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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 2, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Chen (US 20200136889 A1) does not explicitly teach “responsive to determining the at least one device is accessible, sending an event update request to the at least one device for unreported events of the first event type.” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-21 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 19-21 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as seen in MPEP 2106.03. Examiner suggests adding “A tangible non-transitory machine-readable storage medium” to avoid potential rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. 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 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 2-6, 15, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B2 respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of every limitation in the instant application is contained within claims 1, 10, and 14 of the patent as highlighted in the table below.
Instant Application:
2. A computer-implemented method for troubleshooting and improving computer performance, the method comprising:
accessing, by an endpoint manager device and responsive to receiving a request, configuration data that identifies events of a first event type are enabled for on-demand, real-time reporting for a user;
based on the configuration data, determining, by the endpoint manager device, at least one device is accessible for the on-demand, real-time reporting;
responsive to determining the at least one device is accessible, sending an event update request to the at least one device for unreported events of the first event type;
generating, by the endpoint manager and responsive to the event update request, an updated report based on data corresponding to new events of the first event type;
and causing a change of a configuration of a device of the at least one device based on the updated report.
Claims 15 and 19 are similar to claim 2, and are likewise taught by claims 10, and 14 of the patent respectively in a similar way as claim 2 is taught by the patent claim 1 as shown above.
3. generating a baseline report based on data, received from a collector computing device, for events of a first event type received from at least one device for a predetermined period of time.
4. receiving, from a user interface and at an endpoint manager device, a request from a user to present an updated report with real-time information, the real-time information comprising information about events of the first event type during and after the predetermined period of time.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising receiving, by the endpoint manager, data corresponding to new events of the first event type in response to the event update request, the new events occurred after the predetermined period of time.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising causing presentation of the updated report on the user interface.
U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B1:
1. A computer-implemented method for troubleshooting and improving computer performance, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user interface and at an endpoint manager device, a request from a user to present an updated report with real-time information, accessing, by the endpoint manager device, configuration data that identifies which event types are enabled for real-time reporting for the user;
based on the configuration data, determining, by the endpoint manager device, the at least one device is accessible for on-demand, real-time reporting;
responsive to determining the at least one device is accessible, sending, an event-update request to the at least one device for unreported events of the first event type;
generating the updated report by aggregating data from the baseline report and the received new events of the first event type;
(i.e. as seen in a prior limitation the method of the patent begins by receiving from a user a request for an updated report. Therefore, the above limitation is responsive to an event update request and the subject matter of the limitation in the instant application is taught.)
and causing a change of a configuration of a device of the at least one device based on the updated report.
generating a baseline report based on data, received from a collector computing device, for events of a first event type received from at least one device for a predetermined period of time;
receiving, from a user interface and at an endpoint manager device, a request from a user to present an updated report with real-time information, the real-time information comprising information about events of the first event type during and after the predetermined period of time;
receiving, by the endpoint manager, data corresponding to new events of the first event type in response to the event-update request, the new events occurred after the predetermined period of time;
causing presentation of the updated report on the user interface;
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B2 respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of every limitation in the instant application is contained within claim 2 of the patent as highlighted in the table below.
Instant Application:
7. The method as recited in claim 2, further comprising generating the updated report including calculating a current statistical value associated with an event type based on a previously calculated statistical value and information received in the new events for the event type.
Claim 16 includes the same limitations as claim 7, and is taught by claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B1.
U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B1:
2. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein aggregating data comprises: calculating a current statistical value associated with an event type based on a previously calculated statistical value and information received in the new events for the event type.
Claims 8, 17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 12, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B2 respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of every limitation in the instant application is contained within claims 3, 12, and 16 of the patent as highlighted in the table below.
Instant Application:
8. The method as recited in claim 4, further comprising providing an option in the user interface for configuring event types that are enabled for access in real time.
Claims 17 and 20 share the same limitations as claim 8 and they are likewise taught by claims 12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B1.
U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B1:
3. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: providing an option in the user interface for configuring event types that are enabled for access in real time.
Claims 9, 18, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 13, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B2 respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of every limitation in the instant application is contained within claims 4, 13, and 17 of the patent as highlighted in the table below.
Instant Application:
9. The method as recited in claim 2, further comprising: identifying a related report that is based on information about the first event type; and updating the related report based on calculations performed to generate the updated report.
Claims 18 and 21 share the same limitations as claim 9 and they are likewise taught by claims 13 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B1.
U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B1:
4. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: identifying a related report that is based on information about the first event type; and updating the related report based on calculations performed to generate the updated report.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of every limitation in the instant application is contained within claim 5 of the patent as highlighted in the table below.
Instant Application:
10. The method as recited in claim 2, wherein a first agent in the at least one device is configured for downloading events to the endpoint manager device, wherein a second agent in the at least one device is configured for receiving the event update request to provide real-time event data.
U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B1:
5. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein a first agent in the at least one device is configured for downloading events to the endpoint manager device, wherein a second agent in the at least one device is configured for receiving the event-update request to provide real-time event data.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of every limitation in the instant application is contained within claim 6 of the patent as highlighted in the table below.
Instant Application:
11. The method as recited in claim 3, wherein the baseline report is calculated periodically in batch mode.
U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B1:
6. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the baseline report is calculated periodically in batch mode.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of every limitation in the instant application is contained within claim 7 of the patent as highlighted in the table below.
Instant Application:
12. The method as recited in claim 4, wherein the user interface includes an option to request real-time information to update the baseline report.
U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B1:
7. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the user interface includes an option to request real-time information to update the baseline report.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of every limitation in the instant application is contained within claim 8 of the patent as highlighted in the table below.
Instant Application:
13. The method as recited in claim 2, wherein the configuration data is stored in a table by customer identifier and by slice type.
U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B1:
8. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the configuration data is stored in a table by customer identifier and by slice type.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of every limitation in the instant application is contained within claim 9 of the patent as highlighted in the table below.
Instant Application:
14. The method as recited in claim 3, wherein the baseline report is a statement containing information regarding a particular scenario that includes the at least one device, the information based on one or more events that occur at the at least one device.
U.S. Patent No. 12306737 B1:
9. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the baseline report is a statement containing information regarding a particular scenario that includes the at least one device, the information based on one or more events that occur at the at least one device.
Prior Art Analysis
Claims 2-21 stand rejected under Double Patenting, however, none of the known prior art could be applied to the claims for the following reasons.
With respect to claims 2, 15, and 19,
Chen (US 20200136889 A1) teaches,
Techniques for performing near real-time analytics. Their techniques include identifying events that are enabled for real-time reporting to a user, utilizing a processing system 106 for processing real time events, and an offline event processing system 110. (Para(s). [0018, 0034, and 0065]) They also teach generating a report based on real-time events. (Para. [0071]) However, they do not explicitly teach sending an event update report to the device 106 to retrieve unreported real time events. Instead, the system gets data for the report from a persistent log which is continually fed information from the processing systems and not only sent upon request. (Para(s). [0031 and 0071]) Lastly, they do not teach changing the configuration of a device of the at least one device that is accessible for real time reporting.
Jacob (US 20220121509 A1) teaches,
Techniques for identifying faults in a collaborative computing system including a plurality of disparate, geographically separated computing systems. (Abstract) They further include determining a number of real-time and logged events. (Para. [0034]) They also teach modifying a configuration of a device based on the determination that the device is running out of memory. (Para. [0043]) However, they do not explicitly teach determining whether a device is accessible for real-time reporting, sending a request to said device for unreported real-time events, and updating a report to include the new events.
Kim (US 20200218567 A1) teaches,
A master device that manages task processing. (Abstract) They further teach sending a request to task processing devices 110 and 120 to transmit real time resource information. (Para. [0060]) However, they do not explicitly teach determining whether a device is accessible for real-time reporting, sending a request to said device for unreported real-time events, and updating a report to include the new events.
Zou (US 20180027088 A1) teaches,
Monitoring of an online user experience, remediating performance issues, by receiving, pre-aggregating, and aggregating client performance data as part of providing an end-to-end diagnostics monitoring and resolution service in real time. (Abstract & Para. [0006]) Where the data is aggregated in defined time intervals. (Para. [0061]) They further teach creating an updated report to show reduction in latencies for a particular region and displaying the updated report. (Para. [0015] & Para. [0117]) However, they do not teach “accessing, by an endpoint manager device and responsive to receiving a request, configuration data that identifies events of a first event type are enabled for on-demand, real-time reporting for a user;
based on the configuration data, determining, by the endpoint manager device, at least one device is accessible for the on-demand, real-time reporting;
responsive to determining the at least one device is accessible, sending an event update request to the at least one device for unreported events of the first event type.”
Hatamizadeh (US 20230145535 A1) teaches,
Training a neural network to infer a condition based on an image. (Abstract) They further teach determining whether to execute real-time processing. (Para. [0551]) However, the determining is not based on event types but on resource availability of the system. They also fail to teach sending an event- update request to an accessible device.
Tankersley (US 11755559 B1) teaches,
Automated discovery of relationships between entities within an IT environment. (Abstract) Where users can select which Key Performance Indicators (KPI) values are to be displayed in real time. The users increase or decrease the sensitivity to determine what is an anomalous KPI value. (Col. 26-27 & Col. 122) However, they do not teach determining a device is accessible for real time reporting based on the configuration data and sending an event update report to the device.
Zhang (US 9842017 B1) teaches,
Collecting device health metrics aggregating on a device before sending to a server for further aggregation. Where the method determines a crash has occurred on a device and information about the crash. (Abstract) They further teach device health metrics collection engine may read from the buffer either on a real time basis or near real time basis or periodic basis. (Col. 7) As well as changing the configuration of the at least one device based on updated information. (Col.17 Ln(s). [52-56]) Zhang fails to teach identifying which event types are enabled for real time reporting.
As seen above none of the known prior art explicitly teaches and it would be non-obvious to combine the known prior art to teach,
“accessing, by an endpoint manager device and responsive to receiving a request, configuration data that identifies events of a first event type are enabled for on-demand, real-time reporting for a user;
based on the configuration data, determining, by the endpoint manager device, at least one device is accessible for the on-demand, real-time reporting;
responsive to determining the at least one device is accessible, sending an event update request to the at least one device for unreported events of the first event type;
generating, by the endpoint manager and responsive to the event update request, an updated report based on data corresponding to new events of the first event type;
and causing a change of a configuration of a device of the at least one device based on the updated report.”
Therefore, prior art cannot be applied to claims 2, 15, and 19. Prior art cannot be applied to claims 3-14 because they are dependent upon claim 2, claims 16-18 because they are dependent upon claim 15, and claims 20 and 21 because they are dependent upon claim 19.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
