DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an RCE filed on July 7, 2026 for the application of Muralidharan et al., for a “Message call request data having error frequency metrics” filed on February 24, 2025, which is a continuation of U.S. Application 18/496367, filed on October 27, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12235716, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/305676, filed on July 13, 2021, now U.S. Patent No. 11803438. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 40-59 are pending in the application.
Claims 40-41, 44, 46-49, 52-53, 56, and 58-59 have been amended.
Claims 40-59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 40-59 are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 40-59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-42 of U.S. Patent No. 11803438. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-42 of U.S. Patent No. 11803438 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 40-59 of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) 40-59 of the instant application.
Claims 40-59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12235716. 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. 12235716 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 40-59 of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) 40-59 of the instant application.
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 40-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9798607) in view of DeMeuse et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10783053).
As per claims 40, 52, and 59, Kulkarni discloses a system/ method/a computer-readable medium comprising: one or more processors operably connected to the storage device and configured to execute the program instructions to cause the method/system (col. 20, lines 49-55) to perform the steps of:
receive, via an interface, from a first computing device, an indication of an occurrence of an error in a software application executed by the first computing device (col. 16, lines 11-13, “panels 620A-C show error messages associated with an application process A 625A of the application.”) and (col. 5, lines 1-6, “The log handling utility is responsible for collecting the various logs of the application program, analyzing and parsing the logs, and providing to a user through a graphical user interface (GUI) resolutions to error messages logged in the log files and metrics associated with the logged messages.”);
retrieve, from a database, an error message that includes (i) a description of the error (col. 8, lines 6-12, “a more detailed description of the message, and so forth. The error guide may be stored in any type of data format. For example, the error guide or details in the error guide may be stored in various fields of a database table, in a file such as an Extensible Markup (XML) formatted file or Adobe Portable Document File (PDF), or combinations of these”) and (ii) one or more actions to address the error (col. 8, lines 1-5, “The error guide includes one or more error resolutions corresponding to the error message that the user can follow to resolve the problem. An error resolution may include, for example, steps for a work-around, instructions for addressing the problem”); and
provide, to a second computing device, a prompt to generate an update (col. 8, lines 21-23, “allows updates to be made to the error guide without having to redeploy, reinstall, or patch the application components”) and (col. 14. lines 64-66, “A user such as a developer of the application can review the listing and then update the error guide with the appropriate error resolutions”) to at least one action of the one or more actions to address the error (col. 8, lines 24-27, “new or updated findings regarding how to address a problem indicated by an error message can be easily added to the error guide without affecting the operation of the application components”);
receive, from the second computing device, the update to the at least one action to address the error (col. 8, lines 24-27, “new or updated findings regarding how to address a problem indicated by an error message can be easily added to the error guide without affecting the operation of the application components”) and (col. 14, line 64-66, “A user such as a developer of the application can review the listing and then update the error guide with the appropriate error resolutions”); and
transmit, via the interface, to the first computing device (col. 5, lines 1-6, “The log handling utility is responsible for collecting the various logs of the application program, analyzing and parsing the logs, and providing to a user through a graphical user interface (GUI) resolutions to error messages logged in the log files and metrics associated with the logged messages.”), the error message including the update to the at least one action to address the error (col. 8, lines 24-27, “new or updated findings regarding how to address a problem indicated by an error message can be easily added to the error guide without affecting the operation of the application components”) and (col. 14, line 64-66, “A user such as a developer of the application can review the listing and then update the error guide with the appropriate error resolutions”).
Kulkarni discloses counting warning and fatal errors (col. 16, lines 28-31, “Panel 620C displays or plots a graph indicating an overall trend of the warning and fatal message counts associated with application process A”). However, Kulkarni fails to explicitly disclose determine that the occurrence of the error exceeds a threshold for occurrences.
DeMeuse of analogous art teaches determine that the occurrence of the error exceeds a threshold for occurrences (col. 4, lines 30-31, “whether the errors exceed a normal frequency of errors”);
responsive to determination that the occurrence of the error exceeds the threshold for the occurrences of the error (col. 7, lines 19-23).
All of the claimed elements were known in Kulkarni and DeMeuse 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 the methods. One would be motivated to make this combination since DeMeuse’s error threshold is a mere example of Kulkarni’s error counts.
As per claims 41 and 53, Kulkarni discloses update, in the database, the error message to reflect the update to the at least one action (col. 8, lines 24-27, “new or updated findings regarding how to address a problem indicated by an error message can be easily added to the error guide without affecting the operation of the application components”) and (col. 14, line 64-66, “A user such as a developer of the application can review the listing and then update the error guide with the appropriate error resolutions”) such that subsequent retrieval of the error message includes the update to the at least one action (col. 14, lines 42-45, “In a step 335, if the corresponding error resolution is found in the error message guide, the error resolution is displayed on an electronic screen for the user to view.”).
As per claims 42 and 54, Kulkarni discloses determine, based on information included with the indication, an identification of the error (col. 14, line 66 through col. 15, line 3, “The utility may analyze the listing of error messages with missing error resolutions and provide metrics such as a count of the number of times a particular error message with a missing error resolution has been entered into the repository.”) and (col. 20, lines 22-28 ) and (Figs. 3-4);
search, using the identification of the error (col. 17, lines 40-41, “An error guide may be searched using the single occurrence of the message identifier to retrieve an error resolution”), a cache for the error message (col. 11, lines 31-37, “If the utility is unable to find a log file at a default location, but is able to find the log file at a different location, the utility may update the default location to the different location. Thus, when the utility attempts a next access of the log, the utility can retrieve the log from the new default location without having to rescan”); and
retrieve, from the database, the error message based at least on the error message being absent from the cache (col. 14, lines 39-59, “In a step 330, the utility compares a message ID associated with a message of the particular log entry with the error message guide to find an error resolution that corresponds to the message. In a step 335, if the corresponding error resolution is found in the error message guide, the error resolution is displayed on an electronic screen for the user to view. The user can then take the appropriate steps outlined in the error resolution to fix the problem. The error resolution may be displayed on a dashboard user interface. For example, according to the sample data above, there is a first entry in the filtered log having a message ID attribute value of “15435” which is associated with the message “Cannot find device ORION in the list of configured devices.” The utility searches or cross references the error resolution guide using the message ID attribute value of “15435” to identify the error resolution corresponding to the message. In this case, there is a match of the message ID in the error resolution guide and the corresponding error resolution is displayed. For example, the error resolution text “Configure the device and add it to the jukebox.” may be displayed on the dashboard.”).
As per claims 43 and 55, Kulkarni discloses store, responsive to transmission of the error message, the error message in a cache (col. 14, lines 60-66, “In a step 340, if the corresponding error resolution cannot be found in the error guide, the utility may add the particular log entry into a repository. The repository can store a listing of error messages that do not have corresponding error resolutions. A user such as a developer of the application can review the listing and then update the error guide with the appropriate error resolutions.”); and
retrieve, from the cache, using an identification of the error, the error message based at least on detection of a subsequent occurrence of the error cache (col. 14, lines 39-45, “In a step 330, the utility compares a message ID associated with a message of the particular log entry with the error message guide to find an error resolution that corresponds to the message. In a step 335, if the corresponding error resolution is found in the error message guide, the error resolution is displayed on an electronic screen for the user to view.”).
As per claims 44 and 56, Kulkarni discloses the description of the error, prior to the update, includes one or more first sets of information, and wherein the update includes: one or more second sets of information that includes the one or more first sets of information and at least one additional set of information (col. 16, lines 54-61, “The user can select a message displayed in the panels to view an error resolution associated with the message. For example, the user may use a pointing device such as a mouse to click on a particular message to see the corresponding error resolution. FIG. 7 shows an example where the user has clicked on a message 715. In response, the utility displays a dialog box 720 which provides further detail regarding the message including an error resolution 725.”).
As per claims 45 and 57, Kulkarni discloses receive the indication of the error via a transmission of a call request from the first computing device (col. 11, lines 26-30, “In a step 320, the utility collects, receives, and extracts log files from different components of an application program to the utility. The utility may consolidate or merge the log files from the different components into a single consolidated log file for analysis.”);
detect, based on information included with the call request, an identification of the error (col. 9-10, “MESSAGE ID”); and retrieve, from the database, using the identification of the error, one or more metrics to indicate (i) the threshold (col. 19, lines 25-32, “count of the number of errors”) and (ii) the occurrences of the error (col. 16, lines 28-32, “Panel 620C displays or plots a graph indicating an overall trend of the warning and fatal message counts associated with application process A. A first vertical axis of the graph indicates a number of the messages. A second axis horizontal axis of the graph indicates a time.”) and (col. 16, lines 42-53) and (col. 19, lines 25-32, “Different message types such as “information,” “warning,”, and “critical error” may be identified on the dashboard using different symbols for easy identification. The dashboard may include a count of the number of errors in a particular log, a count of a number of errors associated with a particular message type, a count of a number of errors associated with a particular application component or process, or combinations of these.”).
As per claims 46 and 58, Kulkarni discloses the interface includes an application programming interface (col. 4, line 36, “APIs”), and wherein the one or more processors further: receive, via the application programming interface, a call that includes the indication of the occurrence (col. 16, lines 11-13, “panels 620A-C show error messages associated with an application process A 625A of the application.”) and (col. 5, lines 1-6, “The log handling utility is responsible for collecting the various logs of the application program, analyzing and parsing the logs, and providing to a user through a graphical user interface (GUI) resolutions to error messages logged in the log files and metrics associated with the logged messages.”); and provide, via the application programming interface, to the first computing device, one or more sets of code, for execution by the software application, to present the update to the at least one action (col. 8, lines 24-27, “new or updated findings regarding how to address a problem indicated by an error message can be easily added to the error guide without affecting the operation of the application components”) and (col. 14, line 64-66, “A user such as a developer of the application can review the listing and then update the error guide with the appropriate error resolutions”).
As per claim 47, Kulkarni discloses receive, from one or more third computing devices, a second indication of a second occurrence of the error (col. 14, line 66 through col. 15, line 10, “The utility may analyze the listing of error messages with missing error resolutions and provide metrics such as a count of the number of times a particular error message with a missing error resolution has been entered into the repository. The count may be displayed on the dashboard. The count can help the developer prioritize the updating of the error guide. For example, error messages that are entered into the repository more frequently than other error messages may be given priority over the less frequently entered error messages for the development of corresponding error resolutions.”); retrieve, from a cache, the error message including the update to the at least one action (col. 8, lines 24-27) and (col. 14, line 64-66), the error message located in the cache based at least on the error message having been transmitted to the first computing device (col. 14, lines 39-45, “In a step 330, the utility compares a message ID associated with a message of the particular log entry with the error message guide to find an error resolution that corresponds to the message. In a step 335, if the corresponding error resolution is found in the error message guide, the error resolution is displayed on an electronic screen for the user to view.”); and provide the error message to the one or more third computing devices (col. 16, lines 11-13, “panels 620A-C show error messages associated with an application process A 625A of the application.”).
As per claim 48, Kulkarni discloses the error message including the update to the at least one action (col. 8, lines 24-27) and (col. 14, line 64-66) is presented, via the first computing device, without modification to the software application (col. 8, lines 20-23, “Decoupling the error guide from the error logging modules of the application components allows updates to be made to the error guide without having to redeploy, reinstall, or patch the application components.”).
As per claim 49, Kulkarni discloses monitor, responsive to receipt of the update to the at least one action, a rate for which subsequent occurrences of the error occur (col. 16, lines 28-32, “Panel 620C displays or plots a graph indicating an overall trend of the warning and fatal message counts associated with application process A. A first vertical axis of the graph indicates a number of the messages. A second axis horizontal axis of the graph indicates a time.”) and (col. 16, lines 42-53) and (col. 19, lines 25-32, “Different message types such as “information,” “warning,”, and “critical error” may be identified on the dashboard using different symbols for easy identification. The dashboard may include a count of the number of errors in a particular log, a count of a number of errors associated with a particular message type, a count of a number of errors associated with a particular application component or process, or combinations of these.”);
provide, to the second computing device, a second prompt to generate a second update to the at least one action based at least on the rate exceeding a previous rate for which the error occurred (col. 19, lines 33-56); and receive, from the second computing device, the second update to the at least one action (col. 8, lines 24-27) and (col. 14, line 64-66).
As per claim 50, Kulkarni discloses the one or more processors further: receive, from the first computing device or one or more third computing devices, a call request to indicate a second occurrence of a second error (col. 11, lines 26-30, “In a step 320, the utility collects, receives, and extracts log files from different components of an application program to the utility. The utility may consolidate or merge the log files from the different components into a single consolidated log file for analysis.”);
determine, based on an identification of the second error, that the second error is without a second error message; and provide, to the second computing device, a second prompt to generate the second error message (col. 14, lines 60-66, “In a step 340, if the corresponding error resolution cannot be found in the error guide, the utility may add the particular log entry into a repository. The repository can store a listing of error messages that do not have corresponding error resolutions. A user such as a developer of the application can review the listing and then update the error guide with the appropriate error resolutions.”).
As per claim 51, Kulkarni discloses the one or more processors further: receive, from the first computing device or one or more third computing devices, a call request to indicate a second occurrence of a second error (col. 11, lines 26-30, “In a step 320, the utility collects, receives, and extracts log files from different components of an application program to the utility. The utility may consolidate or merge the log files from the different components into a single consolidated log file for analysis.”);
retrieve, from the database, a second error message including a second description of the second error (col. 8, lines 6-12, “a more detailed description of the message, and so forth. The error guide may be stored in any type of data format. For example, the error guide or details in the error guide may be stored in various fields of a database table, in a file such as an Extensible Markup (XML) formatted file or Adobe Portable Document File (PDF), or combinations of these”); and provide to the first computing device or the one or more third computing devices, the second error message including the second description of the second error (col. 16, lines 11-13, “panels 620A-C show error messages associated with an application process A 625A of the application.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on July 7, 2026 necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection in this Office action. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, as set forth in this office action.
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
Prosecution Insights