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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending and are considered in this Non-Final Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/22/2024 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with Step 1, it is first noted that the claimed system in claims 1-12; and the claimed computer program product in claims 13-14; and the claimed computer program product in claims 15-16 are directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., processes, machine etc.). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied with respect to claims 1-16.
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1-16, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, the independent claim(s) recite(s) (abstract idea recited in italics and additional elements
recited in bold):
Claim 1:
A method performed by a computing device, the method comprising:
querying a set of data sources associated with a data service for historical telemetry data over a lookback period; (data gathering step)
receiving the historical telemetry data from the set of data sources; (data gathering step)
receiving an indication of a provisional service level objective (SLO) from a user via a user interface; (data gathering step)
calculating an adherence of the data service to the provisional SLO with reference to the historical telemetry data; (organizing human activity according to data gathered)
displaying the calculated adherence to the user via the via the user interface;
receiving a setting of an SLO for the data service from the user via the user interface; (data gathering step) and
setting the SLO according to the received setting. (data gathering step)
Claim 13
A system comprising: a user interface; a network connection connected to a network; computing circuitry configured to:
query, over the network connection, a set of data sources associated with a data service for historical telemetry data over a lookback period; (data gathering step)
receive, via the network connection, the historical telemetry data from the set of data sources; (data gathering step)
receive an indication of a provisional service level objective (SLO) from a user via the user interface; (data gathering step)
calculate an adherence of the data service to the provisional SLO with reference to the historical telemetry data; (evaluation of the data gathered)
display the calculated adherence to the user via the via the user interface;
receive a setting of an SLO for the data service from the user via the user interface; (data gathering step) and
set the SLO according to the received setting. (data gathering step)
Claim 15
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions, which, when executed by processing circuitry of a computing device, cause the computing device to:
Query a set of data sources associated with a data service for historical telemetry data over a lookback period; (data gathering step)
Receive the historical telemetry data from the set of data sources; (data gathering step)
receive an indication of a provisional service level objective (SLO) from a user via the user interface; (data gathering step)
calculate an adherence of the data service to the provisional SLO with reference to the historical telemetry data; (evaluation of the data gathered)
display the calculated adherence to the user via the via the user interface;
receive a setting of an SLO for the data service from the user via the user interface; (data gathering step) and
set the SLO according to the received setting. (data gathering step)
The above-recited italicized limitations viewed as an abstract idea are mental processes (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claimed invention is directed to receiving a service level objective according to historical data and evaluating the data according to a data service by comparing to the received service level objective. The evaluative comparison is then used to establish a service level objective for the evaluated data service. Therefore, the claims recite mental processes.
According to Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of bolded additional elements for receiving/transmitting data (e.g., query, over the network connection, a set of data sources associated with a data service for historical telemetry data over a lookback period; receive, via the network connection, the historical telemetry data from the set of data sources; receive an indication of a provisional service level objective (SLO) from a user via the user interface; receive a setting of an SLO for the data service from the user via the user interface; etc.); processing data in the form of evaluating/observing (e.g., calculating an adherence of the data service to the provisional SLO with reference to the historical telemetry data; etc.); storing data; and displaying data (e.g. display the calculated adherence to the user via the via the user interface; etc.) and repeating steps is merely implementing the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea in the manner
of “apply it”. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to practically apply
the judicial exception because they, whether taken separately or as a whole, merely use conventional
computer components or technology to receive, process, store and display data and thus do not provide
an inventive concept in the claims.
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims only recite the above bolded additional elements. The
additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer for setting a service level objective by calculating an adherence of a data service to a historical service level objective) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as evidence of generic computer implementation and an indication that the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more, it is first noted in the Applicant’s Specification, in ¶0009-0015, a “system 30 includes a computing device 32 connected to a set of data sources 42 (depicted as data sources 42(a), 42(b), 42(c), . . .) via a network 35 and connected to a set of UI devices 44, 46. In some embodiments, system 30 may also include a remote user device 50. Network 35 may be any kind of communications network or set of communications networks, such as, for example, a LAN, WAN, SAN, the Internet, a wireless communication network, a virtual network, a fabric of interconnected switches, etc. Both computing device 32 and remote user device 50 may be any kind of computing device, such as, for example, a personal computer, laptop, workstation, server, enterprise server, tablet, smartphone, etc. Both computing device 32 and remote user device 50 may include processing circuitry 36, network interface circuitry 34, and memory 40. In addition, at least one of computing device 32 and remote user device 50 also includes user interface (UI) circuitry 38 for connecting to a UI input device 44 and a display device 46. Both computing device 32 and remote user device 50 may also include various additional features as is well-known in the art, such as, for example, interconnection buses, etc. Processing circuitry 36 may include any kind of processor or set of processors configured to perform operations, such as, for example, a microprocessor, a multi-core microprocessor, a digital signal processor, a system on a chip (SoC), a collection of electronic circuits, a similar kind of controller, or any combination of the above. Network interface circuitry 34 may include one or more Ethernet cards, cellular modems, Fibre Channel (FC) adapters, InfiniBand adapters, wireless networking adapters (e.g., Wi-Fi), and/or other devices for connecting to a network 35. UI circuitry 38 may include any circuitry needed to communicate with and connect to one or more user input devices 44 and display screens 46 operated by a user 48. UI circuitry 38 may include, for example, a keyboard controller, a mouse controller, a touch controller, a serial bus port and controller, a universal serial bus (USB) port and controller, a wireless controller and antenna (e.g., Bluetooth), a graphics adapter and port, etc. Display screen 46 may be any kind of display, including, for example, a CRT screen, LCD screen, LED screen, etc. Input device 44 may include a keyboard, keypad, mouse, trackpad, trackball, pointing stick, joystick, touchscreen (e.g., embedded within display screen 46), microphone/voice controller, etc. In some embodiments, instead of being external to computing device 32 or remote user device 50, the input device 44 and/or display screen 46 may be embedded within the computing device 32 or remote user device 50 (e.g., a cell phone or tablet with an embedded touchscreen). Display screen 88 is configured to display a UI 88, such as a graphical UI (GUI) 89 or a text-based UI. As additional evidence of conventional computer implementation, it is noted in the MPEP, the courts have recognized that “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” (See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) and “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (e.g. retrieving telemetry data from data sources) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). From the interpretation of the MPEP and the Specification, one would reasonably deduce that the additional elements are merely embodies generic computers and generic computing functions.
Dependent claims 2-8, 12, 14 and 16 recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea by calculating statistics (evaluation) of the gathered telemetry data. These claims also utilize a graphical user interface in its generic function of displaying (e.g., “presenting the calculated statistics…;” “presenting the recommended value of the SLO…;” “displaying the calculated error budget….;” etc.). As shown in the excerpt of Applicant’s Specification above, the “display screen 46 may be any kind of display, including, for example, a CRT screen, LCD screen, LED screen, etc. Input device 44 may include a keyboard, keypad, mouse, trackpad, trackball, pointing stick, joystick, touchscreen (e.g., embedded within display screen 46), microphone/voice controller, etc.” The use of the graphical user interface fails to practically apply the abstract idea and amount to significantly more, as it merely
implements the abstract idea on the graphical user interface in the manner of ‘apply it.’
Dependent claims 9-11 also further describes data gathering steps (e.g., “querying a set of data sources…;” “receiving, from the user via the user interface, a selection of the set of data sources from a plurality of available data sources;” “submitting a query definition…;”) narrows the abstract idea of calculating statistics (evaluation) with the gathered telemetry data. As described above, the courts have recognized “storing and retrieving information in memory,” (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (e.g. retrieving telemetry data from data sources)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). These claims also narrow the abstract idea by calculating statistics (evaluation) of the gathered telemetry data.
While the dependent claims 2-12, 14 and 16 narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea, they do not practically apply the abstract idea or provide ‘something more.’
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behl et al. (United States Patent, 11,695,655, hereinafter referred to as Behl) in view of Long et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, US 2021/0357280, hereinafter referred to as Long).
As per Claim 1, Behl discloses a method performed by a computing device, the method comprising:
querying a set of data sources associated with a data service for historical telemetry data over a lookback period (Behl: See Fig. 1 where the data is retrieved from a set of sources (e.g. server groups). See Col. 16, lines 2-7 where historical telemetry data of the server groups is stored and maintained in a database. See also Col. 16, lines 28-51 where the historical data is queried for a corresponding time period, a portion of a time period or even a threshold of a time period. Applicant’s Specification defines a lookback period as “the length of time over which the historical telemetry data in the query response covers.” Therefore, the historical data time period defined in Behl discloses a lookback period.);
receiving the historical telemetry data from the set of data sources (Behl: See Col. 16, lines 2-23 where historical data of the server groups is stored and maintained in a database. The analytics evaluator may receive the historical telemetry information to calculate or generating a performance metric.);
calculating an adherence of the data service to the… SLO with reference to the historical telemetry data (Behl: Cols. 19, lines 65-67 -Col. 20, lines 1-13: By comparing to historical data, SLO can be identified. Statistics are the calculated to determine whether the SLOs are being met.);
displaying the calculated adherence to the user via the via the user interface (Behl: Col. 20, lines 1-13: Statistics are the calculated to determine whether the SLOs are being met which is presented to a user on a dashboard. See Fig. 14-16.);
receiving a setting of an SLO for the data service from the user via the user interface and setting the SLO according to the received setting (Behl: Cols. 19, lines 65-67 -Col. 20, lines 1-13: By comparing to historical data, SLO can be identified and determined to establish reliability measures for a service group.).
Behl does not explicitly disclose; however, Long discloses:
receiving an indication of a provisional service level objective (SLO) from a user via a user interface (Long: ¶0044-0045: A user may guess a service level objective that is received via the web interface on the application.);
calculating an adherence of the data service to the provisional SLO with reference to the historical telemetry data (Long: ¶0044-0046, 0049-0050 and 0065: A user may guess a service level objective that is received via the web interface on the application. A calculation service may use historical telemetry data to determine an amount of failed observations and calculate a breach.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Behl with Long’s establishment of a SLO to evaluate performance indicators because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed towards setting service level objective for telemetry elements, and because incorporating Long’s establishment of a SLO to evaluate performance indicators in Behl would have served Behl’s pursuit of providing reliability indicators in accordance with service level objectives (See Behl, Col. 8,lines 20-22); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 13 and 15 recite limitations already rejected by the rejection of claim 1; therefore, the same rejection applies. Behl also discloses the following claim limitations of claim 13: a user interface; a network connection connected to a network; computing circuitry (Behl: Fig. 18). Behl also discloses the following claim limitations of claim 15: a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions, which, when executed by processing circuitry of a computing device, cause the computing device to (Behl: Col. 22, lines 44-67).
As per Claim 2, Behl in view of Long discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user interface is a graphical user interface (GUI), and the method further comprises: calculating statistics about the received historical telemetry data and presenting the calculated statistics to the user via the GUI (Behl: Col. 18, lines 49-56: The dashboard handler may provide at least a portion of the historical data for the corresponding function. The portion of the historical data may identify of include metrics, such as consumption of computing resources, number of requests, latency, success rate, or number or rate of errors, among others, as discussed above.).
Claims 14 and 16 recite limitations already rejected by the rejection of claim 2; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 3, Behl in view of Long discloses the method of claim 2.
Behl does not explicitly disclose; however, Long discloses wherein the method further comprises, in response to calculating the statistics: determining a recommended value of the SLO based on the calculated statistics; and presenting the recommended value of the SLO to the user via the GUI prior to receiving the indication from the user. (Long: ¶0044-0045: A calculation service may evaluate historical statistics to recommend a SLO and notify the user on the web interface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Behl with Long’s establishment of a SLO to evaluate performance indicators because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed towards setting service level objective for telemetry elements, and because incorporating Long’s establishment of a SLO to evaluate performance indicators in Behl would have served Behl’s pursuit of providing reliability indicators in accordance with service level objectives (See Behl, Col. 8,lines 20-22); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 4, Behl in view of Long discloses the method of claim 2 wherein the method further comprises: receiving an indication of an SLO time period from the user via the GUI, the lookback time period being shorter than the SLO time period; calculating an error budget remaining in the SLO time period after the lookback time period; and displaying the calculated error budget remaining to the user via the GUI (Behl: Col. 16, lines 37-50 whereas a user may indicate a time interval for analyzing a historical metric in the data, whereas the interval can represent a portion of the historical time interval. See Fig. 16-17 for the error budget rate calculated and displayed. Specifically, Fig. 17 allows the user to select a lookback period to display the error budget.).
As per Claim 5, Behl in view of Long discloses the method of claim 4 wherein the method further comprises: calculating an error budget burn rate; estimating, using the error budget and the error budget burn rate, an adherence throughout a remainder of the SLO time period after the lookback period; and displaying the estimated adherence throughout the remainder of the SLO time period to the user via the GUI (Behl: Col. 16, lines 37-50 whereas a user may indicate a time interval for analyzing a historical metric in the data, whereas the interval can represent a portion of the historical time interval. See Fig. 12 for calculated failure count based on current trend [error budget burn rate]. See Fig. 16-17 for the error budget rate calculated and displayed. Specifically, Fig. 16 identifies the estimated adherence to a monthly SLO according to budget failures. Col. 19, lines 60-67 provide the estimated adherence to the SLO according to a time period. Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification, ¶0028, identifies an error budget burn rate as “how many failed service requests are expected per unit of time (e.g., per day) based on current trends.”).
As per Claim 6, Behl in view of Long discloses the method of claim 2 wherein: calculating the statistics includes calculating a set of percentile values from the historical telemetry data; and presenting the calculated statistics to the user via the GUI includes displaying the calculated set of percentile values (Behl: Col. 16, lines 1-16: Analytics retrieval element may retrieve historical data for display of performance indicators on a user interface. See Fig. 16 for display of percentiles for telemetry statistics.).
As per Claim 7, Behl in view of Long discloses the method of claim 6.
Behl does not explicitly disclose; however, Long discloses wherein the set of percentile values includes a 90* percentile, a 95* percentile, a 99th percentile, and a maximum value (Long: ¶0039: The percentile values may be 0%-100%. See example and maximum threshold in ¶0047-0049.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Behl with Long’s establishment of a SLO to evaluate performance indicators because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed towards setting service level objective for telemetry elements, and because incorporating Long’s establishment of a SLO to evaluate performance indicators in Behl would have served Behl’s pursuit of providing reliability indicators in accordance with service level objectives (See Behl, Col. 8,lines 20-22); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 8, Behl in view of Long discloses the method of claim 2 wherein presenting the calculated statistics to the user via the GUI includes displaying a histogram of the received historical telemetry data via the GUI (Behl: Col. 16, lines 1-16: Analytics retrieval element may retrieve historical data for display of performance indicators on a user interface. See Fig. 5 for histogram of historical telemetry data.).
As per Claim 9, Behl in view of Long discloses the method of claim 1 wherein querying a set of data sources is performed in response to the user submitting a query definition via the user interface (Behl: See Col. 21, lines 15-20 and Fig. 20: See user interface for query interface where a user can submit a query definition.).
As per Claim 10, Behl in view of Long discloses the method of claim 9 wherein the method further comprises receiving, from the user via the user interface, a selection of the set of data sources from a plurality of available data sources (Behl: See Col. 16, lines 2-23 where historical data of the server groups is stored and maintained in a database. The analytics evaluator may receive the historical telemetry information to calculate or generating a performance metric. See selection on interface in Col. 4 lines 1-11.).
As per Claim 11, Behl in view of Long discloses the method of claim 9 wherein: the user submitting a query definition via the user interface includes the user submitting (1) a first query definition identifying a first subset of the data sources, the first query definition identifying a set of satisfied service requests that adhered to a threshold service value, and (2) a second query definition identifying a second subset of the data sources, the second query definition identifying a total set of service requests regardless of adherence to the threshold service value; and calculating the adherence of the data service to the… SLO includes dividing a number of elements of the set of satisfied service requests that adhered to the threshold service value by a number of elements of the total set of service requests (Behl: Col. 16, lines 37-67: The analytics evaluator may calculate a threshold to compare against performance metrics of the historical telemetry data. An average (e.g. total number divided by a number of elements) of historical data may be calculated to determine the performance metrics to compare to the threshold. See Col. 20, lines 7-22 where an interface is provided for queries of the data sources to calculate the metrics for SLOs used to determine adherence. See Figs. 14-16 for example interfaces where the user submits query definitions.).
Behl does not explicitly disclose; however, Long discloses calculating the adherence of the data service to the provisional SLO includes dividing a number of elements of the set of satisfied service requests that adhered to the threshold service value by a number of elements of the total set of service requests (Long: ¶0044-0047: A user may guess a service level objective that is received via the web interface on the application. A calculation for SLO adherence to a threshold is calculated by ratio of the number of successful observations over the total number of observations over a configurable SLI window which may be based on time.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Behl with Long’s establishment of a SLO to evaluate performance indicators because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed towards setting service level objective for telemetry elements, and because incorporating Long’s establishment of a SLO to evaluate performance indicators in Behl would have served Behl’s pursuit of providing reliability indicators in accordance with service level objectives (See Behl, Col. 8,lines 20-22); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 12, Behl in view of Long discloses the method of claim 1.
Behl does not explicitly disclose; however, Long discloses receiving the indication of the provisional SLO from the user includes receiving a provisional threshold performance level from the user; calculating the adherence of the data service to the provisional SLO includes: filtering the historical telemetry data for data points that meet the provisional threshold performance level; and obtaining the adherence by dividing a number of elements of the filtered historical telemetry data by a total number of elements of the historical telemetry data (Long: ¶0043-0048: A user may guess a service level objective that is received via the web interface on the application. A calculation for SLO adherence to a threshold is calculated by ratio of the number of successful observations over the total number of observations over a configurable SLI window which may be based on time, number of observations or datapoints (e.g., 500 observations) depending upon the configured weightage. The calculation service determines the adherence according to a threshold level based on historical data.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Behl with Long’s establishment of a SLO to evaluate performance indicators because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed towards setting service level objective for telemetry elements, and because incorporating Long’s establishment of a SLO to evaluate performance indicators in Behl would have served Behl’s pursuit of providing reliability indicators in accordance with service level objectives (See Behl, Col. 8,lines 20-22); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilkinson et al. (US 11,621,882): Aspects of the present disclosure are directed to an automated remediation system that can receive service level objective (SLO) alerts or notifications and, based on the type, take automated remedial actions. The automated remediation system can perform automated responses to various SLO alerts such as latency alerts, error budget alerts, burn rate alerts, etc. The automated remediation system can utilize a mapping to select which automated response to perform; can measure the effectiveness of the automated response using a metric defined for the alert type; and, until the issue is resolved or no further actions are mapped to the alert type, can repeat the initial automated response or can take secondary automated responses. The automated remediation system can also report the alert and the remedial actions taken.
Guha (US 2021/0349749): In one aspect, a method for dynamic provisioning storage for virtual machines by meeting the service level objectives (SLOB) set in the service level agreement (SLA) is provided. The SLA pertains to the operation of a first virtual machine, the method includes the step of monitoring the workload of the first virtual machine. The method includes the step of establishing at least one SLO, typically on performance, in response to the workload. The SLO comprises a set of specific performance targets requirements for a service level of the workload of the first virtual machine that are designed to be met by the provisioned resource so as to comply with the SLA by meeting the SLO. The provisioned resource is associated with the first virtual machine. The method determines an SLA that specifies the first SLO. The SLA comprises a contract that includes consequences of meeting or missing the SLO.
Priescu et al. (US 11,190,419): Memory is identified for a first set of histogram buckets for a metric with bucket value ranges distributed according to a first function, and a second set of histogram buckets with bucket value ranges distributed according to a second function. The second set of buckets overlaps with a metric value range targeted for enhanced granularity analysis. After the histogram is updated in response to obtaining metric values, a representation of at least some of the buckets is sent to a destination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9334. The examiner can normally be reached 9-2pm ET, M-F.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 5712705389. 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.
ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/ALLISON M NEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625