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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/28/25 has been entered.
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 1-6, 8-9, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breitgand et al. (Breitgand) (US 2006/0293777) (of record) in view of Gu (US 2019/0324831) (of record) and Little (US 2010/0223217).
As to claim 1, while Breitgand discloses a computer-implemented method of monitoring a computational system, said computational system comprising a plurality of interoperating computing components for performing computational operations thereby to provide a computational service to a user, wherein said computational system comprises a plurality of performance requirements based on at least one performance attribute (Fig. 1, paragraph 30-32), the method comprising the steps of:
selecting a performance attribute associated with a performance requirement of the computational system (service level requirements; paragraph 49-50);
identifying a set of computing components from the plurality of computing components, wherein each of the computing components in the set perform operations affecting the selected performance attribute (paragraph 48-56);
determining a mapping of relationships for the computing components in the identified set in relation to the selected performance attribute (modelled relationships between components and performance values; Fig. 7, paragraph 15-16, 57-72, 109),
retrieving a performance status of a computing component in the identified set (paragraph 54, 57-58, 64-66); and
in dependence on said determined mapping and said retrieved performance status, calculating a probability of the identified set complying with the performance requirement for the selected performance attribute (paragraph 28, 57-62, 64-68),
While Breitgand discloses the mapping comprising a set of operations performed by the computing components (combinations of component metrics predicting SLO violations; paragraph 65), they fail to specifically disclose the mapping comprising a sequence in which operations are performed, the mapping indicating a direction of a relationship between the computing components, the direction of the relationship between the computing components being a direction from an output of a first of the computing components provided to an input of a second of the computing components.
In an analogous art, Gu discloses a system for monitoring performance attributes of a computational system to predicting compliance with performance requirements (paragraph 32, 34-35) which will determine a mapping of relationships for computing components in relation to a selected performance attribute, the mapping comprising a sequence in which operations are performed (mapping common component failure sequences; Fig. 5-6, paragraph 46-51) so as to achieve early performance problem detection by leveraging causality analysis results and identifying and monitoring common failure sequences (paragraph 48, 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breitgand’s system to include the mapping comprising a sequence in which operations are performed, as taught in combination with Gu, for the typical benefit of achieving early performance problem detection by leveraging causality analysis results and identifying and monitoring common failure sequences (paragraph 48, 50).
While Breitgand and Gu disclose wherein the relationship mapping comprises dependency information including communication patterns (see Gu at paragraph 48), they fail to specifically disclose the mapping indicating a direction of a relationship between the computing components, the direction of the relationship between the computing components being a direction from an output of a first of the computing components provided to an input of a second of the computing components.
Additionally, in an analogous art, Little discloses a method for monitoring performance attributes of a computational system (Fig. 3-4; paragraph 30, 52-54, 63-64, 69) which will determine a relationship mapping between computing components (Fig. 2A-B, paragraph 52-58, 69), the mapping indicating a direction of a relationship between the computing components, the direction of the relationship between the computing components being a direction from an output of a first of the computing components provided to an input of a second of the computing components (Fig. 2A-B, paragraph 52-58, 69) so as to gather information on additional variables that can affect the performance characteristics useful to intelligently migrate services between locations within the distributed computing system and track most likely points of failure within the distributed computing system (paragraph 52).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breitgand and Gu’s system to include the mapping indicating a direction of a relationship between the computing components, the direction of the relationship between the computing components being a direction from an output of a first of the computing components provided to an input of a second of the computing components, as taught in combination with Little, for the typical benefit of gathering information on additional variables that can affect the performance characteristics useful to intelligently migrate services between locations within the distributed computing system and tracking most likely points of failure within the distributed computing system (paragraph 48, 50).
As to claim 2, Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose wherein the probability is calculated in dependence on:
a first distribution for an expected number of times that the identified set does not comply with the performance requirement within a predetermined time period (statistical predictive model for predicted violations over a time series; see Breitgand at paragraph 66-72); and
a second distribution for an expected time required for the identified set to recover to a state that complies with the performance requirement having failed to comply with the performance requirement (times in the time series corrected to no longer be in violation; see Breitgand at paragraph 68-72, 74-82).
As to claim 3, Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose wherein the probability is calculated in dependence on an expected total time in which the identified set does not comply with the performance requirement, and wherein said expected total time is an output from the second distribution based on an input of a sample value for an expected number of times that the identified set does not comply with the performance requirement from the first distribution (see Breitgand at paragraph 68-72, 74-82).
As to claim 4, Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose wherein the probability is calculated in dependence on a count of the number of times over a plurality of sample values from the first distribution when the expected total time exceeds an upper limit for a total time when the identified set does not comply with the performance requirement (see Breitgand at paragraph 68-72, 74-82).
As to claim 5, Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose wherein the probability is calculated in dependence on the retrieved performance status by:
comparing the retrieved performance status to a threshold performance status value (see Breitgand at paragraph 64-66);
determining that the performance status is below the threshold performance status value and therefore subsequently designating the computing component as having no effect on the selected performance attribute (identifying which of the multiple component metrics affect each SLO and identifying component metrics that are of minor importance to a particular SLO; see Breitgand at paragraph 64-66); and
wherein the probability is calculated as a conditional probability of the identified set complying with the performance requirement when said computing component is designated to have no effect on the selected performance attribute (see Breitgand at paragraph 64-74).
As to claim 6, Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose wherein the performance status is retrieved from each computing component of the identified set, and wherein said probability is calculated in dependence on the performance status from each computing component (component threshold violations to predict SLO violations; see Breitgand at paragraph 53-54, 57-67).
As to claim 8, Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose comparing the determined probability to a threshold probability value;
outputting a determination that the computational system is likely to comply with the performance requirement when the determined probability exceeds the threshold probability value (component violations above/below certain thresholds predicting whether SLO will be met or violated; see Breitgand at paragraph 49, 57-63, 67-69); and
outputting a determination that the computational system is unlikely to comply with the performance requirement when the determined probability does not exceed the threshold probability value (see Breitgand at paragraph 49, 57-63, 67-69).
As to claim 9, Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose the computational system is determined to be likely to comply with the performance requirement having designated the computing component to have no current effect on the selected performance attribute (identifying component metrics that are of minor importance to a particular SLO; see Breitgand at paragraph 64).
As to claim 16, Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose the step of repeating the method according to any preceding claim for a further performance attribute and/or for a further performance requirement of the computational system (performing the steps to determine separate thresholds and probabilities for each application and SLO; see Breitgand at paragraph 66).
As to claim 17, Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor associated with a computational system, causes a telecommunication network to perform the method according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above and see Breitgand at paragraph 48).
As to claim 18, while Breitgand discloses an apparatus for monitoring a computational system, the computational system comprising a plurality of interoperating computing components for performing computational operations thereby to provide a computational service to a user, and the computational system comprises a plurality of performance requirements based on at least one performance attribute (Fig. 1, paragraph 30-32), the apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions (paragraph 48) that, when executed by the processor, causes the apparatus to at least be configured to:
select a performance attribute associated with a performance requirement of the computational system (service level requirements; paragraph 49-50);
identify a set of computing components from the plurality of computing components, wherein each of the computing components in the set perform operations affecting the selected performance attribute (paragraph 48-56);
determine a mapping of relationships for the computing components in the identified set in relation to the selected performance attribute (modelled relationships between components and performance values; Fig. 7, paragraph 15-16, 57-72, 109),
retrieve a performance status of a computing component in the identified set (paragraph 54, 57-58, 64-66); and
in dependence on said determined mapping and said retrieved performance status, calculating a probability of the identified set complying with the performance requirement for the selected performance attribute (paragraph 28, 57-62, 64-68),
While Breitgand discloses the mapping comprising a set of operations performed by the computing components (combinations of component metrics predicting SLO violations; paragraph 65), they fail to specifically disclose the mapping comprising a sequence in which operations are performed, the mapping indicating a direction of a relationship between the computing components, the direction of the relationship between the computing components being a direction from an output of a first of the computing components provided to an input of a second of the computing components.
In an analogous art, Gu discloses a system for monitoring performance attributes of a computational system to predicting compliance with performance requirements (paragraph 32, 34-35) which will determine a mapping of relationships for computing components in relation to a selected performance attribute, the mapping comprising a sequence in which operations are performed (mapping common component failure sequences; Fig. 5-6, paragraph 46-51) so as to achieve early performance problem detection by leveraging causality analysis results and identifying and monitoring common failure sequences (paragraph 48, 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breitgand’s system to include the mapping comprising a sequence in which operations are performed, as taught in combination with Gu, for the typical benefit of achieving early performance problem detection by leveraging causality analysis results and identifying and monitoring common failure sequences (paragraph 48, 50).
While Breitgand and Gu disclose wherein the relationship mapping comprises dependency information including communication patterns (see Gu at paragraph 48), they fail to specifically disclose the mapping indicating a direction of a relationship between the computing components, the direction of the relationship between the computing components being a direction from an output of a first of the computing components provided to an input of a second of the computing components.
Additionally, in an analogous art, Little discloses a method for monitoring performance attributes of a computational system (Fig. 3-4; paragraph 30, 52-54, 63-64, 69) which will determine a relationship mapping between computing components (Fig. 2A-B, paragraph 52-58, 69), the mapping indicating a direction of a relationship between the computing components, the direction of the relationship between the computing components being a direction from an output of a first of the computing components provided to an input of a second of the computing components (Fig. 2A-B, paragraph 52-58, 69) so as to gather information on additional variables that can affect the performance characteristics useful to intelligently migrate services between locations within the distributed computing system and track most likely points of failure within the distributed computing system (paragraph 52).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breitgand and Gu’s system to include the mapping indicating a direction of a relationship between the computing components, the direction of the relationship between the computing components being a direction from an output of a first of the computing components provided to an input of a second of the computing components, as taught in combination with Little, for the typical benefit of gathering information on additional variables that can affect the performance characteristics useful to intelligently migrate services between locations within the distributed computing system and tracking most likely points of failure within the distributed computing system (paragraph 48, 50).
As to claim 19, Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose wherein the probability is calculated in dependence on:
a first distribution for an expected number of times that the identified set does not comply with the performance requirement within a predetermined time period (statistical predictive model for predicted violations over a time series; see Breitgand at paragraph 66-72); and
a second distribution for an expected time required for the identified set to recover to a state that complies with the performance requirement having failed to comply with the performance requirement (times in the time series corrected to no longer be in violation; see Breitgand at paragraph 68-72, 74-82).
As to claim 20, Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose wherein the probability is calculated in dependence on an expected total time in which the identified set does not comply with the performance requirement, and wherein said expected total time is an output from the second distribution based on an input of a sample value for an expected number of times that the identified set does not comply with the performance requirement from the first distribution (see Breitgand at paragraph 68-72, 74-82).
As to claim 21, Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose wherein the probability is calculated in dependence on a count of the number of times over a plurality of sample values from the first distribution when the expected total time exceeds an upper limit for a total time when the identified set does not comply with the performance requirement (see Breitgand at paragraph 68-72, 74-82).
Claims 10, 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breitgand, Gu and Little and further in view of Dias et al. (Dias) (US 2005/0188075) (of record).
As to claim 10, while Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose the step of triggering an alert in response to outputting a determination that the computational system is unlikely to comply with the performance requirement (see Breitgand at paragraph 50), they fail to specifically disclose reconfiguring at least one of the computing components within the identified set.
In an analogous art, Dias discloses a system for monitoring performance attributes associated with a performance requirement of a computational system and predicting compliance with the performance requirement (service level agreements; Fig. 1, paragraph 21-23, 29-34, 43-46) which will reconfigure at least one of computing component within an identified set in response to a determination that the computational system is unlikely to comply with the performance requirement (reassigning nodes to meet identified service level agreements; Fig. 3A-B, paragraph 44-57) so as to dynamically reallocate resources and meet required service level agreements (see abstract, paragraph 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breitgand, Gu and Little’s system to include reconfiguring at least one of the computing components within the identified set, as taught in combination with Dias, for the typical benefit of meeting required service level agreements through the dynamic reallocation of resources.
As to claim 11, while Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose the step of triggering an alert in response to outputting a determination that the computational system is unlikely to comply with the performance requirement (paragraph 50), they fail to specifically disclose reconfiguring at least one of the computing components within the identified set so as to decrease the probability of the identified set complying with the performance requirement.
In an analogous art, Dias discloses a system for monitoring performance attributes associated with a performance requirement of a computational system and predicting compliance with the performance requirement (service level agreements; Fig. 1, paragraph 21-23, 29-34, 43-46) which will reconfigure at least one of computing component within an identified set in response to a determination that the computational system is unlikely to comply with the performance requirement (reassigning nodes to meet identified service level agreements; Fig. 3A-B, paragraph 44-57) so as to decrease the probability of the identified set complying with the performance requirement (reassigning resources away from lower priority agreements to ensure the higher priority agreements are not violated; paragraph 47, 53) so as to dynamically reallocate resources and meet higher priority service level agreements (see abstract, paragraph 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breitgand, Gu and Little’s system to include reconfiguring at least one of the computing components within the identified set so as to decrease the probability of the identified set complying with the performance requirement, as taught in combination with Dias, for the typical benefit of meeting higher priority service level agreements through the dynamic reallocation of resources.
As to claim 15, while Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose the step of triggering an alert in response to outputting a determination that the computational system is unlikely to comply with the performance requirement (paragraph 50), they fail to specifically disclose reconfiguring the at least one of the computing components is performed by selecting a computing component to reconfigure in dependence on its importance value.
In an analogous art, Dias discloses a system for monitoring performance attributes associated with a performance requirement of a computational system and predicting compliance with the performance requirement (service level agreements; Fig. 1, paragraph 21-23, 29-34, 43-46) which will reconfigure at least one of computing component within an identified set in response to a determination that the computational system is unlikely to comply with the performance requirement (reassigning nodes to meet identified service level agreements; Fig. 3A-B, paragraph 44-57) in dependence on its importance value (reassigning resources away from lower priority agreements to ensure the higher priority agreements are not violated; paragraph 47, 53) so as to dynamically reallocate resources and meet higher priority service level agreements (see abstract, paragraph 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breitgand, Gu and Little’s system to include reconfiguring the at least one of the computing components is performed by selecting a computing component to reconfigure in dependence on its importance value, as taught in combination with Dias, for the typical benefit of meeting higher priority service level agreements through the dynamic reallocation of resources.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breitgand, Gu and Little in view of Shay et al. (Shay) (US 2004/0153563) (of record).
As to claim 12, while Breitgand, Gu and Little disclose determining the relative importance of each relationship (identifying interdependencies between multiple components and SLOs and which components are important or of minor importance; paragraph 64), they fail to specifically disclose determining a relational weight value for each determined mapping of relationships, wherein the probability is calculated in dependence on said each relational weight value.
In an analogous art, Shay discloses a system for monitoring performance attributes associated with a performance requirement of a computational system and predicting compliance with the performance requirement (service level agreements; paragraph 4, 12, 24) which will determine a relational weight value for each determined mapping of relationships, wherein the probability is calculated in dependence on said each relational weight value (paragraph 23-24, 32-34, 43, 59) so as to find the relationship between multiple component metrics and a service level metric of interest via a weighting of the importance of each component metric (paragraph 24, 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breitgand, Gu and Little’s system to include determining a relational weight value for each determined mapping of relationships, wherein the probability is calculated in dependence on said each relational weight value, as taught in combination with Shay, for the typical benefit of finding the relationship between the multiple component metrics and a service level metric of interest via a weighting of the importance of each component metric.
As to claim 13, Breitgand, Gu, Little and Shay disclose wherein the relational weight value is calculated for a relationship between a first computing component and a second computing component, and wherein said relational weight value is derived from a probability that the second computing component is capable of ensuring compliance with the performance requirement in the event that the performance status of the first computing component is below the threshold performance status value (see Breitgand at paragraph 64 and Shay at paragraph 24, 32-43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James R Sheleheda whose telephone number is (571)272-7357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm CST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at (571) 272-3982. 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.
/James R Sheleheda/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424