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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-107293, filed on 06/29/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
This office action is responsive to an application filed on 06/26/2024. In this office action:
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 06/26/2024 have been considered and accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality:
“… wherein, when a remotely executable action is included as the candidates …” should read (Examiner’s suggestion) “… wherein, when a remotely executable action is included in the candidates …”
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality:
“… wherein, when a plurality of actions are recommended to resolve one error, a sequence in which the plurality of actions including a remotely executable action are executed is not determined, and an action to be first executed out of the plurality of actions is the remotely executable action, data for outputting information indicating that a remote job is recommended is included in the provided data …” should read (Examiner’s suggestion) “… wherein, when a plurality of actions are recommended to resolve one error, a sequence in which the plurality of actions including a remotely executable action are executed is not determined, and an action to be first executed out of the plurality of actions is the remotely executable action, and data for outputting information indicating that a remote job is recommended is included in the provided data”
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the data” in “wherein information of the estimated candidates is output by a web browser based on the data.”
Independent claim 1 recites (A) “data for outputting information of candidates estimated as the action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device,” and (B) “data for outputting information indicating that a remote job is recommended.” It’s unclear to which data in (A) or (B) “the data” is referring to. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to determine the metes and the bounds of the claim language.
For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets “the data” to refer to (A) “data for outputting information of candidates estimated as the action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device.”
Claim 6 recites “the estimated error” in “wherein, when a remotely executable action is included as the candidates and a probability of a reason of the estimated error corresponding to the remotely executable action…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 6 nor independent claim 1 recites an estimated error.
For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitation as “wherein, when a remotely executable action is included as the candidates and a probability of a reason of the estimated action corresponding to the remotely executable action…”
Claim 8 recites “the action which is not remotely executable” in “wherein the action which is not remotely executable is an action to be executed by operating the network device in an installation site of the network device” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 8 nor independent claim 1 recites an action which is not remotely executable.
For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitation as “wherein an action which is not remotely executable is an action to be executed by operating the network device in an installation site of the network device”
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, 9, and 10 recite in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite in part:
estimate an action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device. The “estimate” is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as making a judgment. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “estimate” encompasses making a judgement.
determine whether the estimated action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device is a remotely executable action that is able to be performed by remotely transmitting a command to a target network device via a network. The “determine” is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as making a judgment. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “determine” encompasses making a judgement.
provide data for outputting information of candidates estimated as the action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device. The “provide data” is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as making an opinion. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “provide data” encompasses making an opinion.
wherein, when the remotely executable action is included in the candidates, data for outputting information indicating that a remote job is recommended is included in the provided data. The wherein clause further defines data for outputting information indicating that a remote job is recommended, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 10 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element - when executed by a processor/computer, to estimate an action to be executed for the error …, determine whether the estimated action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device is a remotely executable action …, and provide data for outputting information of candidates estimated as the action to be executed … The processor/computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/computer to estimate an action to be executed for the error …, determine whether the estimated action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device is a remotely executable action …, and provide data for outputting information of candidates estimated as the action to be executed …), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As described in MPEP 2106.0S(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of the processor to estimate an action to be executed for the error …, determine whether the estimated action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device is a remotely executable action …, and provide data for outputting information of candidates estimated as the action to be executed … to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further recites “wherein the data for outputting information indicating that the remote job is recommended is data for outputting one or both of a message for recommending remote execution and a message of recommending remote execution of a target action”. The claim is further limiting and defining the data for outputting information indicating that the remote job is recommended, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further recites “wherein information of the estimated candidates is output by a web browser based on the data”. The claim is further limiting and defining presenting information of the estimated candidates, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and further recites “wherein the processor determines whether the estimated action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device is a remotely executable action based on remote action information indicating whether each action is remotely executable”. The “determine” is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as making a judgment. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “determine” encompasses making a judgement, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, and further recites “wherein the processor ascertains whether the action determined to be a remotely executable action based on the remote action information is remotely received by the network device and determines whether the action is a remotely executable action”. The “ascertains” and “determines” are reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as making a judgment. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed ascertains” and “determines” encompass making a judgement, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further recites “wherein, when a remotely executable action is included as the candidates and a probability of a reason of the estimated error corresponding to the remotely executable action is equal to or greater than a threshold value, data for outputting information indicating that a remote job is recommended is included in the provided data”. The claim is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as making a judgment based on probability in comparison to a threshold. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claim encompasses making a judgement, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further recites “when a plurality of actions are recommended to resolve one error, a sequence in which the plurality of actions including a remotely executable action are executed is not determined, and an action to be first executed out of the plurality of actions is the remotely executable action, data for outputting information indicating that a remote job is recommended is included in the provided data”. The claim is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as making a judgment. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claim encompasses making a judgement, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, and further recites “wherein the action which is not remotely executable is an action to be executed by operating the network device in an installation site of the network device”. The claim is further limiting and defining the action which is not remotely executable, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tiwari et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0114041), hereinafter Tiwari.
Claim 1. Tiwari discloses [a]n information provision system that provides information of an action recommended to resolve an error occurring in a network device (See Parag. [0018]; a system for diagnosing and resolving network incidents in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure is shown as a system 100 ... fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to monitor at least one network of the one or more networks 130 for faults (e.g., network errors or issues that may result in degraded network performance, loss of network services, or other issues) and initiate operations to mitigate any detected faults. Operations to mitigate detected faults may include providing recommendations associated with one or more actions configured to resolve or correct a detected fault to the user device(s) 140. See Parag. [0022]; the one or more networks 130 may include a plurality of nodes (e.g., physical devices, servers, security appliances, user devices, or other devices configured to provide functionality and services to one or more end users) …), the information provision system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and a processor executing the instructions causing the information provision system (See Parag. [0019]; memory 120 may store instructions 122 that, when executed by the one or more processors 112, cause the one or more processors 112 to perform the operations described in connection with the fault mitigation device 110) to:
estimate an action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device (See Parag. [0034-0035]; The set of actions may represent a set of candidate actions that may be performed to resolve the network incident that triggered generation of the alarm message … A score may be determined for each of the one or more candidate actions, where the score represents a likelihood that a particular candidate action will resolve the cause of the alarm message);
determine whether the estimated action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device is a remotely executable action that is able to be performed by remotely transmitting a command to a target network device via a network (See Parag. [0037]; the actions used to resolve network incidents may be executed remote from the source. To illustrate, the user device 140 may located at a first location and the node of the network causing the alarm may be located at a location that is geographically remote from the first location. In such cases, activation of the interactive element presented at the graphical user interface may cause one or more commands to be transmitted over a network to the node that caused the alarm message to be created. The one or more commands may correspond to commands to execute the action identified. See Parag. [0038]; the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to categorize the network incident associated with the alarm prior to transmitting a notification to the user device 140 or automatically executing any candidate actions. For example, the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to classify the network incident as one of: a no trouble found (NTF) category, a self-healable category, and a non-self-healable category … The self-healable known issues category may be used for network incidents associated with recurring issues in the network for which a resolution is known and may be executed remotely (e.g., without having to physically be present at the node of the network) … The non-self-healable category may be used for recurring network issues for which the resolution may be known but cannot be executed without physically troubleshooting the cause of the issue(s) or being present at the node. Non-self-healable network incidents may require analysis and troubleshooting by a user (e.g., an IT or network administrator) or replacement/repair of hardware components of the node … See Parag. [0039]; When categorization is utilized, the categorization of a network incident may be used to determine how the action(s) is executed. Examiner’s interpretation: The action is determined to be executed remotely if the network incident is classified as a self-healable category); and
provide data for outputting information of candidates estimated as the action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device, wherein, when the remotely executable action is included in the candidates, data for outputting information indicating that a remote job is recommended is included in the provided data (See Parag. [0038]; the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to categorize the network incident associated with the alarm prior to transmitting a notification to the user device 140 or automatically executing any candidate actions. For example, the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to classify the network incident as one of: a no trouble found (NTF) category, a self-healable category, and a non-self-healable category … The self-healable known issues category may be used for network incidents associated with recurring issues in the network for which a resolution is known and may be executed remotely (e.g., without having to physically be present at the node of the network) ... See also Parag. [0037] [0039]. Examiner’s interpretation: The self-healable is indicating that a remote job is recommended).
Claim 2. Tiwari discloses [t]he information provision system according to claim 1,
Tiwari further discloses wherein the data for outputting information indicating that the remote job is recommended is data for outputting one or both of a message for recommending remote execution and a message of recommending remote execution of a target action (See Parag. [0038]; the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to categorize the network incident associated with the alarm prior to transmitting a notification to the user device 140 or automatically executing any candidate actions. For example, the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to classify the network incident as one of: a no trouble found (NTF) category, a self-healable category, and a non-self-healable category … The self-healable known issues category may be used for network incidents associated with recurring issues in the network for which a resolution is known and may be executed remotely (e.g., without having to physically be present at the node of the network) ... See Parag. [0037]; When the action is communicated to a user via the notification, the notification may be presented to the user in a graphical user interface. See also [0039-0041]).
Claim 4. Tiwari discloses [t]he information provision system according to claim 1,
Tiwari further discloses wherein the processor determines whether the estimated action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device is a remotely executable action based on remote action information indicating whether each action is remotely executable (See Parag. [0038]; the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to categorize the network incident associated with the alarm prior to transmitting a notification to the user device 140 or automatically executing any candidate actions. For example, the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to classify the network incident as one of: a no trouble found (NTF) category, a self-healable category, and a non-self-healable category … The self-healable known issues category may be used for network incidents associated with recurring issues in the network for which a resolution is known and may be executed remotely (e.g., without having to physically be present at the node of the network) … The non-self-healable category may be used for recurring network issues for which the resolution may be known but cannot be executed without physically troubleshooting the cause of the issue(s) or being present at the node. Non-self-healable network incidents may require analysis and troubleshooting by a user (e.g., an IT or network administrator) or replacement/repair of hardware components of the node … See Parag. [0039]; When categorization is utilized, the categorization of a network incident may be used to determine how the action(s) is executed. See also Parag. [0037]. Examiner’s interpretation: The action is determined to be executed remotely if the network incident is classified as a self-healable category).
Claim 5. Tiwari discloses [t]he information provision system according to claim 4,
Tiwari further discloses wherein the processor ascertains whether the action determined to be a remotely executable action based on the remote action information is remotely received by the network device and determines whether the action is a remotely executable action (See Parag. [0038]; the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to categorize the network incident associated with the alarm prior to transmitting a notification to the user device 140 or automatically executing any candidate actions. For example, the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to classify the network incident as one of: a no trouble found (NTF) category, a self-healable category, and a non-self-healable category … The self-healable known issues category may be used for network incidents associated with recurring issues in the network for which a resolution is known and may be executed remotely (e.g., without having to physically be present at the node of the network) … The non-self-healable category may be used for recurring network issues for which the resolution may be known but cannot be executed without physically troubleshooting the cause of the issue(s) or being present at the node. Non-self-healable network incidents may require analysis and troubleshooting by a user (e.g., an IT or network administrator) or replacement/repair of hardware components of the node … See Parag. [0039]; When categorization is utilized, the categorization of a network incident may be used to determine how the action(s) is executed. See also Parag. [0037]; the user device 140 may located at a first location and the node of the network causing the alarm may be located at a location that is geographically remote from the first location. In such cases, activation of the interactive element presented at the graphical user interface may cause one or more commands to be transmitted over a network to the node that caused the alarm message to be created. The one or more commands may correspond to commands to execute the action identified. Examiner’s interpretation: The action is determined to be executed remotely if the network incident is classified as a self-healable category).
Claim 6. Tiwari discloses [t]he information provision system according to claim 1,
Tiwari further discloses wherein, when a remotely executable action is included as the candidates and a probability of a reason of the estimated error corresponding to the remotely executable action is equal to or greater than a threshold value, data for outputting information indicating that a remote job is recommended is included in the provided data (See Parag. [0036]; where the score for a candidate action satisfies a threshold score, the fault mitigation device 110 may automatically execute at least one candidate action to resolve the cause of the alarm message, but where the score for the candidate action does not satisfy the threshold score, the fault mitigation device 110 may transmit a notification to the user device 140 that identifies the action. The threshold score may correspond to a score that indicates a very high probability or likelihood the associated candidate action will resolve a suspected cause of the alarm message (e.g., a 95% chance or higher, a 90% chance or higher, a 85% chance or higher, etc.), such that actions associated with scores greater than or equal to the threshold score may be automatically executed and actions associated scores less than the threshold score may be transmitted to a user via the notification. See also Parag. [0037-0039]).
Claim 7. Tiwari discloses [t]he information provision system according to claim 1,
Tiwari further discloses wherein, when a plurality of actions are recommended to resolve one error, a sequence in which the plurality of actions including a remotely executable action are executed is not determined, and an action to be first executed out of the plurality of actions is the remotely executable action, data for outputting information indicating that a remote job is recommended is included in the provided data (See Parag. [0041]; where more than one candidate action for resolving a network incident is identified, the notification may identify the multiple actions and the user (or fault mitigation device 110) may perform the actions one at a time until the network incident is resolved. For example, the candidate actions may be ranked based on their respective scores (or another metric) and then executed (e.g., by a user via interactive elements presented in the interface or automatically by the fault mitigation device 110) according to the rankings. In such a scenario, the highest ranked candidate action may be executed first and an evaluation may be performed to determine whether that candidate action resolved the network incident. See also Parag. [0037-0039]).
Claim 8. Tiwari discloses [t]he information provision system according to claim 1,
Tiwari further discloses wherein the action which is not remotely executable is an action to be executed by operating the network device in an installation site of the network device (See Parag. [0038]; the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to categorize the network incident associated with the alarm prior to transmitting a notification to the user device 140 or automatically executing any candidate actions. For example, the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to classify the network incident as one of: a no trouble found (NTF) category, a self-healable category, and a non-self-healable category … The non-self-healable category (action which is not remotely executable) may be used for recurring network issues for which the resolution may be known but cannot be executed without physically troubleshooting the cause of the issue(s) or being present at the node (an installation site of the network device). Non-self-healable network incidents may require analysis and troubleshooting by a user (e.g., an IT or network administrator) or replacement/repair of hardware components of the node … See Parag. [0039]; When categorization is utilized, the categorization of a network incident may be used to determine how the action(s) is executed).
Claim 9. Tiwari discloses [a] method of controlling an information provision system that provides information of an action recommended to resolve an error occurring in a network device (See Parag. [0018]; a system for diagnosing and resolving network incidents in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure is shown as a system 100 ... fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to monitor at least one network of the one or more networks 130 for faults (e.g., network errors or issues that may result in degraded network performance, loss of network services, or other issues) and initiate operations to mitigate any detected faults. Operations to mitigate detected faults may include providing recommendations associated with one or more actions configured to resolve or correct a detected fault to the user device(s) 140. See Parag. [0022]; the one or more networks 130 may include a plurality of nodes (e.g., physical devices, servers, security appliances, user devices, or other devices configured to provide functionality and services to one or more end users) …), the method comprising:
estimating an action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device (See Parag. [0034-0035]; The set of actions may represent a set of candidate actions that may be performed to resolve the network incident that triggered generation of the alarm message … A score may be determined for each of the one or more candidate actions, where the score represents a likelihood that a particular candidate action will resolve the cause of the alarm message);
determining whether the estimated action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device is a remotely executable action that is able to be performed by remotely transmitting a command to a target network device via a network (See Parag. [0037]; the actions used to resolve network incidents may be executed remote from the source. To illustrate, the user device 140 may located at a first location and the node of the network causing the alarm may be located at a location that is geographically remote from the first location. In such cases, activation of the interactive element presented at the graphical user interface may cause one or more commands to be transmitted over a network to the node that caused the alarm message to be created. The one or more commands may correspond to commands to execute the action identified. See Parag. [0038]; the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to categorize the network incident associated with the alarm prior to transmitting a notification to the user device 140 or automatically executing any candidate actions. For example, the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to classify the network incident as one of: a no trouble found (NTF) category, a self-healable category, and a non-self-healable category … The self-healable known issues category may be used for network incidents associated with recurring issues in the network for which a resolution is known and may be executed remotely (e.g., without having to physically be present at the node of the network) … The non-self-healable category may be used for recurring network issues for which the resolution may be known but cannot be executed without physically troubleshooting the cause of the issue(s) or being present at the node. Non-self-healable network incidents may require analysis and troubleshooting by a user (e.g., an IT or network administrator) or replacement/repair of hardware components of the node … See Parag. [0039]; When categorization is utilized, the categorization of a network incident may be used to determine how the action(s) is executed. Examiner’s interpretation: The action is determined to be executed remotely if the network incident is classified as a self-healable category); and
providing data for outputting information of candidates estimated as the action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device, wherein, when the remotely executable action is included in the candidates, data for outputting information indicating that a remote job is recommended is included in the provided data (See Parag. [0038]; the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to categorize the network incident associated with the alarm prior to transmitting a notification to the user device 140 or automatically executing any candidate actions. For example, the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to classify the network incident as one of: a no trouble found (NTF) category, a self-healable category, and a non-self-healable category … The self-healable known issues category may be used for network incidents associated with recurring issues in the network for which a resolution is known and may be executed remotely (e.g., without having to physically be present at the node of the network) ... See also Parag. [0037] [0039]. Examiner’s interpretation: The self-healable is indicating that a remote job is recommended).
Claim 10. Tiwari discloses [a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a control program (See Parag. [0019]; memory 120 may store instructions 122 that, when executed by the one or more processors 112, cause the one or more processors 112 to perform the operations described in connection with the fault mitigation device 110) causing a computer to execute a method of controlling an information provision system that provides information of an action recommended to resolve an error occurring in a network device (See Parag. [0018]; a system for diagnosing and resolving network incidents in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure is shown as a system 100 ... fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to monitor at least one network of the one or more networks 130 for faults (e.g., network errors or issues that may result in degraded network performance, loss of network services, or other issues) and initiate operations to mitigate any detected faults. Operations to mitigate detected faults may include providing recommendations associated with one or more actions configured to resolve or correct a detected fault to the user device(s) 140. See Parag. [0022]; the one or more networks 130 may include a plurality of nodes (e.g., physical devices, servers, security appliances, user devices, or other devices configured to provide functionality and services to one or more end users) …), the method comprising:
estimating an action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device (See Parag. [0034-0035]; The set of actions may represent a set of candidate actions that may be performed to resolve the network incident that triggered generation of the alarm message … A score may be determined for each of the one or more candidate actions, where the score represents a likelihood that a particular candidate action will resolve the cause of the alarm message);
determining whether the estimated action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device is a remotely executable action that is able to be performed by remotely transmitting a command to a target network device via a network (See Parag. [0037]; the actions used to resolve network incidents may be executed remote from the source. To illustrate, the user device 140 may located at a first location and the node of the network causing the alarm may be located at a location that is geographically remote from the first location. In such cases, activation of the interactive element presented at the graphical user interface may cause one or more commands to be transmitted over a network to the node that caused the alarm message to be created. The one or more commands may correspond to commands to execute the action identified. See Parag. [0038]; the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to categorize the network incident associated with the alarm prior to transmitting a notification to the user device 140 or automatically executing any candidate actions. For example, the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to classify the network incident as one of: a no trouble found (NTF) category, a self-healable category, and a non-self-healable category … The self-healable known issues category may be used for network incidents associated with recurring issues in the network for which a resolution is known and may be executed remotely (e.g., without having to physically be present at the node of the network) … The non-self-healable category may be used for recurring network issues for which the resolution may be known but cannot be executed without physically troubleshooting the cause of the issue(s) or being present at the node. Non-self-healable network incidents may require analysis and troubleshooting by a user (e.g., an IT or network administrator) or replacement/repair of hardware components of the node … See Parag. [0039]; When categorization is utilized, the categorization of a network incident may be used to determine how the action(s) is executed. Examiner’s interpretation: The action is determined to be executed remotely if the network incident is classified as a self-healable category); and
providing data for outputting information of candidates estimated as the action to be executed for the error occurring in the network device, wherein, when the remotely executable action is included in the candidates, data for outputting information indicating that a remote job is recommended is included in the provided data (See Parag. [0038]; the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to categorize the network incident associated with the alarm prior to transmitting a notification to the user device 140 or automatically executing any candidate actions. For example, the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to classify the network incident as one of: a no trouble found (NTF) category, a self-healable category, and a non-self-healable category … The self-healable known issues category may be used for network incidents associated with recurring issues in the network for which a resolution is known and may be executed remotely (e.g., without having to physically be present at the node of the network) ... See also Parag. [0037] [0039]. Examiner’s interpretation: The self-healable is indicating that a remote job is recommended).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0114041), hereinafter Tiwari; in view of Kaffine et al. (Patent No. US 6,654,914), hereinafter Kaffine.
Claim 3. Tiwari discloses [t]he information provision system according to claim 1,
Tiwari further discloses wherein information of the estimated candidates is output based on the data (See Parag. [0018]; Operations to mitigate detected faults may include providing recommendations associated with one or more actions configured to resolve or correct a detected fault to the user device(s) 140, which may be devices operated by information technology (IT) or network administration personnel responsible for maintaining the network and the nodes supporting the network. See Parag. [0038]; the fault mitigation device 110 may be configured to categorize the network incident associated with the alarm prior to transmitting a notification to the user device 140. See also Parag. [0035-0037]).
Tiwari doesn’t explicitly disclose information of the estimated candidates is output by a web browser.
However, Kaffine discloses wherein information of the estimated candidates is output by a web browser based on the data (See Col. 15 lines 32-67; the user link 144 and user 140 interact via a diagnostic web page 275 by exchanging questions and answers to establish the user's symptom of not being able to connect … The expert link 146 proceeds with the connectivity test to isolate the root cause of the user's symptom … the expert link 146 analyzes the test results and determines that the likely cause of the user's 140 symptom is an intermittent one or isolated to single NAS … the expert link 146 reports the determined fault to the user link 144, that reports the fault isolation and required action to the browser 142. For example, the user 140 can be informed by a page 293 that there is a network fault causing the user's connectivity symptoms and that the is being attended to. The information can also instruct the user to dial in later or to try another POP and that the user 140 will receive an Email when the cause of the problem is resolved; the browser 142 acknowledges receipt of the information indicating the isolated fault and required action … See Col. 9 lines 42-45; The browser 142 can include any network application, such as web browsing. See also Col. 4 lines 23-29).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify outputting the set of candidate actions, taught by Tiwari, to be output by a web browser, as taught by Kaffine. This would be convenient such that users can be informed as to remedial actions to correct faults causing the user problems, and can be informed of completion of the remedial actions. Network uptime, reliability, performance, and response/repair time can be improved (Kaffine, Col. 4 lines 23-35).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yamazaki (Pub. No. US 2019/0384539) – Related art in the area of information processing apparatus that executes, for example, an installation of an application, (Abstract; According to the present invention, an information processing apparatus is provided. The apparatus comprises: a determination unit that determines a result of installation processing of an application from an external server that stores the application to a device; a download unit that downloads the application from the external server if it is determined that the external server cannot be referred to; and a transmission unit that transmit, to the device, an installation instruction for the application together with location information indicating a download destination to which the application was downloaded).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELBASST TALIOUA whose telephone number is (571)272-4061. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am - 5:30 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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Abdelbasst Talioua/Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights