DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final, first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea. Claims 1, 8, and 15 include “determine interrupt events from a plurality of notification events generated by one or more of a plurality of computer systems, wherein the interrupt events are determined based on respective corresponding notification events being sent in respective manners designed to immediately alert a responder; receive alert data indicating occurrence of monitored conditions in a managed information technology environment; assign, based on the alert data, incidents to the responder; modify, with respect to the responder, a notification configuration based on resolution data associated with the incidents and the interrupt events; and transmit a notification to the responder according to the modified notification configuration in response to assigning a new incident to the responder”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity-managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and mental processes in that they concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the elements describe a process for managing operations. As a result, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further describe the process for managing operations. As a result, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 include a memory, a processor, instructions stored in the memory, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 7 and 14 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 7 and 14 include a short message service, a multimedia messaging service, a phone call, a pager page, and a push notification. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 7 and 14 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1, 8, and 15 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 include a memory, a processor, instructions stored in the memory, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 7 and 14 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 7 and 14 include a short message service, a multimedia messaging service, a phone call, a pager page, and a push notification. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 7 and 14 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagne et al. (US Pat No. 9,367,810) (hereinafter Gagne et al.) in view of Nicholas et al. (US Pub No. 2002/0057285) (hereinafter Nicholas et al.).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Gagne discloses an apparatus comprising:
a memory (see Gagne, Fig. 2); and
a processor, the processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory (see Gagne, Fig. 2; and column 10, lines 45-47, wherein storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data) to:
determine interrupt events from a plurality of notification events generated by one or more of a plurality of computer systems, wherein the interrupt events are determined based on respective corresponding notification events being sent in respective manners designed to immediately alert a responder (see Gagne, column 2, lines 60-62, column 3, lines 7-16, & column 18, lines 45-56, wherein Operations management systems may be configured to monitor various types of events depending on needs of an industry and/or technology area. If a system unexpectedly goes offline, it may cause several subsystems to generate operations events. For example, information technology services may generate events in response to one or more conditions, such as, computers going offline such various operations events that indicate events and/or incidents occurring in the managed organizations; column 7, lines 23-34, wherein operations management server computer 116 employs various techniques for generation of managing the operations of computer operations, networking performance, customer service, customer support, resource schedules and notification policies; column 17, lines 42-43, wherein the average time it takes for an organization's first responder to acknowledge each event/incident; and column 11, lines 21-24, wherein exchanged communications may include, but are not limited to, queries, searches, messages, notification messages, event messages, alerts, performance metrics, log data, API calls);
receive alert data indicating occurrence of monitored conditions in a managed information technology environment (see Gagne, column 15, lines 23-28, wherein operations events may be variously formatted messages that reflect the occurrence of events and/or incidents that have occurred in an organizations computing system. Such events may include alerts regarding system errors, warning, failure reports, customer service requests, or the like; and column 9, lines 43-46, wherein monitoring electrical power conditions);
assign, based on the alert data, incidents to the responder (see Gagne, column 18, lines 12-17, wherein the total number of times incidents were assigned to an organization personnel….this may be similar to an organization's escalation score but it also captures times if a single incident may be assigned to multiple people);
modify, with respect to the responder, a (score) configuration based on resolution data associated with the incidents and the interrupt events (see Gagne, column 7, lines 23-34, wherein operations management server computer 116 employs various techniques for generation of managing the operations of computer operations, networking performance, customer service, customer support, resource schedules and notification policies; column 18, lines 12-17, wherein the total number of times incidents were assigned to an organization personnel….this may be similar to an organization's escalation score but it also captures times if a single incident may be assigned to multiple people; column 18, lines 45-56, wherein sub-scores may be introduced that account for if multiple incidents may be reported for the same event…. If a system unexpectedly goes offline, it may cause several subsystems to generate operations events. Accordingly, since all of these events spring from the same root cause incident (e.g., the database going down) the sub-score may be modified to account for this. In at least one of the various embodiments, sub-scores may be defined to account for incidents that be associated with occurrence of particular operation activities); and
transmit a notification to the responder according to the modified (score) configuration in response to assigning a new incident to the responder (see Gagne, column 12, lines 55-52, wherein Human interface components include any component that allows the computer to take input from, or send output to, a human user of a computer; column 11, lines 21-24, wherein exchanged communications may include, but are not limited to, queries, searches, messages, notification messages, event messages, alerts, performance metrics, log data, API calls; and column 18, lines 12-61, wherein the total number of times incidents were assigned to an organization personnel….this may be similar to an organization's escalation score but it also captures times if a single incident may be assigned to multiple people…..sub-scores may be introduced that account for if multiple incidents may be reported for the same event…. If a system unexpectedly goes offline, it may cause several subsystems to generate operations events. Accordingly, since all of these events spring from the same root cause incident (e.g., the database going down) the sub-score may be modified to account for this….incidents that occur during or near the deployment of new versions of applications/services).
Gagne et al. fails to explicitly disclose modify, with respect to the responder, a notification; and the modified notification configuration.
Analogous art Nicholas discloses modify, with respect to the responder, a notification configuration based on resolution data associated with the incidents and the interrupt events (see Nicholas, para [0052], wherein message 204g can be modified in some way, such as, e.g., fading, becoming transparent, and changing in size; and para [0117], wherein notification alerts may be generated in response to specific events, and may contain data regarding such events. For example, a notification alert can be generated in response to a computer network problem or receipt of an instant message, e-mail or telephone call. A notification alert can also be generated in response to a time critical event, such as an auction bid or stock quote. The notification system is customizable, such that a user can specify which events trigger notification alerts).
Gagne directed to a system for providing configuration recommendations based on the operations practices. Nicholas directed to notification alerts containing notification data from a variety of resources. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gagne, regarding the System for Operations Maturity Model, to have included modify, with respect to the responder, a notification configuration based on resolution data associated with the incidents and the interrupt events because both inventions teach improving operation efficiency. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Gagne discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein to modify, with respect to the responder, the notification configuration based on the resolution data associated with the incidents and the interrupt events comprises to:
determine to modify the notification configuration in response to determining that at least one of mean-time-to-acknowledge of the incidents, mean-time-to-resolve of the incidents, a number of resolved incidents of the incidents, or a number of escalated incidents of the incidents exceed respective baseline values (see Gagne, column 15, lines 64-67, wherein operations metrics 406 may be arranged to compute various metrics, such as, mean-time-to-acknowledge (MTTA ), mean-time-to-resolve (MTTR), incident count per resolvers, resolution escalations).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Gagne discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the respective manners designed to immediately alert the responder comprise at least one of a short message service, a multimedia messaging service, a phone call, a pager page, or a push notification (see Gagne, column 15, lines 26-27, wherein events may include alerts regarding system errors, warning, failure reports, customer service requests…. SMS messages; and column 16, lines 23-25, wherein critical events may require immediate notification of a response user to resolve the underlying cause of the event).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagne et al. (US Pat No. 9,367,810) (hereinafter Gagne et al.), in view of Nicholas et al. (US Pub No. 2002/0057285) (hereinafter Nicholas et al.), and further in view of Archer et al. (US Pub No. 2018/0278567) (hereinafter Archer et al.).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Gagne discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the modified notification configuration, as set forth above with claim 1.
Gagne et al. and Nicholas et al. combined fail to explicitly disclose indicates to buffer notifications for a threshold duration prior to transmitting notifications to the responder.
Analogous art Archer discloses indicates to buffer notifications for a threshold duration prior to transmitting notifications to the responder (see Archer, paras [0059] & [0072], wherein at 108 the configured processor increments a processing time counter for the distraction queue with the processing time determined for the message at 106, and at 110 compares the incremented queue processing time counter value to a notification threshold time specified for the user. Aspects of the present invention may also automatically remove message distractions from the queue at 110, and correspondingly reduce the incremented counter value by the amount added in previously for the removed message, in response to determining that an issue forming a basis of the message has been resolved. This may be indicated by natural language processing of text content within a subsequent, related message that is explicitly or implicitly indicative that the issue is resolved and now moot. For example, a subsequent, second message is received from a same person under a same subject line as a queued first message, wherein the later, second message includes the text content phrase “never mind, I figured it out,” may be recognized by the configured processor as cancelling the first message. Machine learning processes at 106 and 120 may continually process notifications and associated resolutions or responses by the user, wherein the configured processors learn to recognize messages that require no action. If the system is unsure whether a message requires processing by the user, it may prompt the user to ask if the message had any value when it is marked complete).
Gagne directed to a system for providing configuration recommendations based on the operations practices. Archer directed to providing message queue management as a function of processing time estimation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gagne, regarding the System for Operations Maturity Model, to have included indicates to buffer notifications for a threshold duration prior to transmitting notifications to the responder because both inventions teach improving operation efficiency. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagne et al. (US Pat No. 9,367,810) (hereinafter Gagne et al.), in view of Nicholas et al. (US Pub No. 2002/0057285) (hereinafter Nicholas et al.), and further in view of Levinson et al. (US Pub No. 2013/0005294) (hereinafter Levinson et al.).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Gagne discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
Gagne et al. and Nicholas et al. combined fail to explicitly disclose modify, with respect to the responder, a configuration based on the resolution data associated with the incidents and the interrupt events wherein the modified configuration indicates to stop assigning new incidents to the responder within a specified duration.
Analogous art Levinson discloses modify, with respect to the responder, a configuration based on the resolution data associated with the incidents and the interrupt events wherein the modified configuration indicates to stop assigning new incidents to the responder within a specified duration (see Levinson, paras [0147] & [0154], wherein the situation may change and the First Responder may feel that he would require some assistance and backup in this incident. In one embodiment, clicking on the “Request Backup” button, as shown in FIG. 23, requests backup. Other methods of requesting backup can also be used. Requesting backup, for example by clicking on the “request backup” button, sends an alert to the ZAP SERVER which in turn sends an alert to the Dispatcher and to the other First Responders in the vicinity of the incident who have not responded to the incident……The “Terminate” option only stops the incident from being streamed to the mobile device of the First Responder. It does not stop the recording from the device of the caller onto ZAP SERVER. The First Responder can always “Join” the incident again if it is available by going into the call logs).
Gagne directed to a system for providing configuration recommendations based on the operations practices. Levinson directed to reporting and tracking incidents with a mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gagne, regarding the System for Operations Maturity Model, to have included indicates to buffer notifications for a threshold duration prior to transmitting notifications to the responder because both inventions teach improving operation efficiency. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagne et al. (US Pat No. 9,367,810) (hereinafter Gagne et al.), in view of Nicholas et al. (US Pub No. 2002/0057285) (hereinafter Nicholas et al.), and further in view of Spear et al. (US Pub No. 2015/0346963) (hereinafter Spear et al.).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Gagne discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the modified notification configuration, as set forth above with claim 1.
Gagne et al. and Nicholas et al. combined fail to explicitly disclose indicates to cluster multiple alerts as a single incident and transmitting a one notification to the responder based on the single incident.
Analogous art Levinson discloses indicates to cluster multiple alerts as a single incident and transmitting a one notification to the responder based on the single incident (see Levinson, para [0116], wherein aggregated information may be used to send alerts to maintenance workers or other first responders who can address current problems. Alternatively or additionally, the report may be sent to process managers, who can make process changes to address both current and future problems).
Gagne directed to a system for providing configuration recommendations based on the operations practices. Spear directed to real-time problem reporting and alert. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gagne, regarding the System for Operations Maturity Model, to have included indicates to cluster multiple alerts as a single incident and transmitting a one notification to the responder based on the single incident because both inventions teach improving operation efficiency. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it appears they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and rewritten to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US Pat. No. 10,581,886, US Pub. No. 2012/0316845, US Pub. No. 2013/0298230, US Pub No. 2017/0116552, US Pub No. 2015/0142713, US Pat No. 8,204,809, US Pub No. 2018/0060395, US Pub No. 2016/0267528, US Pub No. 2012/0137367, US Pat No. 6,574,754, US Pat No. 10,223,647, US Pat No. 6,574,197; US Pub No. 2015/0154371; US Pub No. 2009/0284348; US Pub No. 2014/0089039; US Pub No. 20170208002; and S Mitropoulos, D Patsos, C Douligeris (On Incident Handling and Response: A state-of-the-art approach) - Computers & Security, 2006 - Elsevier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 04/07/2026
Prosecution Insights