DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns 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 apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in 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.
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejections, Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the "human mind" cannot "reasonably and practically" perform such features, as now recited by amended independent claim 1. Thus, for these reasons and as generally discussed and agreed during the Telephone Interview, it is submitted that the amended independent claims, and the claims dependent therefrom, are not "directed to" any Mental Process under Prong 1 ofRevised Step 2A.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is related to newly amended claim language which and is fully addressed in the 35 USC § 101 rejection recited below.
During the Telephone Interview, the Examiner indicated that amended independent claim 1 may be directed to a Mathematical Concept. In this regard, Applicant respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) describes various examples of what constitutes Mathematical Concepts, e.g., "a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk V. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formulafor calculating an alarm limit, ParkerV. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond V. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski V. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010)." It is apparent from these examples that mathematical formulas, equations, or procedures are needed in order to constitute mathematical concepts.
Additionally, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) also specifically states the test for determining whether Mathematical Concepts exist in a claim: "When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.(Applicant’s Remarks, Pgs. 11-12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According the MPEP, “a limitation that is merely based on or involves a mathematical concept described in the specification may not be sufficient to fall into this grouping, provided the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim [emphasis added]. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because “[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.” In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea)” (MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)). In this case, the mathematical concept is recited in the claim in the following limitations:
“calculate an overhead value at a time when a connection from the virtual machine to an in-vehicle device is made based on the relative time information corresponding to the event information;” and
“the hardware processor is configured to calculate the overhead value based on a difference between first relative time information corresponding to the first event information and second relative time information corresponding to the second event information.”
“In the instant matter, it is submitted that the claims integrate any judicial exception to which the claims may be directed into such practical application(s) thereof under Prong 2 of revised Step 2A. For example, the features of amended independent claim 1 enable a user to easily refer to the overhead value at the time when the connection from the virtual machine to the in-vehicle device is made based on the relative time information corresponding to the event information without taking time and effort to analyze, for each history, the event information representing a history of the connection from the virtual machine to the one or more in-vehicle devices. See, e.g., page 15, line 34 to page 16, line 6 of the present application as filed. (9[0085] of corresponding U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2023/0325295),” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are related to newly amended claim language and have been fully addressed in the 35 USC § 101 rejections below. Examiner would like to note that the claims do not recite the feature of “enable[ing] a user to easily refer to the overhead value at the time when the connection from the virtual machine to the in-vehicle device is made based on the relative time information corresponding to the event information without taking time and effort to analyze, for each history, the event information representing a history of the connection from the virtual machine to the one or more in-vehicle devices” as discussed in Applicant’s remarks.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 rejections:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 rejections are related to newly amended claim language and have been fully addressed in the rejections recited below.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In adhering to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, the claims fall within statutory class of process, machine or manufacture. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, the analysis directed to Step 2A.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. Prong 1 considers whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). In this case independent claim 1 recites mental processes as applied to human activity (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing components) and mathematical calculations.
For example, the following claimed steps are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion:
generate, for each virtual machine of the plurality of virtual machines, second log information including the operation information and the relative time information corresponding to the operation information, the second log information including event information representing a history of connections from the virtual machine to one or more in-vehicle devices;
calculate an overhead value at a time when a connection from the virtual machine to an in-vehicle device is made based on the relative time information corresponding to the event information;
the hardware processor is configured to calculate the overhead value based on a difference between first relative time information corresponding to the first event information and second relative time information corresponding to the second event information; and
the event information includes first event information representing a first history of connections from the first virtual machine to the in-vehicle device, and second event information representing a second history of connection requests from the second virtual machine to the in vehicle device.
For example, but for the recitation of generic computing components, steps a-c can be completed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Step a describes creating log information at a high level of generality. Steps b and c describe mathematical calculations. The claims simply recite the organization and comparison of data which can be performed mentally and is an idea itself. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information in Cyberfone, or comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options in SmartGene. Step d is analyzed as a mental process with the “generate” step of claim 1 because but for the recitation of generic computing components, the “generate” step can be completed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Since the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, analysis flows to Prong 2. Prong 2 considers whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language merely describes steps of collecting data, generic field of use/technological environment, and using a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea and fails to describe an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field. The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the following reasons:
The additional elements of an “information processing system,” “virtual machines,” “hypervisor,” “memory,” and a “hardware processor” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of “acquire, from each virtual machine of the plurality of virtual machines and the hypervisor, first log information including operation information representing an operation state of the virtual machine or the hypervisor and time information corresponding to the operation information” amounts to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). An example of activity that courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity is “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.” (MPEP § 2106.05(g));
The additional element of “visualize the acquired first log information based on time input by a user” amounts to insignificant extra-solution display/presenting activity. (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). This step is not a practical application because “examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:… iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics …, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.” (MPEP § 2106.05(g));
The additional element of “replace the time information included in the acquired first log information with relative time information indicating a relative time based on reference time information” amounts to insignificant extra-solution data gathering/storage activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). An example of activity that courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity is “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.” (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “visualize the second log information of each virtual machine and the hypervisor, wherein the plurality of virtual machines includes a first virtual machine and a second virtual machine;” amounts to insignificant extra-solution display/presenting activity. (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). This step is not a practical application because “examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:… iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics …, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.” (MPEP § 2106.05(g)); and
Since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception, the analysis flows to Step 2B. Therein, the elements and combination of elements are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the elements should be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claimed “information processing system,” “virtual machines,” “hypervisor,” “memory,” and a “hardware processor” are generically recited as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Thus, these steps do not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Taken as an ordered combination, the afore-mentioned limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test) that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05 (I)(A)), “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i… mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.” The limitations cited as insignificant extra-solution activities also do not add “significantly more” for the reasons cited in the Step 2A analysis. Furthermore, the courts have also recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network……iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. “[E]xamples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:… iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics,…” (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Note MPEP 2106.05(a)). Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Regarding claim 3, the additional element of:
The step of “extract the operation information corresponding to the time input by the user from the operation information included in the second log information of each virtual machine and the hypervisor” recites an additional mental process because but for the recitation of generic computing components, this step can be completed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
The additional elements of a “virtual machine and the hypervisor” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of “visualize the extracted operation information” amounts to insignificant extra-solution display/presenting activity. (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). This step is not a practical application or “significantly more” because “examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:… iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics …, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.” (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 4, the additional element of “wherein the second log information includes performance information representing a performance state of each virtual machine is analyzed in accordance with the “generate second log information” limitation of claim 1 and thus amounts to insignificant extra-solution data gathering/storage activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). This step does not amount to significantly more because “courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…” (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 5,
the step of “reproducing portions of the operation information and the performance information included in the second log information corresponding to time designated by the user” is an additional mental process because, but for the recitation of generic computing components, these steps can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
The additional element of “wherein the hardware processor has a playback position function” is not a practical application because it amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This recitation does not amount to significantly more because “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). ” (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claim6,
The additional element of “wherein the hardware processor has a playback position function” is not a practical application because it amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This recitation does not amount to significantly more because “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). ” (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
the step of “reproducing a portion of the operation information included in the first log information corresponding to time designated by the user” is an additional mental process because, but for the recitation of generic computing components, these steps can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
The additional element of “wherein the hardware processor has a playback position function” amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This recitation does not amount to significantly more because “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). ” (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 8, this claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1 for the common limitations. The recitation of the additional element of an “information processing device” merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea under Prong 2. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. “Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Under Step 2B, since these additional elements merely recite generic computer components to carry out the abstract idea, they do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 9, this claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1 for the common limitations.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhide et al. (US 11416278) in view of Kulkarni et al. (US 11947988 ) and Askeland et al (US 20200159570)
As per claim 1, Bhide teaches, n information processing system including a plurality of virtual machines and a hypervisor (Column 5, Lines 26-27, FIG. 1 presents a block diagram of an exemplary event-processing system 100, similar to the SPLUNK® ENTERPRISE system; Column 12, Line 66-Column 13, Line 6, all of these virtual machines 706, 716 and 726 and associated hypervisors 704, 714, and 724 operate under control of a management server, which is referred to as a “virtual center” 730. Virtual center 730 performs operations to facilitate centralized management, operational automation, resource optimizations and high availability for the virtual machines 706. 716, 726, which execute on hypervisors 704, 714 and 724)configured to control the a plurality of virtual machines (Column 12, Lines 56-58, each host system executes a hypervisor, which is responsible for instantiating and executing virtual machines) and a hypervisor configured to control the one or more plurality of virtual machines, the information processing system comprising:
a memory (Claim 23, system for presenting data for virtual machines, comprising: at least one hardware processor and at least one associated memory); and
a hardware processor coupled to the memory (Claim 23, system for presenting data for virtual machines, comprising: at least one hardware processor and at least one associated memory), the hardware processor being configured to:
acquire, from each virtual machine of the plurality of virtual machines and the hypervisor, first log information including operation information representing an operation state of the virtual machine (Column 14, Lines 12-16, The system also obtains operating system data for the set of virtual machines, wherein the operating system data was received from a set of operating systems while the set of operating systems was running on the set of virtual machines (step 804)) or the hypervisor (Column 14, Lines 7-11, the system obtains hypervisor data for a set of virtual machines, wherein the hypervisor data was received from one or more hypervisors while the set of virtual machines was running on the hypervisors (step 802)) and time information corresponding to the operation information (Column 3, Lines 53-62, In the SPLUNK® ENTERPRISE system, performance data is stored as “events,” wherein each event comprises a collection of performance data and/or diagnostic information that is generated by a computer system and is correlated with a specific point in time. Events can be derived from “time series data,” wherein time series data comprises a sequence of data points (e.g., performance measurements from a computer system) that are associated with successive points in time and are typically spaced at uniform time intervals; Examiner Note: System 100 is similar to SPLUNK® ENTERPRISE: Column 5, Lines 27-32, system 100, similar to the SPLUNK® ENTERPRISE system. System 100 includes one or more forwarders 101 that collect data obtained from a variety of different data sources 105, and one or more indexers 102 that store, process, and/or perform operations on this data; Column 6, Lines 57-59, the indexer stores the events in a data store at block 208, wherein a timestamp can be stored with each event to facilitate searching for events based on a time range; and Column 12, Lines 10-15, the summarization engine periodically generates a summary covering data obtained during a latest non-overlapping time period. For example, where the query seeks events meeting a specified criteria, a summary for the time period includes only events within the time period that meet the specified criteria);
visualize the acquired first log information based on time input by a user (Column 14, Lines 35-43, suppose the system retrieves another event containing memory-utilization performance data from an operating system in the same virtual machine, wherein the event also includes the MAC address for the virtual machine. In this example, the system can match the events based on the MAC address for the virtual machine, and can display the corresponding data from the hypervisor and from the operating system together in a single display for the virtual machine; Claim 14, Lines 56-61, the system presents the correlated hypervisor data and operating system data for the virtual machine to a user (step 808). For example, the system can present the hypervisor and operating system data together in a single view to enable the user to understand relationships between the hypervisor data and operating system data; and Column 15, Lines 31-36, FIG. 9 presents a user interface that simultaneously displays hypervisor data and operating system data for a specific virtual machine in accordance with the disclosed embodiments. More specifically, the exemplary user interface illustrated in FIG. 9 includes a display 900 that is divided into three sections); and
wherein the plurality of virtual machines includes a first virtual machine and a second virtual machine (Column 12, Lines 60-12, host system 702 executes a hypervisor 704 that executes a set of virtual machines 706).
Bhide fails to specifically teach, replace the time information included in the acquired first log information with relative time information indicating a relative time based on reference time information; generate, for each virtual machine of the plurality of virtual machines, second log information including the operation information and the relative time information corresponding to the operation information, the second log information including event information representing a history of connections from the virtual machine to one or more in-vehicle devices; calculate an overhead value at a time when a connection from the virtual machine to an in-vehicle device is made based on the relative time information corresponding to the event information; and visualize the second log information of each virtual machine and the hypervisor,...,the event information includes first event information representing a first history of connections from the first virtual machine to the in-vehicle device, and second event information representing a second history of connection requests from the second virtual machine to the in- vehicle device, and the hardware processor is configured to calculate the overhead value based on a difference between first relative time information corresponding to the first event information and second relative time information corresponding to the second event information.
However Kulkarni teaches, replace the time information included in the acquired first log information with relative time information indicating a relative time based on reference time information (Column 92, Lines 7-19, the indexing system 212 determines a timestamp for each event. Similar to the process for parsing machine data, an indexing system 212 may again refer to a source type definition associated with the data to locate one or more properties that indicate instructions for determining a timestamp for each event. The properties may, for example, instruct the indexing system 212 to extract a time value from a portion of data for the event, to interpolate time values based on timestamps associated with temporally proximate events, to create a timestamp based on a time the portion of machine data was received or generated, to use the timestamp of a previous event, or use any other rules for determining timestamps);
generate, for each virtual machine of the plurality of virtual machines, second log information including the operation information and the relative time information corresponding to the operation information (Column 25, Lines 15-19, the indexing system can generate events that include a portion of machine data associated with a timestamp and store the events in buckets based on one or more of the timestamps, tenants, indexes, etc., associated with the data);
calculate an overhead value (Column 15, Lines 20-23, a time range of the data in the bucket (e.g., range of time between the first-in-time event of the bucket and the last-in-time event of the bucket)); and
visualize the second log information of each virtual machine and the hypervisor (Column 104, Lines 63-66, results can include a listing of matching events returned by the query, or some type of visualization of the data from the returned events)... , and the hardware processor is configured to calculate the overhead value based on a difference between first relative time information corresponding to the first event information and second relative time information corresponding to the second event information (Column 15, Lines 18-23, the data store catalog 220 can include a bucket identifier for the buckets in common storage 216, a location of or path to the bucket in common storage 216, a time range of the data in the bucket (e.g., range of time between the first-in-time event of the bucket and the last-in-time event of the bucket)).
Bhide and Kulkarni are analogous because they are each related to performance monitoring. Bhide teaches a method of tracking virtual machine and hypervisor performance and visualizing said performance for users. (Abstract, During operation, the system obtains hypervisor data for a set of virtual machines, wherein the hypervisor data was received from one or more hypervisors while the set of virtual machines was running on the hypervisors. The system also obtains operating system data for the set of virtual machines, wherein the operating system data was received from a set of operating systems while the set of operating systems was running on the set of virtual machines. Next, the system correlates hypervisor data for a virtual machine with corresponding operating system data for the virtual machine. Finally, the system presents the correlated hypervisor data and operating system data for the virtual machine to a user). Kulkarni teaches a method of storing performance data as time-stamped events and visualizing said events for user. (Column 1, Lines 28-33, systems that store passively or actively generated data, including machine-generated data (“machine data”). The machine data can include performance data, diagnostic data, or any other data that can be analyzed to diagnose equipment performance problems, monitor user interactions, and to derive other insights; Column 6, Lines 34-38, A timestamp of an event may be determined through interpolation between temporally proximate events having known timestamps or may be determined based on other configurable rules for associating timestamps with events; and Column 112, Lines 54-59, user can select the size of a preceding time window to search for real-time events. Search screen 2400 also initially displays a “data summary” dialog as is illustrated in FIG. 24B that enables the user to select different sources for the events, such as by selecting specific hosts and log files). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that based on the combination, the performance monitoring system of Bhide would be modified with the event creation and time-stamping mechanisms taught by Kulkarni resulting in a system that performs performance monitoring and assigns time-stamped and time-based attributes to collected performance data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Bhide and Kulkarni.
The combination of Bhide-Kulkarni fails to specifically teach, the second log information including event information representing a history of connections from the virtual machine to one or more in-vehicle devices; calculate an overhead value at a time when a connection from the virtual machine to an in-vehicle device is made based on the relative time information corresponding to the event information; the event information includes first event information representing a first history of connections from the first virtual machine to the in-vehicle device, and second event information representing a second history of connection requests from the second virtual machine to the in- vehicle device.
However, Askeland teaches, the second log information including event information representing a history of connections from the virtual machine to one or more in-vehicle devices ([0117], an autonomous vehicle may periodically record sensor data and/or a sequence of events and, check a remote repository, and/or transmit the sensor data and/or sequence of events to a remote device that includes the repository; Examiner Note: Askeland’s components comprise logical and physical vehicle devices. The log data shows the operation of these components and interaction between these components: ([0012], components of a pipeline may be different types of components—a first component may be implemented in software executed by a processor and a second component may be implemented as hardware; [0015], a system of an autonomous vehicle may comprise an artificial intelligence (AI) stack that comprises multiple systems such as, for example, a perception system, a localization system, a planner system, a drive module control system, an internal operations system, etc. Each of these systems, in turn, may comprise tens, hundreds, or even thousands of components); [0138], Memory 820 may additionally or alternatively store one or more system controller(s) 832, which may be configured to control steering, propulsion, braking, safety, emitters, communication, and other systems of the vehicle 802. These system controller(s) 832 may communicate with and/or control corresponding systems of the drive module(s) 812 and/or other components of the vehicle 802); and [0177], saving the sequence of events comprises monitoring behavior at the first software component relative to one or more events at another software component);
calculate an overhead value ([0079], reproducibility data 358 may comprise … non-deterministic values generated by the non-deterministic variable generator 336) at a time when a connection from the virtual machine to an in-vehicle device is made based on the relative time information corresponding to the event information ([0024], an online controller may provide, as input to the component via the I/O interface,… non-deterministic values usable by the component during execution. For example, non-deterministic values may include a random number distribution and/or any other values that may vary from execution to execution. In some instances, non-deterministic values may comprise sensor data and/or a product generated by another component. The online controller may generate the non-deterministic value based at least in part on receiving a call from the component for the non-deterministic and, upon generating the non-deterministic value, the online controller may provide the non-deterministic value to the component;[0097], the timing enforcer 504 may additionally or alternatively cause other data from the log file 502 (and/or the data store 356) to be provided to the component 300 in an order specified by the sequence of events. For example, this may comprise providing sensor data, non-deterministic values, a clock signal, a product of a component, etc., as input to the component 300); and
the event information includes first event information representing a first history of connections from the first virtual machine to the in-vehicle device ([0029], In examples where the reproducing controller is being used to reproduce operation of the component that occurred at an autonomous vehicle (or some other online scenario), the reproducing controller may receive log file comprising a sequence of events that occurred during the scenario at the component (and/or a controller associated therewith) and/or one or more other controllers), and second event information representing a second history of connection requests from the second virtual machine to the in- vehicle device ([0117], an autonomous vehicle may periodically record sensor data and/or a sequence of events and, check a remote repository, and/or transmit the sensor data and/or sequence of events to a remote device that includes the repository)).
The combination of Bhide-Kulkarni and Askeland are analogous because they are each related to performance monitoring. Bhide teaches a method of tracking virtual machine and hypervisor performance and visualizing said performance for users. Kulkarni teaches a method of storing performance data as time-stamped events and visualizing said events for user. Askeland teaches a method of monitoring the performance of logical and physical components in an autonomous vehicle including allowing users to view and reproduce component operations. (Abstract, controllers that generate reproducibility data so that component behavior may be reproduced, controllers that reproduce component behavior, and/or controllers that tune performance of the data-processing pipeline, e.g., by varying input, output, and execution of respective component(s); [0028], A reproducing controller may comprise the functionality of the online controller and may additionally or alternatively reproduce previous events at a component; and [0177], saving the sequence of events comprises monitoring behavior at the first software component relative to one or more events at another software component). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that based on the combination, the performance monitoring system taught by the combination of Bhide-Kulkarni would be modified with the reproducibility mechanism taught by Askeland resulting in a system that performs performance monitoring and includes reproducing operations of various system components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the combination of Bhide-Kulkarni and Askeland.
As per claim 3, Bhide teaches, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to:
extract the operation information corresponding to the time input by the user from the operation information included in the second log information of each virtual machine and the hypervisor (Column 4, Lines 36-40, The system stores the timestamped events in a data store, and enables a user to run queries against the data store to retrieve events that meet specified criteria, such as containing certain keywords or having specific values in defined fields; Column 5, Lines 9-12, default fields can specify: a timestamp for the event data…; and Column 9, Lines 34-38, Search screen 600 includes a search bar 602 that accepts user input in the form of a search string. It also includes a time range picker 612 that enables the user to specify a time range for the search); and
visualize the extracted operation information (Column 7, Lines 50-52, the final results can include a listing of matching events returned by the query, or some type of visualization of data from the returned events).
As per claim 4, Bhide teaches, wherein the second log information includes performance information representing a performance state of each virtual machine (Column 7, Lines 50-52, the final results can include a listing of matching events returned by the query, or some type of visualization of data from the returned events; Examiner Note: Bhide’s “events” include performance data: Column 3, Lines 53-57, performance data is stored as “events,” wherein each event comprises a collection of performance data and/or diagnostic information that is generated by a computer system and is correlated with a specific point in time).
As per claim 5, Askeland teaches, wherein the hardware processor has a playback position function of reproducing portions of the operation information and the performance information included in the second log information corresponding to time designated by the user ([0043], The computing device may provide, as input to the first system, log data to reproduce behavior of the first system; and [0067], Loading a keyframe may allow a developer to skip to a discrete (“n-th”) execution of a component and to accurately reproduce behavior of the component during that discrete execution…a keyframe may specify a discrete execution with which the keyframe is associated (e.g., by associating the keyframe with a generation time). In another example, a user wishing to see the 98th time step of execution may effectively “fast-forward” to the nearest keyframe (e.g., as stored at the 95th time step) and simply step forward three units in time).
As per claim 6, Askeland teaches, wherein the hardware processor has a playback position function of reproducing a portion of the operation information included in the first log information corresponding to time designated by the user ([0043], The computing device may provide, as input to the first system, log data to reproduce behavior of the first system; and [0067], Loading a keyframe may allow a developer to skip to a discrete (“n-th”) execution of a component and to accurately reproduce behavior of the component during that discrete execution…a keyframe may specify a discrete execution with which the keyframe is associated (e.g., by associating the keyframe with a generation time). In another example, a user wishing to see the 98th time step of execution may effectively “fast-forward” to the nearest keyframe (e.g., as stored at the 95th time step) and simply step forward three units in time).
The same motivation used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
As per claim 8, this is the “processing device claim” corresponding to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. The same motivation used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
As per claim 9, this is the “method claim” corresponding to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. The same motivation used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Conclusion
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 MELISSA A HEADLY whose telephone number is (571)272-1972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9-5:30pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/MELISSA A. HEADLY/
Examiner Art Unit 2197
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights