event”, in Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Achiwa teaches the destination of the data transfer, the data of the volume image, at a time point of the issue of the freezing instruction, in the source of the data transfer is held, and when the report exhibiting the completion of the data transfer will be made next time, the volume image will be updated using the transferred data, in Paragraph 27.
On page 14, Applicant argues that Tam does not teach “including in the audit report, in response to the result of the comparing indicating that there is an error associated with the first data transfer event, the audit report includes an error alert and the at least one predetermined destination includes a work station that is associated with at least one user that is affected by the error”, in Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tam teaches the post-inspection audit report can be a summary of one or more dynamic inspection task checklists executed for a corresponding AV. The post-inspection audit report can detail which AV subsystem components passed or failed inspection. Likewise, data related to any repair work executed in response to one or more failed AV inspection tasks can be documented by the post-inspection audit report, in Paragraph 228.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Akirav et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2016/0283328); teaches the snapshot is designated as a snapshot replication job, detecting unsynchronized objects in a target destination by comparing a lightweight representative state of the selected objects in the snapshot with a current state of the target destination at the time of execution of the snapshot replication job.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAI E BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3823. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 4 pm.
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.
/SARAI E BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights