DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application, filed November 4, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
The present application was filed on December 15, 2022, which is on or after March 16, 2013, and thus is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munjal et al. (US 10,860,071 B2) in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US 10,521,235 B1) and further in view of Tabet et al. (US 10,193,753 B1) and further in view of Embleton et al. (US 2022/0027228 A1) and further in view of Malboubi et al. (US 2019/0394080 A1).
As per claim 1: A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving data for one or more applications associated with one or more operational functionalities of a data center;
Munjal discloses [col. 7, lines 6-20] BMCs on each server blades receives data with one or more operational functionalities of a data server.
detecting a failure of one or more components associated with the data center monitored by the one or more applications or the one or more related applications;
Munjal discloses [Fig. 4; col. 6, lines 17-54] detecting failures of one or more components monitored by the system and determining a mitigation and resolution of the failure based upon changes and information associated with the failure.
associating the one or more applications with one or more related applications, performing one or more independent operational functionalities, of the data center;
Munjal discloses [col. 6, lines 3-10] profiling CPU data and correlating to different related conditions, but fails to explicitly disclose associating application with one or more related application for the data center. Balasubramanian discloses a similar method, which further teaches [Fig. 5; col. 12, lines 10-48 and col. 24, lines 12-62] detecting a failure determined by using machine learnings models and creating a tree for a target application and one or more related dependency services/applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Munjal with that of Balasubramanian. One would have been motivated to associate application with one or more related applications because it allows to determine outage of the target application and the sub-dependencies of the target application [Balasubramanian; col. 24, lines 40-50].
Munjal and Balasubramanian disclose associating one or more applications with a related application, but fail to explicitly disclose associating applications that perform operational functionalities of the data center. Tabet discloses a similar method, which further teaches [Fig. 4; col. 10, lines 9-23] the data center layer is configured to provide functions of IoT data, deep analytics, and configuration of process. Additionally, the data center layer includes operational and information management functions. Most applications (one or more related applications) associated with the IoT platform are implemented in the data center layer. Such applications and the identified related functions are implemented using processing platform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Munjal and Balasubramanian with that of Tabet. One would have been motivated to associating applications that perform operational functionalities because it allows to monitor operational and informational management functions as well as infrastructure management [Tabet; col. 10, lines 9-23].
causing at least one change to the one or more components associated with the data center based on the determined root cause of the failure.
Munjal, Balasubramanian, and Tabet disclose mitigating and resolving a failure, but fail to explicitly disclose causing a change based on the cause of a failure. Embleton discloses a similar method, which further teaches [Fig. 4.1, 4.2; 0130-0136] causing a change in one or more components based on determining a cause of the failure for the component being corrosion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Munjal, Balasubramanian, and Tabet with that of Embleton. One would have been motivated to cause a change in the component because it mitigates premature failure [Embleton; 0127].
determining, using a neural network, a root cause of the failure, wherein the neural network infers the root cause of the failure by processing detected changes and contextual information extracted by the one or more applications and the one or more related applications from an environment associated with the data center, the detected changes associated with the failure; and
Munjal, Balasubramanian, Tabet, and Embleton disclose determining a root cause of the failure associated with one or more applications and the one or more related applications of the data center, but fail to explicitly disclose contextual information extracted from environment associated with the device. Malboubi discloses a similar method, which further teaches [0020] a change detection module using a plurality of KPIs from a device and KPIs from other devices (information extracted from environment). An expert system may use machine learning that utilizes the information from a device and its environment devices to determine the root cause.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Munjal, Balasubramanian, Tabet, and Embleton with that of Malboubi. One would have been motivated to infer root cause of failure using neural network and contextual information from environment because it allows to detect the main root cause of an anomaly [Malboubi; 0020].
As per claim 2: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the root cause of the failure is determined using at least one neural network trained to: observe and extract the contextual information from a surrounding environment, and generate one or more recommendations related to the failure.
Embleton discloses [0128] the cause of failure of corrosion is determined using a predictive model. The predictive model may be machine learning and generate recommendation related to the failure.
As per claim 3: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a service ticket identifying the root cause of the failure; and providing the service ticket and one or more corrective actions to be taken on the display interface.
Munjal discloses [Fig. 4; col. 6, lines 17-54] generating service requirements identifying the root cause of the failure and providing one or more correction actions to be taken.
As per claim 4: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: dynamically allocating one or more maintenance tasks associated with the failure based, at least in part, upon historical data trends.
Embleton discloses [0128] the predictive model may be machine learning using historical data to dynamically predict future data associated with the failure.
As per claim 5: The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the one or more maintenance tasks are dynamically allocated based further in part upon one or more policies defining skillsets required for handling the one or more maintenance tasks.
Munjal discloses [Fig. 4; col. 6, lines 17-54] generating service requirements identifying the root cause of the failure and providing one or more correction actions to be taken based upon required handling of the one or more maintenance tasks.
As per claim 6: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein associating the one or more applications with the one or more related applications further comprises: associating one or more parent nodes of the one or more applications with one or more child nodes of the one or more related applications in a data structure.
Embleton discloses [0096-0097] one or more data structures that include information regarding the conditions within a chassis (parent nodes) and its components (child nodes).
As per claim 7: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein causing the at least one change to the one or more components based on the determined cause further comprises: causing an adjustment in at least one operating state for at least one of the one or more components.
Embleton discloses [Fig. 4.1, 4.2; 0130-0136] causing a change in one or more components based on determining a cause of the failure for the component being corrosion.
As per claims 8-14: Although claims 8-14 are directed towards a system claim, they are rejected under the same rationale as the method claims 1-7 above.
As per claims 15-20: Although claims 15-20 are directed towards a medium claim, they are rejected under the same rationale as the method claims 1-7 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
· US 2011/0022812 A1 – van der Linden discloses the data center provides access to applications related to core business and operational data for an organization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGAR P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5067. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 10AM-6PM.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIGAR P PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114