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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in the word methods in line 1 there is a space between the m and the e. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 13, and 17 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.
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.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, 14, 15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20200136889 A1) and Jacob (US 20220121509 A1).
With respect to claims 2 and 19,
Chen teaches,
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; (Para. [0065] teaches “At block 430, the first set of events is assigned to a first computing process of real-time event processing system 106. Block 430 corresponds to repartitioning based on client device or user ID so that the same process or device aggregates all applicable activity events generated by that client device or associated with that 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; (Para.[0018] teaches “An example of an application that executes on computing device 102 and generates the activity events includes a web application executing within a web browser or a client application (installed on computing device 102) that is configured to communicate with real-time event processing system 106 and/or offline event processing system 110 over network 104.”Para. [0034] teaches “In one embodiment, real-time event processing system 106 comprises a plurality of servers that includes distinct sets of servers, some tasked with repartitioning the events and others tasked with aggregation of partitioned sets of events.” (i.e. some events are processed in real-time by device 106 and some offline by device 110.))
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; (Para. [0071] teaches “At block 490, in response to receiving the request, the first aggregated event is retrieved from the persistent storage”)
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; (Para. [0071] teaches “At block 490, in response to receiving the request, the first aggregated event is retrieved from the persistent storage and a report that includes report data that is based on the first aggregated event is generated”)
Chen does not explicitly teach,
and causing a change of a configuration of a device of the at least one device based on the updated report.
Jacob teaches,
and causing a change of a configuration of a device of the at least one device based on the updated report. (Para. [0043] teaches “For another example, based on a determination that the agent device 108(N) is running out of memory, the IM computing device(s) 102 may modify a configuration of an application (e.g., at a later time when the application is not running) to make the application less memory intense, such as to modify an instruction for a client device to store all data associated with the application. For yet another example, the IM computing device(s) 102 may determine that a network latency associated with a first network 116 is above a latency threshold, and thus has an associated fault.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with causing a change of a configuration of a device of the at least one device based on the updated report such as that of Jacob.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Chen, because updating how a device is configured based off of a report could improve how an application is running on a device. This can be seen in Para. [0053] as a report determining that a device is running out of memory can cause the device to run the application or store information differently.
With respect to claim 15,
Chen teaches,
a memory comprising instructions; and one or more computer processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:(Para. [0016] teaches “FIG. 1 depicts an example system 100 in which the techniques described may be practiced according to certain embodiments. System 100 is a computer-based system. The various components of system 100 are implemented at least partially by hardware at one or more computing devices, such as one or more hardware processors executing instructions stored in one or more memories for performing various functions described herein”)
The combination of Chen and Jacob teaches the rest of the limitations of claim 15 as shown in the rejection of claims 2 and 19 as the limitations are patentably the same.
With respect to claim 3,
Chen further teaches,
The method of claim 2 further comprising: 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. (Para. [0031] teaches “For example, initially, all activity events generated by all computing devices may be stored in a single log. Activity events from the single log are continuously fed into event processing systems 106 and 110.” (i.e. the single log is viewed as the baseline report.)
With respect to claim 4,
Chen further teaches,
The method of claim 3 further 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, the real-time information comprising information about events of the first event type during and after the predetermined period of time. (Para. [0029] teaches “An administrator may manually request an updated version of report 200 that provides up-to-date information and/or a correction for any inconsistencies of analytics between the sets of workflows implemented by event processing systems 106 and 110.”)
With respect to claim 5,
Chen further teaches,
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. (Para. [0068] teaches “The second time window may be the same in magnitude as the first time window but may correspond to a different date and/or time within a day than the first time window. Again, block 460 may be performed multiple times but with respect to different, non-overlapping time windows.”)
With respect to claim 6,
Chen further teaches,
The method of claim 5, further comprising causing presentation of the updated report on the user interface. (Para. [0072] teaches “At block 495, the report to be sent to the third client device for presentation on a user interface of the third client device”)
With respect to claims 8, 17, and 20,
Chen further teaches,
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. (Para. [0046] teaches “A report/analytics generation request may be received through a web interface 112 provided by system 100. The web interface 112 interacts with API 114 that is communicatively coupled to database 108.” Para. [0081] teaches “In an embodiment, a test for real-time event processing system 106 involves testing the flow of data from real-time event processing system 106 to database 108. The test verifies that one or more jobs process an activity event correctly and that the one or more jobs output an event correctly. The output is consumed by a real-time component of database 108.”)
With respect to claim 9, 18, and 21,
Chen further teaches,
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. (Para. [0087] teaches “In a related embodiment, a verification test compares report events from the online workflow with report events from the offline workflow, where the report events are based on activity events generated by client devices of actual users that are viewing media items presented by the content distribution system” where the related report would be the offline workflow report. Para. [0029] teaches “An administrator may manually request an updated version of report 200 that provides up-to-date information and/or a correction for any inconsistencies of analytics between the sets of workflows implemented by event processing systems 106 and 110.”)
With respect to claim 10,
Chen further teaches,
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. (Para. [0083] teaches “The download test involves (1) downloading a report (e.g., in the form of a csv file) by using web interface 112 to compose an application-level request and send the request to API 114, which formulates a query against database 108.” Para. [0071] teaches “At block 490, in response to receiving the request, the first aggregated event is retrieved from the persistent storage and a report that includes report data that is based on the first aggregated event is generated. Block 490 may be performed by API 114 and, optionally, web interface 112.” (i.e. the first agent is web interface 112 and the second agent is API 114.)
With respect to claim 11,
Chen further teaches,
The method as recited in claim 3, wherein the baseline report is calculated periodically in batch mode. (Para. [0021] teaches “Example features of database 108 include a column-oriented database with various compression schemes, pluggable indexing technologies (e.g., Sorted Index, Bitmap Index, Inverted Index), an ability to optimize query/execution plan based on query and segment metadata, near real-time ingestion from a real-time event processing system and batch ingestion from an offline event processing system,” Para. [0073] teaches “In an embodiment, report events generated by real-time event processing system 106 are aged out (i.e., deleted automatically) after a period of time (e.g., a week).”)
With respect to claim 12,
Chen further teaches,
The method as recited in claim 4, wherein the user interface includes an option to request real-time information to update the baseline report. (Para. [0029] teaches “An administrator may manually request an updated version of report 200 that provides up-to-date information and/or a correction for any inconsistencies of analytics between the sets of workflows implemented by event processing systems 106 and 110.” Para. [0061] teaches “In one embodiment, the generated report is presented, via a graphical user interface, to an administrator or customer associated with the requesting computing device. When there is an error or inconsistency within the data reflected in the report, or a new metric needs to be added to the report, then a backfill and recovery architecture will correct the error in the workflows and reflect the corrections in a new downloadable report via the method described further herein.”)
With respect to claim 14,
Chen further teaches,
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. (Abstract teaches “In one technique, different client devices generate different sets of events pertaining to the same or different media item.” (i.e. the particular scenario is the media item.))
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20200136889 A1) and Jacob (US 20220121509 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Tankersley (US 11755559 B1).
With respect to claim 7,
Chen does not explicitly teach,
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.
Tankersley teaches,
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. (Col. 293 Ln(s). 58-63 teach “The aggregate KPIs and aspect KPIs can be determined in response to the initial user request to view the service-monitoring page 4920, and then displayed and refreshed at predefined time intervals or in real time once new values are calculated based on KPI monitoring parameters discussed above.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen and Jacob with causing a change of a configuration of a device of the at least one device based on the updated report such as that of Tankersley.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Chen and Jacob, because updating a statistic based on new events would keep the statistic accurate and reliable over time.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20200136889 A1) and Jacob (US 20220121509 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hatamizadeh (US 20230145535 A1).
With respect to claim 13,
Chen does not explicitly teach,
The method as recited in claim 2, wherein the configuration data is stored in a table by customer identifier and by slice type.
Hatamizadeh further teaches,
wherein the configuration data is stored in a table by customer identifier and by slice type. (Para. [0298] teaches “In at least one embodiment, registers 1745 are duplicated for each graphics processing engine 1731(1)-1731(N) and/or graphics acceleration module 1746 and may be initialized by a hypervisor or an operating system. In at least one embodiment, each of these duplicated registers may be included in an accelerator integration slice 1790. Exemplary registers that may be initialized by a hypervisor are shown in Table 1.” Table 1 clearly shows slice type and multiple customer identifiers.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen and Jacobs wherein the configuration data is stored in a table by customer identifier and by slice type such as that of Hatamizadeh.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Chen and Jacobs, because a table would make the data more easily accessible and increase the efficiency of the system.
Conclusion
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
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857