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 .
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/08/2025. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 have been amended. Any examiner’s note, objection, and rejection not repeated is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures, and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may also apply. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “authenticated and authorized to access AVs in the fleet of EVs”. EVs are not defined. The Examiner assumes AVs was intended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a test operator configured to reconcile... (Claim 1);
the test operator is also configured to run a reconcile function on the custom resource to: determine whether time elapsed... (Claim 3);
the test operator is also configured to run a reconcile function on the custom resource to: in response to the time elapsed... (Claim 3);
the test operator is also configured to run a further reconcile function on a further custom resource to: place a message... (Claim 4).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, the claims recite a “test operator” configured to: “reconcile a custom resource to emit tests of an autonomous vehicle (AV) in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network, wherein the custom resource represents a state of a repetitive task scheduler” (Claim 1); run a reconcile function on the custom resource to determine whether time elapsed from a time when a last test was created is greater than a predefined period of time (Claim 3); run a reconcile function on the custom resource to: in response to the time elapsed being greater than the predefined period of time, create a new test of the AV (Claim 3); and run a further reconcile function on a further custom resource to place a message having a configuration of a new test of the AV onto the message queue each time the further reconcile function is completed (Claim 4). The instant specification presents [0067] to show examples of what a test operator may be: “test operator may have a reconciliation/control loop, and may reconcile a custom resource by executing a reconcile function regularly. Regularly can include one or more of: every 5 minutes, every X minutes, every hour, every day, and/or upon request. The test operator may execute or perform a reconcile function at a certain cadence, upon request, and/or when triggered. A test operator may modify a real-world state to match a desired state specified in the custom resource. The test operator is not to be confused with human operators or cluster operators” (Paragraph 67). The disclosure of “a test operator is a process that can be implemented on hardware resources on cluster infrastructure” is insufficient to tell a person of ordinary skill in the art how to implement or execute the claimed functionality of claims 1, 3, and 4. The disclosure does not provide sufficient description of the specific structure or algorithm used to implement the test operator beyond the unbound examples listed in the instant specification.
Any claim not explicitly mentioned is rejected due to dependency on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation a “test operator” configured to: “reconcile a custom resource to emit tests of an autonomous vehicle (AV) in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network, wherein the custom resource represents a state of a repetitive task scheduler” (Claim 1); run a reconcile function on the custom resource to determine whether time elapsed from a time when a last test was created is greater than a predefined period of time (Claim 3); run a reconcile function on the custom resource to: in response to the time elapsed being greater than the predefined period of time, create a new test of the AV (Claim 3); and run a further reconcile function on a further custom resource to place a message having a configuration of a new test of the AV onto the message queue each time the further reconcile function is completed (Claim 4) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The term “operator” is a nonce word that does not connote specific structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In the absence of clear structural limitations or well-defined corresponding structure or algorithmic steps in the specification, the scope of the claimed “operator” is unclear. Additionally, because the specification only identifies possible implementations of the test operator without describing limiting mechanisms by which the test operator may reconcile a custom resource to emit tests, determine whether time elapsed is greater than a predefined period, create a new test of the AV, or place a message having a configuration of a new test onto the message queue, is performed, it is unclear what specific structure or process is encompassed by the claim. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Any claim not explicitly mentioned is rejected due to dependency on a rejected claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padevski et al. (US 20240241741 A1) hereafter Padevski in view of Vivekanandan et al. (US 20230156041 A1) hereafter Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam (US 20230139933 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Padevski teaches:
A computer-implemented system comprising: a test operator (Paragraph 17; “To initiate a health check, the health monitor is configured to enqueue in a serial work queue an invocation to a health checker deployed on a same computing machine (e.g., a same VM) as the health monitor.”, where the health monitor corresponds to the applicant’s test operator) configured to reconcile a custom resource to emit tests of an endpoint in a cluster, wherein the custom resource represents a state of a repetitive task scheduler (Paragraph 4; where the custom resource corresponds to resources allocated for performance of a health check corresponding to tests of an endpoint in a cluster. Paragraph 17 further discloses a health monitor which enqueues the tests, corresponding to the test operator that emits tests. Paragraph 43 further discloses the health checker that performs the operation);
a message queue to receive, tests of the endpoint and other endpoints in the cluster, submitted as messages, from the test operator (Paragraph 17; where the work queue corresponds to the applicant’s message queue, the health check requests within the work queue correspond to the messages to test endpoints in the cluster, performed by the health monitor, corresponding to the test operator);
and a worker to poll the message queue, consume the messages in the message queue, and execute and evaluate tests specified in the messages (Paragraph 43; where the health checker corresponds to the worker that polls the active queue for health checks in which a person of ordinary skill in the art would infer the requests as being consumed upon completion).
Padevski does not teach a worker pool with a plurality of workers explicitly consuming messages.
However, Vivekanandan teaches:
a worker pool having a plurality of workers that consume tests (Paragraph 43; “The message broker 422 is a pipeline where job tickets are queued for consumption by the workers 430.”).
Padevski and Vivekanandan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endpoint monitoring in cloud systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Padevski with Vivekanandan to have utilized a plurality of workers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find the usage of multiple workers as a logical design decision for parallel processing.
Padevski in view of Vivekanandan does not teach that the endpoints are AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network.
However, Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
Padevski, Vivekanandan, and Tam are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of resource monitoring in cloud systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski in view of Vivekanandan to incorporate the teachings of Tam to have the endpoints be an AV in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the systems in AVs provide computing, sensing, and communication capabilities that are suitable for endpoints in a distributed fleet system, and the implementation of those systems as endpoints would yield the predictable result of directly integrating telemetry, control, and operational data collection while eliminating the need for separate intermediary endpoints and increasing reliability.
Regarding claim 2, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teaches the system of claim 1. Padevski teaches:
an authentication system to provide tokens to resources (Paragraph 50; “health checker 152 is configured to issue and validate security tokens. Security tokens may contain information about a user and a resource for which the token is intended”).
Vivekanandan teaches:
wherein the tokens allow the workers to be authenticated and authorized to access the endpoints in the cluster (Paragraph 45; where Vivekanandan discloses authentication handoffs between workers).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the idea of authentication handoff between workers in Vivekanandan with the security token authorization. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the need to only allow necessary permissions to necessary workers, with the desire to follow computer security design guidelines.
Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized AVs in place of cluster endpoints. Substituting AVs for generic endpoints represents a straightforward and predictable implementation in the field of autonomous vehicles. The functions performed by the endpoints are naturally supported by an AV platform and such a substitution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and yields the predictable result of AVs performing endpoint operations.
Regarding claim 4, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teaches the system of claim 1. Padevski teaches:
the test operator (Paragraph 17; “To initiate a health check, the health monitor is configured to enqueue in a serial work queue an invocation to a health checker deployed on a same computing machine (e.g., a same VM) as the health monitor.”, where the health monitor is capable of running a reconcile function on a custom resource and thereby corresponds to the applicant’s test operator).
place a message having a configuration of a new test of the endpoint onto the message queue each time the further reconcile function is completed (Paragraph 43; where the health check request corresponds to a message containing a configuration of a new test on the endpoint. The health check queue corresponds to the message queue. Awaiting completion before queueing corresponds to performing the action each time the further reconcile function is completed).
Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized AVs in place of cluster endpoints. Substituting AVs for generic endpoints represents a straightforward and predictable implementation in the field of autonomous vehicles. The functions performed by the endpoints are naturally supported by an AV platform and such a substitution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and yields the predictable result of AVs performing endpoint operations.
Regarding claim 5, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teaches the system of claim 1. Padevski teaches:
wherein a message in the message queue comprises a configuration of an endpoint test on the endpoint (Paragraph 17; where the serial work queue containing an invocation to a health checker corresponds to the messages in the message queue containing a configuration of an endpoint test. Paragraph 4 further discloses the health check containing the endpoint test: “A health check may include checking each layer of the network stack to identify a root cause of the issue. For example, the health check may include attempting to open a TCP connection to a networked endpoint on a specified port”).
Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized AVs in place of cluster endpoints. Substituting AVs for generic endpoints represents a straightforward and predictable implementation in the field of autonomous vehicles. The functions performed by the endpoints are naturally supported by an AV platform and such a substitution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and yields the predictable result of AVs performing endpoint operations.
Regarding claim 7, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teaches the system of claim 1. Padevski teaches:
wherein the tests of the endpoint comprise health tests in the cluster (Paragraph 16; where the health check corresponds to health tests. Paragraph 23 further discloses that hosts performing the health check on their associated VMs may be subdivided into a plurality of host clusters).
Vivekanandan teaches:
an application programming interface (Paragraph 43; “The APIs 410 and the authentication provider 420 connect to a message broker 422, which is configured to interact between the APIs 410, the authentication provider 420, and a plurality of workers 430”).
Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized AVs in place of cluster endpoints. Substituting AVs for generic endpoints represents a straightforward and predictable implementation in the field of autonomous vehicles. The functions performed by the endpoints are naturally supported by an AV platform and such a substitution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and yields the predictable result of AVs performing endpoint operations.
Regarding claim 9, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teaches the system of claim 1. Padevski teaches:
wherein a worker in the worker pool is configured to: execute and evaluate a test specified in a message from the message queue (Paragraph 18; “The health checker is configured to initialize resources necessary for performing each health check requested by a health monitor deployed on a same computing machine as the health checker”, where the performance of the health check by the health check worker in the queue corresponds to the test specified in a message from the message queue);
execute a command corresponding to the test on the endpoint (Paragraph 18; “Further, the health checker is configured to perform each enqueued health check”);
evaluate a response to the command to produce a metric (Paragraph 18; “Performing the health check includes checking whether one or more issues exist at different layers of a network stack implemented at a host where an application associated with the failed connection(s) (e.g., which initiate the health check) is deployed”);
and emit the metric to an endpoint monitoring system (Paragraph 20; “When a health check is finished, each component and/or application which requested a callback may be informed of the status (e.g., healthy, degraded, or unhealthy) of the system”, where the component/application that requested a callback corresponds to the endpoint monitoring system).
Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized AVs in place of cluster endpoints. Substituting AVs for generic endpoints represents a straightforward and predictable implementation in the field of autonomous vehicles. The functions performed by the endpoints are naturally supported by an AV platform and such a substitution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and yields the predictable result of AVs performing endpoint operations.
Regarding claim 10, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teaches the system of claim 9. Padevski teaches:
wherein the metric represents success or failure (Paragraph 20; where the healthy metric corresponds to success, unhealthy or degraded corresponds to failure).
Regarding claim 12, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teaches the system of claim 1. Padevski teaches:
wherein the workers are configured to operate in parallel (Paragraph 68; operations performed by the health checker correspond to the operations of the workers. Paragraph 72 further discloses operating in parallel).
Vivekanandan teaches:
a worker pool having a plurality of workers (Paragraph 43; “The message broker 422 is a pipeline where job tickets are queued for consumption by the workers 430.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam, further in view of Subramaniam et al. (US 20220232066 A1) hereafter Subramaniam.
Regarding claim 3, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teaches the system of claim 1. Padevski teaches:
the test operator (Paragraph 17; “To initiate a health check, the health monitor is configured to enqueue in a serial work queue an invocation to a health checker deployed on a same computing machine (e.g., a same VM) as the health monitor.”, where the health monitor is capable of running the reconcile function on the custom resource to check an elapsed time against a threshold, thereby corresponding to the applicant’s test operator).
Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized AVs as endpoints for testing.
Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam does not teach determining whether time elapsed from a time when a last test was created is greater than a predefined period of time; and in response to the time elapsed being greater than the predefined period of time, create a new test of the endpoint.
However, Subramaniam teaches:
determine whether time elapsed from a time when a last test was created is greater than a predefined period of time (Paragraph 185; “determining that more than a threshold amount of time has passed since a last connectivity test was performed between the endpoint device and the particular proxy server”);
and in response to the time elapsed being greater than the predefined period of time, create a new test of the endpoint (Paragraph 185; “In an example, if the endpoint device has tried to connect to all known proxy servers (e.g., the proxy servers that were determined by the last connectivity test) then endpoint device may perform a new connectivity test with the cached proxy server list (the endpoint device may receive a new list every 24 hours)”).
Padevski, Vivekanandan, Tam, and Subramaniam are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endpoint monitoring in cloud systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski in view of Vivekanandan further in view of Tam to incorporate the teachings of Subramanium and determine a time elapsed, check if the time is greater than a threshold, and create a new test if so. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that systems update over time, and if an elapsed time is greater than a specific threshold, the system configuration would likely need to be updated.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam further in view of Sethi et al. (US 20240267440 A1) hereafter Sethi.
Regarding claim 6, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teaches the system of claim 1. Padevski teaches:
endpoints in clusters (Paragraph 15; “health monitors and health checkers running on any network entities (e.g., virtualized endpoints”, in which the hosts of the health monitor/checker may be logically divided into clusters as disclosed in Paragraph 23; “Host(s) 102 may be in a single host cluster 110 (as shown) or logically divided into a plurality of host clusters”).
Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized AVs in place of cluster endpoints. Substituting AVs for generic endpoints represents a straightforward and predictable implementation in the field of autonomous vehicles. The functions performed by the endpoints are naturally supported by an AV platform and such a substitution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and yields the predictable result of AVs performing endpoint operations.
Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam does not teach wherein the tests of the endpoint comprises pings to a unique resource locator (URL).
However, Sethi teaches:
wherein the tests of the endpoint comprises pings to a unique resource locator (URL) (Paragraph 33; “Then, at block 363, a ping test for the source or destination via relevant uniform resource locators (URLs) and IP addresses is performed to, for example, verify if the address exists and can handle requests”).
Padevski, Vivekanandan, Tam, and Sethi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring in cloud systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam with Sethi to have had the endpoint tests comprise pings to a URL. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that URLs are a form of endpoint that could be tested when performing an endpoint test.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam, further in view of Sampath et al. (US 12062439 B2) hereafter Sampath.
Regarding claim 8, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teaches the system of claim 1. Padevski teaches:
an endpoint test on the endpoint (Paragraph 17; where the serial work queue containing an invocation to a health checker corresponds to the messages in the message queue containing a configuration of an endpoint test. Paragraph 4 further discloses the health check containing the endpoint test: “A health check may include checking each layer of the network stack to identify a root cause of the issue. For example, the health check may include attempting to open a TCP connection to a networked endpoint on a specified port”).
Vivekanandan teaches:
wherein a worker in the worker pool is configured to: consume a message from the message queue (Paragraph 43; “The message broker 422 is a pipeline where job tickets are queued for consumption by the workers 430”);
Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized AVs in place of cluster endpoints. Substituting AVs for generic endpoints represents a straightforward and predictable implementation in the field of autonomous vehicles. The functions performed by the endpoints are naturally supported by an AV platform and such a substitution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and yields the predictable result of AVs performing endpoint operations.
Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam does not teach wherein a worker in the worker pool translates a configuration of an endpoint test on an endpoint in the message into an endpoint test command; and runs the command.
However, Sampath teaches:
translate a configuration of an endpoint test on an endpoint in the message into an endpoint test command (Col. 50, lines 49-59; “The translation module 2415 translates the message from the first medical device 2405 according to any of the methods described herein. Once translated, the translation module 2415 delivers the translated message to the communication bus 2421”);
and run the endpoint test command on the endpoint (Col. 50, lines 49-59; “The second medical device 2410 receives the translated message and responds appropriately. For example, the second medical device may perform a function and/or attempt to communication with the first medical device 2405”).
Padevski, Vivekanandan, Tam, and Sampath are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring in cloud systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam to incorporate the teachings of Sampath and translate the configuration into an endpoint test command before performing the endpoint test command. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, given a configuration from which to test, the configuration would need to be translated into a command before execution is possible, thus allowing modularity in how test deployments are deployed.
Regarding claim 20, Padevski teaches:
A computer-implemented method for performing health checks on protected endpoints in a cluster, the computer-implemented method comprising:
polling, by a worker, a message queue having messages submitted by one or more test operators, wherein the messages correspond to health checks on the endpoints in the cluster (Paragraph 43; where health check worker watches the active queue to determine if there are any active health check requests, corresponding to polling, by a worker, a message queue, in which the health monitor submits the request, corresponding to having been submitted by one or more test operators);
protected resources (Paragraph 50; “Security tokens may contain information about a user and a resource for which the token is intended. The information can be used to access protected resources”);
a test on an endpoint in the cluster (Paragraph 18; where the health check is a test for issues on different layers of a network stack at layers 4, 6, and 7, which includes an endpoint test);
evaluating, by the worker, a response to the test command to produce a metric (Paragraph 18; “Results of performing the health check may indicate whether the system is healthy, degraded, or unhealthy. Mitigating actions may be taken where the system is determined to be degraded or unhealthy”);
and emitting, by the worker, the metric to an endpoint monitoring system (Paragraph 20; “When a health check is finished, each component and/or application which requested a callback may be informed of the status (e.g., healthy, degraded, or unhealthy) of the system”)
Padevski does not teach consuming, by a worker in the worker pool, a message in the message queue.
However, Vivekanandan teaches:
consuming, by a worker in the worker pool, a message in the message queue (Paragraph 43; “The message broker 422 is a pipeline where job tickets are queued for consumption by the workers 430”).
Padevski and Vivekanandan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endpoint monitoring in cloud systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski to incorporate the teachings of Vivekanandan and utilize a plurality of workers to consume messages in a message queue. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the practice as a logical design decision in parallel computing. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the idea of protected resources on endpoints to better secure critical infrastructure.
Padevski in view of Vivekanandan does not teach translating, by the worker, a test configuration in the message into a test command; or the endpoints are AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network.
However, Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
Padevski, Vivekanandan, and Tam are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of resource monitoring in cloud systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski in view of Vivekanandan to incorporate the teachings of Tam to have the endpoints be an AV in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the systems in AVs provide computing, sensing, and communication capabilities that are suitable for endpoints in a distributed fleet system, and the implementation of those systems as endpoints would yield the predictable result of directly integrating telemetry, control, and operational data collection while eliminating the need for separate intermediary endpoints and increasing reliability.
Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam does not teach translating, by the worker, a test configuration in the message into a test command.
However, Sampath teaches:
translating, by the worker, a test configuration in the message into a test command (Col. 50, lines 49-59; “The translation module 2415 translates the message from the first medical device 2405 according to any of the methods described herein. Once translated, the translation module 2415 delivers the translated message to the communication bus 2421”);
and running, by the worker, the test command (Col. 50, lines 49-59; where the appropriate response of the second medical device via performance of a function corresponds to running the test command).
Padevski, Vivekanandan, Tam, and Sampath are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endpoint monitoring in cloud systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam to incorporate the teachings of Sampath and translate test configuration information by the worker into a command. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the need to take the configuration information and deploy a test on the endpoint given said configuration information. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the idea of protected resources on endpoints to better secure critical infrastructure.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster et al. (US 11571618 B1) hereafter Schuster.
Regarding claim 11, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teaches the system of claim 1. Padevski teaches:
executing and evaluating a test specified in a message from the message queue (Paragraph 18; “The health checker is configured to initialize resources necessary for performing each health check requested by a health monitor deployed on a same computing machine as the health checker”, where the performance of the health check by the health check worker in the queue corresponds to the test specified in a message from the message queue);
Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam does not teach wherein the worker pool is set to auto-scale based on resources being consumed to execute and evaluate the tests specified in the messages.
However, Schuster teaches:
wherein the worker pool is configured to auto-scale based on resources being consumed to execute and evaluate the tests specified in the messages (Col. 19, lines 53-59; “In addition, the computing resource provider may provide further facilities for the customer to quickly and easily scale up or scale down the numbers and types of resources allocated to the application, either manually or through automatic scaling, as demand for or capacity requirements of the application change”).
Padevski, Vivekanandan, Tam, and Schuster are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring in cloud computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam to incorporate the teachings of Schuster and have auto scaled based on resources being consumed to execute and evaluate tests specified in the messages. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the need to maintain system functionality during heavy load, representing a logical load balancing design decision.
Regarding claim 13, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teach the system of claim 1. Padevski teaches:
a message queue (Paragraph 17; where the serial work queue corresponds to the message queue).
Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam does not teach wherein the workers in the worker pool are configured to poll asynchronously.
However, Schuster teaches:
wherein the workers in the worker pool are configured to poll asynchronously (Col. 3, lines 37-38; “In some cases, both the fleet worker and the region-specific workers may operate asynchronously”).
Padevski, Vivekanandan, Tam, and Schuster are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring in cloud computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam to incorporate the teachings of Schuster and asynchronously polled the worker queue. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as standard parallel computing design such that the entire system does not need to spend resources to sync whenever a health check is performed on a subsection of the whole.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam, further in view of Telschig et al. (US 20250130875 A1) hereafter Telschig.
Regarding claim 14, Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam teaches the system of claim 1.
Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam does not teach wherein the message queue is a publisher-subscriber message queue.
However, Telschig teaches:
wherein the message queue comprises a publisher-subscriber message queue (Paragraph 91; “The broker unit takes an incoming message from the queue(s) and if it is a valid message from a registered publisher, the message is sent to all registered subscribers before processing the next message”).
Padevski, Vivekanandan, Tam, and Telschig are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cloud computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Padevski in view of Vivekanandan, further in view of Tam with Telschig to have the message queue be a publisher-subscriber message queue. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of a publisher-subscriber message queue would allow logical processing of health checking services across a system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath.
Regarding claim 15, Padevski teaches:
A computer-implemented method for generating health checks on endpoints in a cluster, the computer-implemented method comprising:
executing, by a test operator, a reconcile function on a custom resource to emit messages comprising test configurations of the endpoint (Paragraph 4; where the health monitor corresponds to the test operator that submits requests, corresponding to emitting messages, for health check requests, corresponding to test configurations of the endpoint Paragraph 17 further discloses the health monitor enqueueing an invocation to a health checker deployed on the same VM, and the health checker performing the operation from queue information in Paragraph 43);
and publishing, by the test operator, the messages onto a message queue, wherein: the message queue is polled by a worker, and the worker is to execute and evaluate the tests in parallel (Paragraph 17; where the health monitor places messages onto the queue, corresponding to publishing messages onto a message queue, which are processed by a health check worker. Paragraph 72 further discloses that the process may occur in parallel).
Padevski does not teach that the message queue is polled asynchronously by a plurality of workers in a worker pool; or translating the test configurations into tests; or the endpoints are AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network.
However, Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
Padevski and Tam are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of resource monitoring in cloud systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski to incorporate the teachings of Tam to have the endpoints be an AV in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the systems in AVs provide computing, sensing, and communication capabilities that are suitable for endpoints in a distributed fleet system, and the implementation of those systems as endpoints would yield the predictable result of directly integrating telemetry, control, and operational data collection while eliminating the need for separate intermediary endpoints and increasing reliability.
Padevski in view of Tam does not teach that the message queue is polled asynchronously by a plurality of workers in a worker pool.
However, Schuster teaches:
asynchronous polling by a plurality of workers in a worker pool (Col. 3, lines 37-38; “In some cases, both the fleet worker and the region-specific workers may operate asynchronously”).
Padevski, Tam, and Schuster are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cloud system worker management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski to incorporate the teachings of Schuster and have the workers operate asynchronously. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire to not require synchronous operations across a large system that would slow down operations.
Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster does not teach a plurality of workers in a worker pool.
However, Sampath teaches:
translating configurations from messages into tests (Col. 50, lines 49-59; “The translation module 2415 translates the message from the first medical device 2405 according to any of the methods described herein. Once translated, the translation module 2415 delivers the translated message to the communication bus 2421”).
Padevski, Tam, Schuster, and Sampath are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cloud system worker management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski in view of Schuster to incorporate the teachings of Sampath to have utilized a plurality of workers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find the usage of multiple workers as a logical design decision for parallel processing. Further, they would be motivated by the need to execute health check requests tied to specific systems and would find direct translation of the request into tests to be a logical design decision.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath, further in view of Vivekanandan.
Regarding claim 16, Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath teach the method of claim 15. Padevski teaches:
receiving a health check definition on an endpoint in the cluster (Paragraph 16; where the health monitor running on a virtual machine corresponds to an endpoint in a cluster that performs a health check in accordance with the work queue. Paragraph 58 of the instant specification discloses that a “health check definition” provided by cluster operators to the endpoint monitor may specify “a health check”);
and creating the test operator and the custom resource based on the health check definition (Paragraph 38; where the health check definition corresponds to information relating to failed connections in a time period, and the custom resource is the request going into the work queue for health check processing).
Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized AVs in place of cluster endpoints. Substituting AVs for generic endpoints represents a straightforward and predictable implementation in the field of autonomous vehicles. The functions performed by the endpoints are naturally supported by an AV platform and such a substitution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and yields the predictable result of AVs performing endpoint operations.
Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath does not teach a cluster user.
However, Vivekanandan teaches:
a cluster user (Paragraph 23; where the cloud-based system encompassing various devices utilized by users at various locations encompass a network that forms a cluster).
Padevski, Tam, Schuster, Sampath, and Vivekanandan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cloud computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski in view of Schuster further in view of Sampath to incorporate the teachings of Vivekanandan and have cluster users. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a user may operate more than one system encompassing a plurality of microservices, therefore a user controlling a cluster would be a logical design choice.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath, further in view of Mallipeddi et al. (US 20140149590 A1) hereafter Mallipeddi.
Regarding claim 17, Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath teaches the method of claim 15. Padevski teaches:
determining a default health check definition (Paragraph 46-50; where the set steps of checking layers 4, 6, and 7 of the network stack must be determined before execution of the health check);
and creating the test operator and the custom resource based on the default health check definition (Paragraphs 46-50; where the steps of checking layers 4, 6, and 7 are defined in the health check as the default definition).
Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized AVs in place of cluster endpoints. Substituting AVs for generic endpoints represents a straightforward and predictable implementation in the field of autonomous vehicles. The functions performed by the endpoints are naturally supported by an AV platform and such a substitution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and yields the predictable result of AVs performing endpoint operations.
Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster further in view of Sampath does not teach detecting a presence of an endpoint in a configuration of the cluster.
However, Mallipeddi teaches:
detecting a presence of an endpoint in a configuration of the cluster (Paragraph 31; “In some embodiments, when the network-based cluster hosting service manager 302 detects that the copy operation has been completed, the network-based cluster hosting service manger 302 may move the network endpoint from the current cluster to the new cluster”, in which the copy operation creates a new cluster, thus creating a new endpoint which is detected).
Padevski, Tam, Schuster, Sampath, and Mallipeddi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cloud computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster further in view of Sampath to incorporate the teachings of Mallipeddi to have detected a presence of an endpoint in a cluster configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need for a system to have detected changes in system configuration in order to properly perform system actions.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath, further in view of Sethi.
Regarding claim 18, Padevski in view of Tam, Schuster, further in view of Sampath teaches the method of claim 15. Padevski teaches:
a test on the endpoint, and an assertion corresponding to an expected result of the test (Paragraph 18; where the health check comprises an endpoint test through layers 4, 6, and 7, and the assertion corresponding to an expected result corresponds to a healthy status being returned).
Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized AVs in place of cluster endpoints. Substituting AVs for generic endpoints represents a straightforward and predictable implementation in the field of autonomous vehicles. The functions performed by the endpoints are naturally supported by an AV platform and such a substitution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and yields the predictable result of AVs performing endpoint operations.
Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath does not teach wherein a test configuration of the endpoint comprises a unique resource locator (URL) of the endpoint.
However, Sethi teaches:
wherein a test configuration of the endpoint comprises a unique resource locator (URL) of the endpoint (Paragraph 33; “Then, at block 363, a ping test for the source or destination via relevant uniform resource locators (URLs) and IP addresses is performed to, for example, verify if the address exists and can handle requests”).
Padevski, Tam, Schuster, Sampath, and Sethi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring in cloud systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath with Sethi to have had the endpoint tests comprise pings to a URL. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that URLs are a form of endpoint that could be tested when performing an endpoint test are a known method to yield the predictable result of correct endpoint testing.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath, further in view of Subramaniam.
Regarding claim 19, Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath teaches the method of claim 15. Tam teaches:
AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network (Paragraph 218; “For example, system 300 may include a fleet of autonomous vehicles 702, where each autonomous vehicle 702 from the fleet is communicatively coupled with the oversight server 140, e.g., via the network 108.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized AVs in place of cluster endpoints. Substituting AVs for generic endpoints represents a straightforward and predictable implementation in the field of autonomous vehicles. The functions performed by the endpoints are naturally supported by an AV platform and such a substitution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and yields the predictable result of AVs performing endpoint operations.
Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath does not teach determining whether time elapsed from a time when a last test was created is greater than a predefined period of time; and in response to the time elapsed being greater than the predefined period of time, create a new test of the endpoint.
However, Subramaniam teaches:
determining whether time elapsed from a time when a last test configuration was created is greater than a predefined period of time (Paragraph 185; “determining that more than a threshold amount of time has passed since a last connectivity test was performed between the endpoint device and the particular proxy server”);
and in response to the time elapsed being greater than the predefined period of time, creating a new test configuration of the endpoint (Paragraph 185; “In an example, if the endpoint device has tried to connect to all known proxy servers (e.g., the proxy servers that were determined by the last connectivity test) then endpoint device may perform a new connectivity test with the cached proxy server list (the endpoint device may receive a new list every 24 hours)”).
Padevski, Tam, Schuster, Sampath, and Subramaniam are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endpoint monitoring in cloud systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Padevski in view of Tam, further in view of Schuster, further in view of Sampath to incorporate the teachings of Subramanium and determine a time elapsed, check if the time is greater than a threshold, and create a new test if so. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that systems update over time, and if an elapsed time is greater than a specific threshold, the system configuration would likely need to be updated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/08/2025 have been fully considered but some are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are summarized below:
The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are traversed because the claims are directed toward a practical application.
The prior art of record does not teach the newly amended limitations directed towards clarifying that the testing is executed on AVs in a fleet of AVs communicatively coupled via a network.
Dependent claims are submitted as allowable for at least the above reasons.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with B and C.
In analysis of newly amended independent claims 1, 15, and 20, the claims are directed towards a practical application to meaningfully limit the abstract ideas by executing tests on AVs, thereby linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular application. Therefore, the analysis of claims 1-20 ends at step 2A, prong two, with a conclusion of eligibility. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 15, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new reference (Tam; US 20230139933 A1) applied for the teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Independent claims 1, 15, and 20 remain rejected for the reasons stated above. Therefore, contrary to Applicant's arguments, because the dependent claims depend from an unpatentable claim and does not add limitations that overcome the rejection, it likewise remains rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rahman et al. (US 20240004734 A1) discusses event processing systems utilizing a plurality of workers asynchronously on a plurality of message queues to consume events from the queue for processing.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH P TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6926. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 4:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. PT, F 4:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. PT, or at Kenneth.Tran@uspto.gov.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571) 270-1014. 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.
/KENNETH P TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196