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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 August 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 2-4, 12-14, and 17-19 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-29 have been added.
Claims 1, 5-11, 15, 16, and 20-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 7-9, filed 28 August 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20110138219), in view of Mathew (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220413845).
In regards to claim 1, Walton teaches:
A method for managing operation of at least one data processing system (Walton: ¶12-14, ¶20, ¶23, ¶69), the method comprising:
executing a software program to monitor a storage device of the at least one data processing system (Walton: ¶12-14, ¶17-20, ¶23-25, ¶69);
identifying, using the software program, an issue of the storage device storing data (Walton: ¶17-18, ¶25, ¶27-28);
identifying at least one person to be notified of the issue based on the issue (Walton: ¶27-28, ¶38, ¶54-58);
obtaining a classification for the issue based on a trained classification model (Walton: ¶27-28, ¶38, ¶54-58).
Although Walton teaches utilizing trend data to analyze errors and communicating the errors to personnel, the reference does not explicitly state identifying a communication channel based on the analyzed error, wherein the communication channels are associated with a plurality of different communication mediums.
However, Mathew teaches identifying, for each of the at least one person and using channel associations, a channel based on the classification, the channel being selected from a plurality of different channels respectively associated with a plurality of different communication mediums (Mathew: ¶74, ¶160-162 disclose identifying a communication channel based on a determined score, e.g., Slack, pager systems, email systems, etc.), wherein the channel associations specify, for a person of the at least one person, associations between the plurality of different channels and a plurality of different classifications and wherein each of the plurality of different channels comprise independent communication paths in different fault zones between a management system and the person (Mathew: ¶74, ¶160-162 disclose an association between the communication channel and a determined classification score of the issue, wherein the communication channels comprise independent communication paths, e.g., Slack, pager systems, email systems, etc.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the communication channels, as taught by Mathew, into the system and method of Walton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the performance and efficiency of a distributed computing system” (Mathew: ¶45).
Walton goes on to further teach communicating information regarding the issue to each of the at least one person based on the channel (Walton: ¶27-28, ¶38, ¶54-58, ¶67); and updating firmware of the storage device to remediate the issue (Walton: ¶27-31, ¶38, ¶54-58, ¶66).
In regards to claim 11, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Additionally, Walton further teaches A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor (Walton: ¶12-14, ¶20, ¶23, ¶69). Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 1 applies to the rejection of claim 11.
In regards to claim 16, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Additionally, Walton further teaches A data processing system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions (Walton: ¶12-14, ¶20, ¶23, ¶69). Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 1 applies to the rejection of claim 16.
Claim(s) 5-7, 15, 20-22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20110138219), in view of Mathew (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220413845), in further view of Zeise (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210089961).
In regards to claim 5, Walton and Mathew teach the method of claim 1. Although the references teach analyzing the errors, the references do not explicitly teach utilizing a machine learning model to classify the severity and/or priority level.
However, Zeise teaches wherein the trained classification model classifies a severity level of the issue (Zeise: ¶2-3, ¶37, ¶40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the machine learning model, as taught by Zeise, into the system and method of Walton and Mathew. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “determine a suitable response for addressing the error” (Zeise: ¶2).
In regards to claim 6, Walton and Mathew teach the method of claim 1. Although the references teach analyzing the errors, the references do not explicitly teach utilizing a machine learning model to classify the severity and/or priority level.
However, Zeise teaches wherein the trained classification model classifies a priority level for the issue (Zeise: ¶2-3, ¶37, ¶40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the machine learning model, as taught by Zeise, into the system and method of Walton and Mathew. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “determine a suitable response for addressing the error” (Zeise: ¶2).
In regards to claim 7, Walton and Mathew teach the method of claim 1. Although the references teach analyzing the errors, the references do not explicitly teach training the machine learning model using historical remediation data.
However, Zeise teaches wherein the trained classification model is a trained machine learning model based on training data obtained from a plurality of data processing systems and corresponding responses for remediating historic issues impacting the plurality of data processing systems (Zeise: ¶2-3, ¶32-37, ¶40, ¶47).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the machine learning model, as taught by Zeise, into the system and method of Walton and Mathew. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “determine a suitable response for addressing the error” (Zeise: ¶2).
In regards to claim 15, Walton and Mathew teach the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 7. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 7 applies to the rejection of claim 15.
In regards to claim 20, Walton and Mathew teach the data processing system of claim 16. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 7. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 7 applies to the rejection of claim 20.
In regards to claim 21, Walton and Mathew teach the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 5. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 5 applies to the rejection of claim 21.
In regards to claim 22, Walton and Mathew teach the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 6. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 6 applies to the rejection of claim 22.
In regards to claim 26, Walton and Mathew teach the data processing system of claim 16. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 5. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 5 applies to the rejection of claim 26.
Claim(s) 8-10, 23-25, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20110138219), in view of Mathew (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220413845), in further view of Nigam (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210064452).
In regards to claim 8, Walton and Mathew teach the method of claim 1. Although the references teach managing operation of a data processing system, the reference does not explicitly state wherein the data processing system is a tasked with deployment of computer implemented services.
However, Nigam teaches wherein the at least one data processing system is a member of a deployment tasked with providing computer implemented services to users, and the issue reduces a likelihood of the deployment being able to provide computer implemented services (Nigam: ¶17, ¶25, ¶36, ¶39, ¶41-48)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the computing services, as taught by Nigam, into the system and method of Walton and Mathew. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “automatically determine the severity of a computing service… which can be used to efficiently address a failure” (Nigam: ¶7).
In regards to claim 9, Walton, Mathew, and Nigam teach the method of claim 8. Walton further teaches wherein identifying the issue comprises: obtaining a communication indicating that the at least one data processing system is impacted by the issue (Walton: ¶12, ¶17-18, ¶27-30, ¶38, ¶54-58).
In regards to claim 10, Walton, Mathew, and Nigam teach the method of claim 9. Walton further teaches after communicating the issue: monitoring the operation of the at least one data processing system until the issue is resolved by action of the at least one person induced by the communicating of the issue; and making the issue as resolved (Walton: ¶12, ¶17-18, ¶27-30, ¶33-34, ¶38-39, ¶46, ¶54-58).
In regards to claim 23, Walton and Mathew teach the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 8 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 8. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 8 applies to the rejection of claim 23.
In regards to claim 24, Walton, Mathew, and Nigam teach the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 23. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 9 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 9.
In regards to claim 25, Walton, Mathew, and Nigam teach the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 24. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 10 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 10.
In regards to claim 27, Walton and Mathew teach the data processing system of claim 16. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 8 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 8. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 8 applies to the rejection of claim 27.
In regards to claim 28, Walton, Mathew, and Nigam teach the data processing system of claim 27. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 9 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 9.
In regards to claim 29, Walton, Mathew, and Nigam teach the data processing system of claim 28. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 10 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights