DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application 19/206153 filed on May 13, 2025 in which Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 103. Claims 9 and 20 are objected to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 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 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US Patent Application 2021/0182176) and in view of Hayden (US Patent Application 2019/0163594).
Claim 1, Jiang teaches a system comprising at least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer program instructions, the computer program instructions, when executed by one or more processors, are configured to cause the system to: receive diagnostic resolution data comprising one or more first diagnostic identifiers associated with one or more device faults (View Jiang ¶ 7, 44, 90-92; a diagnosis solution is a measure that is taken to eliminate an error identifier when the error identifier is present); transform, via a mapping engine comprising a trained mapping model, the diagnostic resolution data into executable resolution data by mapping the one or more first diagnostic identifiers to at least one or more component identifiers (View Jiang ¶ 78, 90-92; diagnosis solutions may be further used to enrich and improve the error identifier and diagnosis solution mapping table in the component information module).
Jiang does not explicitly teach generate an execution instruction set, via an adjudication engine comprising an adjudication framework, based on the one or more component identifiers; and transmit the execution instruction set to facilitate a resolution for the one or more device faults.
However, Hayden teaches generate an execution instruction set, via an adjudication engine comprising an adjudication framework, based on the one or more component identifiers (View Hayden Fig. 8, Fig. 9; ¶ 103, 104, 105; system identifies the operations in a solution and uses the classifier to return a classifier ID, which can be mapped to an operation the system can perform); and transmit the execution instruction set to facilitate a resolution for the one or more device faults (View Hayden Fig. 12; ¶ 132, 138; the system determining to automatically resolve the error in block 1208, the system selects a solution to execute; Once all of the steps in a resolution document have been mapped to operations the system can perform, the system executes the operations automatically).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Jiang with generate an execution instruction set, via an adjudication engine comprising an adjudication framework, based on the one or more component identifiers; and transmit the execution instruction set to facilitate a resolution for the one or more device faults since it is known in the art that a resolution can be facilitated (View Hayden Fig. 12; ¶ 132, 138). Such modification would have allowed a resolution to be mapped to an error.
Claim 11, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Hayden further teaches the diagnostic resolution data comprises at least one of the following: data associated with resolving the one or more device faults, data associated with attempting to resolve the one or more device faults, data associated with attempting to prevent an occurrence of the one or more device faults, data associated with preventing one or more effects of the one or more device faults, or data associated with mitigate one or more effects of the one or more device faults (View Hayden ¶ 102; the solution documents contain descriptions of the steps to take to resolve an issue, and not a list of linked operations, the system must turn that text into operations the system can perform).
Claim 15 is the method corresponding to the system of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 16, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 15. Hayden further teaches training a mapping model using structured historical diagnostic resolution data comprising a plurality of historical diagnostic identifiers, and historical executable resolution data comprising a plurality of component identifiers associated with the structured historical diagnostic resolution data to obtain the trained mapping model (View Hayden ¶ 4, 87, 134; Machine learning (ML) model is trained based on summarized problem descriptions and summarized solutions. Now that the system has a summarized list of key concepts needed to identify a problem in the environment, the system can use those concepts to create a machine learning model to model those problems).
Claim 17, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 15. Hayden further teaches the trained mapping model comprises at least one natural language processing model, and wherein transformation of the diagnostic resolution data into the executable resolution data is based at least in part on applying the diagnostic resolution data to the at least one natural language processing model using the mapping engine (View Hayden ¶ 71, 102, 138; identify the operations in the solution document using the same NLP techniques discussed earlier. The proposed solution is to then use a classifier that maps those textual representations of operations to the executable operations the system can perform).
Claim 18, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 15. Hayden further teaches the diagnostic resolution data comprises a plurality of diagnostic resolution data sets associated with a plurality of data types, and wherein the mapping engine maps each diagnostic resolution data set of the plurality of diagnostic resolution data sets to a plurality of executable resolution data sets in accordance with a respective data type of the plurality of data types (View Hayden ¶ 87; a number of models would be needed, perhaps each containing features for a particular error type, such as database issues, lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) issues, etc., as defined in the document clustering step).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US Patent Application 2021/0182176) and in view of Hayden (US Patent Application 2019/0163594) and further in view of Campbell (US Patent Application 2017/0286207).
Claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not teach to cause the system to receive the diagnostic resolution data by: receive an image comprising the one or more first diagnostic identifiers; and generate the diagnostic resolution data from the image using optical character recognition.
However, Campbell teaches to cause the system to receive the diagnostic resolution data by: receive an image comprising the one or more first diagnostic identifiers (View Campbell ¶ 7, 10, 41; the error handling circuitry performs optical character recognition (OCR) or the like to identify the contents of a digital media item included within the content item, and to use that identified content to remediate errors); and generate the diagnostic resolution data from the image using optical character recognition (View Campbell ¶ 7, 10, 41; error handling circuitry is further configured to attempt to remediate errors within received erroneous content items).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with to cause the system to receive the diagnostic resolution data by: receive an image comprising the one or more first diagnostic identifiers; and generate the diagnostic resolution data from the image using optical character recognition since it is known in the art that a resolution can be generated from an OCR (View Campbell ¶ 7, 10, 41). Such modification would have allowed a resolution to be mapped to an OCR.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US Patent Application 2021/0182176) and in view of Hayden (US Patent Application 2019/0163594) and further in view of Vidyadhara (US Patent Application 2023/0267044).
Claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not teach to cause the system to receive the diagnostic resolution data by: transmit an application programming interface request to an endpoint of a first computing system associated with generating the one or more first diagnostic identifiers; and receive the diagnostic resolution data in response to the application programming interface request to the endpoint of the first computing system.
However, Vidyadhara teaches to cause the system to receive the diagnostic resolution data by: transmit an application programming interface request to an endpoint of a first computing system associated with generating the one or more first diagnostic identifiers (View Vidyadhara ¶ 44; the information may be used to determine an exception handler which may include using an API to handle or resolve the exception or interrupt); and receive the diagnostic resolution data in response to the application programming interface request to the endpoint of the first computing system (View Vidyadhara ¶ 44; application programming interface may be associated with one or more functions at a remote server to mitigate, triage, and/or handle the exceptions and/or interrupts).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with to cause the system to receive the diagnostic resolution data by: transmit an application programming interface request to an endpoint of a first computing system associated with generating the one or more first diagnostic identifiers; and receive the diagnostic resolution data in response to the application programming interface request to the endpoint of the first computing system since it is known in the art that resolution data can be transmitted (View Vidyadhara ¶ 44). Such modification would have allowed resolution data to be transmitted using an API.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US Patent Application 2021/0182176) and in view of Hayden (US Patent Application 2019/0163594) in view of Vidyadhara (US Patent Application 2023/0267044) and further in view of Kumar (US Patent Application 2024/0104002).
Claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 3. The combination of teachings above does not teach to cause the system to: obtain a diagnostic session identifier associated with the one or more first diagnostic identifiers, wherein the application programming interface request comprises at least the diagnostic session identifier.
However, Kumar teaches to cause the system to: obtain a diagnostic session identifier associated with the one or more first diagnostic identifiers, wherein the application programming interface request comprises at least the diagnostic session identifier (View Kumar ¶ 32; the software agent calls the analytics engine/knowledge base via an application programming interface (API) using the session identifier to determine whether the session was launched on a machine which has been detected by an analytics engine as having an issue).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with to cause the system to: obtain a diagnostic session identifier associated with the one or more first diagnostic identifiers, wherein the application programming interface request comprises at least the diagnostic session identifier since it is known in the art that a diagnostic session identifier can be generated (View Kumar ¶ 32). Such modification would have allowed a diagnostic session identifier to be generated for an API.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US Patent Application 2021/0182176) and in view of Hayden (US Patent Application 2019/0163594) and further in view of Moondhra (US Patent Application 2021/0382813) and further in view of Fujiwara (US Patent Application 2015/0154083).
Claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not teach to cause the system to: receive, from a system user, an indication of a diagnostic session identifier or an image associated with a diagnostic session associated with the one or more device faults; and automatically trigger receipt of the diagnostic resolution data in response to receipt of the indication.
However, Moondhra teaches to cause the system to: receive, from a system user, an indication of a diagnostic session identifier or an image associated with a diagnostic session associated with the one or more device faults (View Moondhra ¶ 129; the discrete environment, its assigned instance of the test script, and its result data, may be tracked through the session identifier).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with to cause the system to: receive, from a system user, an indication of a diagnostic session identifier or an image associated with a diagnostic session associated with the one or more device faults since it is known in the art that a diagnostic session identifier can be associated with a fault (View Moondhra ¶ 129). Such modification would have allowed a diagnostic session identifier to be associated with a device fault.
The combination of teachings above does not teach automatically trigger receipt of the diagnostic resolution data in response to receipt of the indication.
However, Fujiwara teaches automatically trigger receipt of the diagnostic resolution data in response to receipt of the indication (View Fujiwara ¶ 69; recovery execution unit is also a processing unit that, upon receipt of a recovery request from the server management unit, performs recovery in accordance with the server environment information table).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with automatically trigger receipt of the diagnostic resolution data in response to receipt of the indication since it is known in the art that a diagnostic resolution data can be received (View Fujiwara ¶ 69). Such modification would have allowed diagnostic resolution data to be received for a device fault.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US Patent Application 2021/0182176) and in view of Hayden (US Patent Application 2019/0163594) and further in view of Iulo (US Patent Application 2003/0088549).
Claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not teach to cause the system to: receive, via a second domain, a request to initiate a transaction from a system user associated with a device experiencing the one or more device faults; and responsive to the request, trigger transmission of one or more electronic messages to the system user via a first domain or the second domain, wherein the one or more electronic messages comprise instructions pertaining to initiation of the transaction, and wherein reception of the diagnostic resolution data is based at least in part on transmission of the one or more electronic messages.
However, Iulo teaches to cause the system to: receive, via a second domain, a request to initiate a transaction from a system user associated with a device experiencing the one or more device faults (View Iulo ¶ 2; when a computer device runs into a malfunction, the execution of the desired task is cut short and a series of highly technical and non-verbose computer messages are generated and presented to the user. The user is then faced with the challenge of diagnosing the computer problem in order to complete the task); and responsive to the request, trigger transmission of one or more electronic messages to the system user via a first domain or the second domain, wherein the one or more electronic messages comprise instructions pertaining to initiation of the transaction, and wherein reception of the diagnostic resolution data is based at least in part on transmission of the one or more electronic messages (View Iulo ¶ 16; system monitor tool is a common condition handler that will receive control whenever an abnormal event occurs with the system and it will translate the event into a useful message for the unsophisticated user. Instead of receiving a blank screen or complex unintelligible messages, an expanded text or graphics-based explanation of the event and in some cases a diagnostic tool for recovery is provided for the user).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with to cause the system to: receive, via a second domain, a request to initiate a transaction from a system user associated with a device experiencing the one or more device faults; and responsive to the request, trigger transmission of one or more electronic messages to the system user via a first domain or the second domain, wherein the one or more electronic messages comprise instructions pertaining to initiation of the transaction, and wherein reception of the diagnostic resolution data is based at least in part on transmission of the one or more electronic messages since it is known in the art that a message can be generated for diagnostic resolution data (View Iulo ¶ 2, 16). Such modification would have allowed diagnostic resolution data to be generated for a transaction.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US Patent Application 2021/0182176) and in view of Hayden (US Patent Application 2019/0163594) in view of Iulo (US Patent Application 2003/0088549) and further in view of Bolan (US Patent Application 2010/0235484).
Claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 6. The combination of teachings above does not teach at least one electronic message of the one or more electronic messages comprises a deep link transmitted to a computing device associated with the system user, the computing device being different than the device experiencing the one or more device faults.
However, Bolan teaches at least one electronic message of the one or more electronic messages comprises a deep link transmitted to a computing device associated with the system user, the computing device being different than the device experiencing the one or more device faults (View Bolan ¶ 54; hyperlink may be embedded in various portions of the image, such as for example, in the graphical representation of the faulty component, in a status indicator specifying a faulty component).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with at least one electronic message of the one or more electronic messages comprises a deep link transmitted to a computing device associated with the system user, the computing device being different than the device experiencing the one or more device faults since it is known in the art that a hyperlink can be generated for a message (View Bolan ¶ 54). Such modification would have allowed a hyperlink to be transmitted for a device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US Patent Application 2021/0182176) and in view of Hayden (US Patent Application 2019/0163594) in view of Iulo (US Patent Application 2003/0088549) and further in view of Hunsaker (US Patent Application 2015/0199248).
Claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 6. The combination of teachings above does not teach to cause the system to: trigger transmission of status information to the system user via the second domain, wherein the status information pertains to a status of the transaction.
However, Hunsaker teaches to cause the system to: trigger transmission of status information to the system user via the second domain, wherein the status information pertains to a status of the transaction (View Hunsaker ¶ 83, 86; logic unit may also be configured to receive a command from the other component through the data pins in response to the status to get data associated with the transaction, and to send to the other component through the data pins in response to the command the data associated with the transaction).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with to cause the system to: trigger transmission of status information to the system user via the second domain, wherein the status information pertains to a status of the transaction since it is known in the art that status information can be transmitted (View Hunsaker ¶ 83, 86). Such modification would have allowed status information to be transmitted for a device.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US Patent Application 2021/0182176) and in view of Hayden (US Patent Application 2019/0163594) and further in view of Reynolds (US Patent Application 2003/0126195).
Claim 10, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not teach to cause the system to :identify a system user that corresponds to a device associated with the one or more device faults based at least in part on a comparison of user profile data with at least one component identifier of the one or more component identifiers, wherein the execution instruction set is based at least in part on the system user.
However, Reynolds teaches to cause the system to :identify a system user that corresponds to a device associated with the one or more device faults based at least in part on a comparison of user profile data with at least one component identifier of the one or more component identifiers, wherein the execution instruction set is based at least in part on the system user (View Reynolds ¶ 895; the network device is authenticated by comparing the physical identifiers retrieved from the network device to the physical identifiers stored either in the Administration Managed Device table or each user profile).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with to :identify a system user that corresponds to a device associated with the one or more device faults based at least in part on a comparison of user profile data with at least one component identifier of the one or more component identifiers, wherein the execution instruction set is based at least in part on the system user since it is known in the art that a user profile can be compared to a component identifier (View Reynolds ¶ 895). Such modification would have allowed a user profile to be compared to a faulty device.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US Patent Application 2021/0182176) and in view of Hayden (US Patent Application 2019/0163594) and further in view of Jordan (US Patent Application 2024/0388519).
Claim 12, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Jiang further teaches the one or more first diagnostic identifiers are mapped to the one or more component identifiers (View Jiang ¶ 7; determining a diagnosis solution corresponding to the first error identifier and the erroneous component by looking up mapping relationships stored on the server between error identifiers and diagnosis solutions associated with the plurality of components).
The combination of teachings above does not teach one or more non-component identifiers.
However, Jordan teaches one or more non-component identifiers (View Jordan ¶ 92; an application ID CSR which may be implemented as one or more registers that include a first application ID field).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with one or more non-component identifiers since it is known in the art that an application ID can be generated (View Jordan ¶ 92). Such modification would have allowed an application ID to be generated for a non-component.
Claim 13, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 12. Jiang further teaches one or more component identifiers correspond to one or more components of at least one device associated with the one or more device faults (View Jiang ¶ 7; determining a diagnosis solution corresponding to the first error identifier and the erroneous component by looking up mapping relationships stored on the server between error identifiers and diagnosis solutions associated with the plurality of components). Jordan further teaches the one or more non-component identifiers correspond to at least one of the following: one or more operations performed in accordance with a resolution of the one or more device faults, one or more first parameters of a first system user associated with the at least one device, or one or more second parameters of a second system user associated with the resolution for the one or more device faults (View Jordan ¶ 92; network recovery circuit also includes an application ID CSR which may be implemented as one or more registers that include a first application ID field A0 associated with the first array of configurable units and a second application ID field A1 associated with the second array of configurable units. The application ID fields can be used to identify what application is using its associated array of configurable units).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US Patent Application 2021/0182176) and in view of Hayden (US Patent Application 2019/0163594) and further in view of Ricci (US Patent Application 2019/0356552).
Claim 14, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not teach the diagnostic resolution data comprises vehicular diagnostic resolution data generated based on one or more diagnostic measurements associated with a vehicle.
However, Ricci teaches the diagnostic resolution data comprises vehicular diagnostic resolution data generated based on one or more diagnostic measurements associated with a vehicle (View Ricci ¶ 92; generate repair advice and/or warnings and/or instructions and/or recommendations to the vehicle operator. This diagnosis can also locate and/or determine and/or identify any parts or components required to repair the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the diagnostic resolution data comprises vehicular diagnostic resolution data generated based on one or more diagnostic measurements associated with a vehicle since it is known in the art that diagnostic resolution data can be generated (View Ricci ¶ 92). Such modification would have allowed diagnostic resolution data to be generated for a vehicle device fault.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US Patent Application 2021/0182176) and in view of Hayden (US Patent Application 2019/0163594) and further in view of Cooper (US Patent Application 2011/0099413).
Claim 19, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 18. The combination of teachings above does not teach each component identifier of the one or more component identifiers are associated with a same data type, and where in the one or more device faults correspond to a first device.
However, Cooper teaches each component identifier of the one or more component identifiers are associated with a same data type (View Cooper ¶ 87; a control coordination system in a first vehicle determines that an associated electronic component has entered a failure state), and where in the one or more device faults correspond to a first device (View Cooper ¶ 87; similar electronic component may be identified by correlating the information about the failed component (e.g., model, type of component, and/or function of component) to information about the other components in the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with each component identifier of the one or more component identifiers are associated with a same data type, and where in the one or more device faults correspond to a first device since it is known in the art that device faults can be the same type (View Cooper ¶ 87). Such modification would have allowed similar device faults can be grouped together.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Biswas et al. (U.S. Patent 11,734,148); teaches an API can define actions to, for example, pull reports on user activity in using cloud services, pull reports on security events, issue instructions for remediation actions, obtain statistics on user activity, and/or other actions.
Fallen et al. (U.S. Patent 8,260,871); teaches an appropriate amount of diagnostic data is identified to facilitate efficient and quick diagnosis and error resolution. Techniques are also provided that enable a customer to review the data identified for transmission to the diagnosis site prior to the transmission. The identified diagnostic data may be modified as desired prior to communication of data to the diagnosis site such that data that the customer does not want to be sent to the diagnosis site is excluded from the data communicated to the diagnosis site.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAI E BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3823. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 4 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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/SARAI E BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights