DETAILED ACTION
The application of Hunter et al., for an “Incident detection and management” filed on November 14, 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 18223322, filed on July 18, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12147293, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17592841, filed on February 4, 2022, now U.S. Patent No. 11720432, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17104890, filed on November 25, 2020, now U.S. Patent No.11243830, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 16830061, filed on March 25, 2020, now U.S. Patent No.10970150, has been examined. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 14, 2024 has been considered.
Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled by a preliminary amendment.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 28-33 are rejected under 35 USC § 102.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 1, under Related Applications, 1 related application is listed, but no corresponding patent number is supplied. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10970150. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10970150 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11243830. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11243830 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11720432. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11720432 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147293. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147293 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Creel et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20120246623).
As per claim 28, Creel discloses a method for operating an incident detection system, the method comprising:
identifying a first issue report and a second issue report received at the incident detection system within a predetermined threshold time period ([0014], “causing a report to be generated relating to an issue with another of the plurality of functions 112a-n, such as a defect”) and ([0015]-[0020]);
evaluating a first property descriptor extracted from the first issue report and a second property descriptor extracted from the second issue report to obtain an issue report property summary ([0019]-[0020], “The input window 602 features input areas to receive a summary of the issue 604 (as shown in FIG. 7) and a detailed description of the issue 606.”);
causing to be displayed, within a graphical user interface of a first user device communicably coupled to the incident detection system, a graphical summary based in part on the issue report property summary ([0014], “In addition, the function to cause presentation of previously submitted reports may further include retrieving a list of previously generated reports from the issue management system, each characterized by a status, e.g. pending or resolved.”);
in response to a user input received via the graphical user interface of the first user device, causing an alert to be communicated to a second user device communicably coupled to the incident detection system ([0014]-[0020]) and (Figs. 3-11);
subsequent to receiving the user input, causing to be displayed, within the graphical user interface of the first user device, a list of active bugs and a selectable affordance to create a new bug entry based on at least the first property descriptor and the second property descriptor ([0014]-[0020], “The list 502 further provides an additional function 504, represented by the "+" button graphic user interface element, which allows the user to create a new issue report. FIGS. 6 and 7 show the user input window 602 which is displayed when the user chooses to create a new issue report.”) and (Figs. 3-11); and
subsequent to receiving a user selection of the selectable affordance to create the new bug entry, causing creation of a record of the new bug entry at a bug tracking tool ([0020], “The list 502 further provides an additional function 504, represented by the "+" button graphic user interface element, which allows the user to create a new issue report. FIGS. 6 and 7 show the user input window 602 which is displayed when the user chooses to create a new issue report.”).
As per claim 29, Creel discloses subsequent to receiving a user selection of a particular active bug of the list of active bugs, causing display of a list of tickets associated with the particular active bug; and associating at least one of the first issue report and the second issue report with the particular active bug ([0014]-[0020]) and (Figs. 3-11).
As per claim 30, Creel discloses subsequent to causing display of the list of tickets, receiving a user-generated text via an interface field; and storing the user-generated text as a comment for at least one ticket of the list of tickets ([0014]-[0020]) and (Figs. 3-11).
As per claim 31, Creel discloses the first property descriptor indicates at least one of: a location from which the first issue report originated; a time of day that the first issue report was created; or an application service associated with the first issue report ([0014]-[0020]) and (Figs. 8-9).
As per claim 32, Creel discloses the first property descriptor and the second property descriptor each comprise one or more respective keywords; and evaluating the first property descriptor and the second property descriptor includes determining whether a threshold number of the one or more respective keywords have appeared in previous issue reports received during the predetermined threshold time period ([0014]-[0020]) and (Figs. 3-11) and (Fig. 8, “CLAIMS COMPARISON”).
As per claim 33, Creel discloses evaluating one or more additional respective property descriptors of the first issue report and the second issue report to obtain one or more additional issue report property summaries ([0019]-[0020], “The input window 602 features input areas to receive a summary of the issue 604 (as shown in FIG. 7) and a detailed description of the issue 606.”); and causing to be displayed, within the graphical user interface of the first user device, one or more additional graphical summaries corresponding to the one or more additional issue report property summaries ([0014], “In addition, the function to cause presentation of previously submitted reports may further include retrieving a list of previously generated reports from the issue management system, each characterized by a status, e.g. pending or resolved.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creel et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20120246623) in view of Zeng et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20180004848).
As per claim 34, Creel fails to explicitly disclose identifying a support staff based on a support staff availability schedule.
Zeng of analogous art teaches prior to causing an alert to be communicated to the second user device, identifying a support staff based on a support staff availability schedule ([0021], “The organization may assign dedicated staff members to look after each service desk so that the issues can be processed promptly.”); and determining the second user device is associated with the support staff ([0069]).
All of the claimed elements were known in Creel and Zeng and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their issue tracking methods. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of providing an efficient issue tracking system (Zeng, [0022]).
Reasons for allowance
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 21-27 and 35-40 are rejected under a nonstatutory type double patenting rejection as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of the parent application No. 18223322, now U.S. Patent No. 12147293, which were allowed in an office action mailed on July 10, 2024. Claims 21-27 and 35-40 would be allowable if a proper terminal disclaimer is filed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elmira Mehrmanesh whose telephone number is (571)272-5531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3655. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Elmira Mehrmanesh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113