DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
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 .
Specification
The cross references related to this application cited in the specification must be updated (i.e. update the relevant status, with PTO serial numbers or patent numbers where appropriate, on paragraph 0001. The entire specification should be so revised.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 0100 includes typographical error. The term “form” appears to have been used in error.
Appropriate correction is required, for instance, the term “form” should be replaced by “from”.
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, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 9,350,681 B1 issued to Kitagawa et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0182831 A1 to Uchida et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0336592 A1 to Narayanaswamy et al.
As to claim 1, Kitagawa teaches an apparatus comprising:
at least one memory (System Memory 1925);
programmable circuitry (Processor 1910); and
instructions to cause the programmable circuitry to:
identify configurable parameters in an infrastructure configuration file (user can also specify components of a configuration, modify a configuration, specify configuration parameters), the configurable parameters to define states of a cloud resource (individual cloud resources (e.g., virtual machines, web-server, database server, application server)) (“…As mentioned above, in addition to accessing the above functionality through a user interface, some embodiments enable a user to perform the same functions and access the same information directly through the API 212. Through a command line interface, the user can request information (e.g., the library of stored server images) which is provided by the API 212. The user can also specify components of a configuration, modify a configuration, specify configuration parameters, etc. directly through API 212. When the user accesses the functionality through the user interface, the application server 210 translates the user interface interactions into calls to the API 212 so that the same interaction with front-end provisioning manager 220 is achieved…When a user has finished specifying the cloud resource configuration through the user interface or API, some embodiments of the front-end manager 220 automatically provide the configuration to a scheduler 230 module. In some embodiments, the scheduler module 230 receives a specified configuration from the front-end manager 220 and performs a logical assignment (i.e., identifies a mapping) of the individual cloud resources (e.g., virtual machines, web-server, database server, application server) within the configuration to the grid of hardware nodes 270. For instance, when a user specifies a virtual server image to deploy, the scheduler module 230 maps this virtual server to a hardware node. This logical assignment determines the administrative state of the hosting system, which is stored in the administrative data storage 250 in some embodiments so that it can be later accessed by the directors 215 of the hosting system 200…The administrative state storage 250 stores the most up-to-date information regarding how each of the hardware nodes in the group of hardware nodes is to be configured. In particular, the administrative state storage 250 stores information regarding the hosting systems intended configuration of the cloud resources across the hardware nodes…” Col. 11 Ln. 62-67, Col. 12 Ln. 1-29);
map (map(ping)) a first configurable parameter (particular cloud resource configuration/specified configuration) of the configurable parameters to a first state of the states based on first metadata parsed from the infrastructure configuration file (“…The administrative state provides the most up-to-date information regarding how each of the hardware nodes in the group of hardware nodes should be configured. In short, the administrative state reflects the hosting systems intended configuration of the cloud resources across the hardware nodes (i.e., what the world should be), which may be different from the actual “operational state” of each hardware node in the grid (i.e., what the world is). The administrative state also contains information regarding details of each cloud resource configuration (e.g., operating system configuration, RAM, storage capacity, CPU power, etc.) and information regarding the mapping of a particular cloud resource configuration to the particular hardware node(s) that has been designated for hosting the cloud resource configuration…When a user has finished specifying the cloud resource configuration through the user interface or API, some embodiments of the front-end manager 220 automatically provide the configuration to a scheduler 230 module. In some embodiments, the scheduler module 230 receives a specified configuration from the front-end manager 220 and performs a logical assignment (i.e., identifies a mapping) of the individual cloud resources (e.g., virtual machines, web-server, database server, application server) within the configuration to the grid of hardware nodes 270. For instance, when a user specifies a virtual server image to deploy, the scheduler module 230 maps this virtual server to a hardware node. This logical assignment determines the administrative state of the hosting system, which is stored in the administrative data storage 250 in some embodiments so that it can be later accessed by the directors 215 of the hosting system 200…” Col. 3 Ln. 23-36, Col. 12 Ln. 8-23).
Kitagawa is silent with reference to the first state displayed in a graphical user interface including a hierarchy of states, wherein selection of a second state of the states from the hierarchy displays a second configurable parameter associated with the second state and
prevent a misconfiguration of the cloud resource based on an application of a validation constraint to an input value for the second configurable parameter, the validation constraint generated based on second metadata parsed from the infrastructure configuration file.
Uchida teaches the first state displayed in a graphical user interface including a hierarchy of states (hierarchical tree structure), wherein selection of a second state of the states from the hierarchy displays a second configurable parameter associated with the second state (the respective components constituting the hierarchical data are made selectable/Figures 2/3A) (“…Next, logical hierarchical data and physical hierarchical data to be set by the hierarchical data setting unit D will be described…FIG. 2A shows an example of a display screen in the, case in which logical hierarchical data to be set in the hierarchical data setting unit is displayed by the hierarchical data display unit 108. FIG. 2B is a conceptual diagram of an example of logical hierarchical data of the computer in which the computer configuration display apparatus 1 is arranged….In addition, FIG. 3A shows an example of a display screen in the case in which physical hierarchical data to be set in the hierarchical data setting unit is displayed by the hierarchical data display unit 108. FIG. 3B is a conceptual diagram of an example of physical hierarchical data of the computer in which the computer configuration display apparatus 1 is arranged…As shown in FIGS. 2B and 3B, the logical hierarchical data has a hierarchical tree structure constituted by plural logical components, and the physical hierarchical data has a hierarchical tree structure constituted by plural physical components…As shown in FIGS. 2A and 3A, these hierarchical data are displayed by the hierarchical data display unit 108. In the hierarchical data that is displayed in a form of a tree in this way, the respective components constituting the hierarchical data are made selectable. The respective components constituting the hierarchical data have attribute data, which is information on the components. Attribute data of a selected component is displayed beside the tree display…In addition, the physical hierarchical data and the logical hierarchical data, which are associated with each other by the hierarchical data association unit, are displayed by the hierarchical data display unit 108 such that the physical hierarchical data and the logical hierarchical data can be switched. Note that, when any one of the physical components is selected to switch display to the logical hierarchical data in a state in which the physical hierarchical data is displayed, all logical components corresponding to the selected physical component are displayed in a state in which the logical components are selected. Similarly, when display is switched to the physical hierarchical data in a state in which a logical component is selected, all physical components corresponding to the selected logical component are displayed in a state in which the physical components are selected…” paragraphs 0067-0072)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Kitagawa with the teaching of Uchida because the teaching of Uchida would improve the system of Kitagawa by providing a mechanism for allowing users to visually navigate graphical user interface for cloud resources.
Narayanaswamy teaches prevent a misconfiguration (Example use cases of CSPM further include detecting misconfiguration, preventing configuration drift, maintain compliance and governance, and so on) of the cloud resource based on an application of a validation constraint to an input value for the second configurable parameter, the validation constraint generated based on second metadata parsed from the infrastructure configuration file (verifying against predefined best practice rules and industry standards) (“…Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) is a market segment for IT security tools that are designed to identify misconfiguration issues and compliance risks in the could. Gartner, the IT research and advisory firm that coined the term, describes CSPM as a new category of security products that can help automate security and provide compliance assurance in the cloud. CSPM tools work by examining and comparing a cloud environment against a defined set of best practices and known security risks. Some CSPM tools will alert the cloud customer when there is a need to remediate a security risk, while other more sophisticated CSPM tools will use robotic process automation (RPA) to remediate issues automatically…Example use cases of CSPM further include detecting misconfiguration, preventing configuration drift, maintain compliance and governance, and so on. CSPM is typically designed to discover risky configurations and overly permissive user access by verifying against predefined best practice rules and industry standards, continuously monitor cloud applications for a robust security posture and to prevent configuration drift. CSPM can maintain compliance and governance by simplifying audits and quickly prove governance with pre-built and customizable compliance frameworks. CSPM can be further integrated with Advanced Analytics to discover managed and rogue applications to enforce correct cloud configurations, and seamlessly send alerts via Cloud Ticket Orchestrator and build custom workflows to analyze alerts via Representational Transfer (REST) API …” paragraphs 0292/0297/0298).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Kitagawa and Uchida with the teaching of Narayanaswamy because the teaching of Narayanaswamy would improve the system of Kitagawa and Uchida by a Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) designed to discover risky configurations and overly permissive user access by verifying against predefined best practice rules and industry standards, continuously monitor cloud applications for a robust security posture and to prevent configuration drift (Narayanaswamy paragraph 0292)
As to claims 8 and 15, see the rejection of claim 1 above, expect for a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Kitagawa teaches non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Storage 1935).
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 9,350,681 B1 issued to Kitagawa et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0182831 A1 to Uchida et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0336592 A1 to Narayanaswamy et al. as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,556,238 B1 issued to Kairali et al.
As to claim 2, Kitagawa as modified by Uchida and Narayanaswamy teaches the apparatus of claim 1, however is it silent with reference to wherein the programmable circuitry is to, responsive to interaction with an area of the graphical user interface associated with the first configurable parameter, display status information associated with the first configurable parameter.
Kairali teaches wherein the programmable circuitry is to, responsive to interaction with an area of the graphical user interface associated with the first configurable parameter, display status information associated with the first configurable parameter (output a visualization of the cloud architecture of the existing cloud computing environment in the workspace area of the user interface) (“…Furthermore, through the same user interface, the user may modify an already generated IaC file of an existing cloud computing environment. Here, the system may output a visualization of the cloud architecture of the existing cloud computing environment in the workspace area of the user interface. The user may modify a configuration of the existing cloud computing environment by changing the components displayed in the workspace area of the user interface and/or changing configuration settings. In response, the system may automatically convert the changes into the existing IaC…” Col. 8 Ln. 22-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Kitagawa, Uchida and Narayanaswamy with the teaching of Kairali because the teaching of Kairali would improve the system of Kitagawa, Uchida and Narayanaswamy by providing a graphical user interface that allows users a better use and feel of computing devices.
As to claims 9 and 16, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 9,350,681 B1 issued to Kitagawa et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0182831 A1 to Uchida et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0336592 A1 to Narayanaswamy et al. and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,556,238 B1 issued to Kairali et al. as applied to claims 2, 9 and 16 above, U.S. Pat. No. 10,990,385 B1 issued to Farhangi et al.
As to claim 3, Kitagawa as modified by Uchida, Narayanaswamy and Kairali teaches the apparatus of claim 2, however is it silent with reference to wherein the status information includes an indication that the input value is invalid.
Farhangi teaches wherein the status information includes an indication that the input value is invalid (configuration state is invalid) (“…At [ii], the configuration management system 104 can send a notification to the consumer device 106 to replace a current local copy of the configuration state for a service provider 102 with a snapshot of the current configuration state. The notification may be an invalidation signal that indicates to the consumer device 106 that the current local copy of the configuration state is invalid. In some embodiments, the notification may be a request or command for the consumer device 106 to obtain a snapshot. In some embodiments, the configuration management system 104 may not send such a notification, but may instead send the snapshot without waiting for a request from the consumer device 106…When a configuration management cell 500 is initiating the invalidation of a configuration state, a new entry may be written in the change journal 504 indicating that the current state is invalid. The indication may be accessed by the streaming update manger 144 and/or the snapshot manager 146 and an invalidation signal may be generated as described in greater detail above. In some embodiments, the invalidation may be determined by, or communicated directly to, the streaming update manger 144 and/or the snapshot manager 146 without necessarily first being stored in the change journal 504…” Col. 11 Ln. 38-49, Col. 13 Ln. 4-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Kitagawa, Uchida, Narayanaswamy and Kairali with the teaching of Farhangi because the teaching of Farhangi would improve the system of Kitagawa, Uchida, Narayanaswamy and Kairali by providing a configuration management system for sending notification to a consumer device of a configuration state
As to claim 4, Kitagawa as modified by Uchida, Narayanaswamy and Kairali teaches the apparatus of claim 2, however is it silent with reference to wherein the status information includes an indication that the input value is missing.
Farhangi teaches wherein the status information includes an indication that the input value is missing (missing sequence numbers) (“…At [5], the consumer device 106 can determine whether to request a snapshot of the current configuration state of the service provider 102. For example, the consumer device 106 may analyze the sequence number in the response from the configuration management system 104 against the sequence number for the configuration change data that was most recently received or processed by the consumer device 106. If there is a gap between the two numbers and the configuration change data corresponding to the missing sequence numbers is not in the configuration change data store 162, then the consumer device 106 may determine to request a snapshot of the current configuration state…” Col. 10 Ln. 4-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Kitagawa, Uchida, Narayanaswamy and Kairali with the teaching of Farhangi because the teaching of Farhangi would improve the system of Kitagawa, Uchida, Narayanaswamy and Kairali by providing a configuration management system for sending notification to a consumer device of a configuration state
As to claims 10 and 17, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
As to claims 11 and 18, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 9,350,681 B1 issued to Kitagawa et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0182831 A1 to Uchida et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0336592 A1 to Narayanaswamy et al. as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0237259 A1 to Wakerly et al.
As to claim 5, Kitagawa as modified by Uchida and Narayanaswamy teaches the apparatus of claim 1, however is it silent with reference to wherein the graphical user interface includes a states area, an input parameter area, and a code editor area.
Wakerly teaches wherein the graphical user interface includes a states area (“…Client 206 can store and display the prior window state as the visible parsed lines (operations 275 and 276)…” paragraph 0046), an input parameter area (Element 332), and a code editor area (“…Display 114 can include, indicate, or display various information to user 112 in a visible window of an editor, including actionable widgets and editing elements which can be activated or acted upon to send a command to device 104. That is, user 112 can perform an action 113 to activate any of the elements indicated in display 114. User 112 can include a human user or an “automated user”, e.g., a program interacting with an application programming interface (API)…The system can load the initial lines into a visible window editor 301 (e.g., visible lines 1-13). The user may edit and navigate through the loaded configuration file, as well as perform other actions. For example, the user may navigate by scrolling (via elements 320, 322, and 324 or other keyboard input), which results in the operations described above for scroll 220 of FIG. 2A. The user may also perform a search operation by typing in a term in a search box (element 332) and clicking on a search button (element 330), which results in the operations described above for search 230 of FIG. 2B…Certain text may be highlighted or displayed to indicate a clickable jump link. For example, text 340 may include the term “interface” with an underline or other indicator such as color or a changing font on a mouse-over (element 340). The user may further navigate by clicking on element 340, and the system may update visible window editor 301 to display a previously mapped window for the reference in element 340, as described above for jump 240 of FIG. 2B…” paragraphs 0017/0059/0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Kitagawa, Uchida and Narayanaswamy with the teaching of Kairali because the teaching of Kairali would improve the system of Kitagawa, Uchida and Narayanaswamy by providing a graphical user interface are sectionalized or partitioned into panes to allow for a better look and feel.
As to claims 12 and 19, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 9,350,681 B1 issued to Kitagawa et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0182831 A1 to Uchida et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0336592 A1 to Narayanaswamy et al. as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0103717 A1 to Dettori et al.
As to claim 6, Kitagawa as modified by Uchida and Narayanaswamy teaches the apparatus of claim 1, however it is silent with reference to wherein the states include a provisioning state to provision the cloud resource, a scaling state to scale the cloud resource, and a modification state to modify the cloud resource.
Dettori wherein the states include a provisioning state to provision the cloud resource, a scaling state to scale the cloud resource, and a modification state to modify the cloud resource (Autoscaling service 106) (“…Pluggable scaling policy engine 212 sets a scaling policy (302). In the exemplary embodiment, pluggable scaling policy engine 212 sets a scaling policy with autoscaling service 106. Pluggable scaling policy engine 212 configures a scaling policy based on user input related to cloud resource management. In the exemplary embodiment, the scaling policy includes, without limitation, one or more trigger conditions, and one or more scaling rules for scaling-up and scaling-down shared cloud resources based, at least in part, on the one or more trigger conditions. In one embodiment, the one or more trigger conditions relate to various states of a plurality of measurement metrics, including, without limitation, states of virtual machine instances and states of application instances relating to computer processor usage, total number of CPUs, total CPU capacity, idle CPU capacity, memory, network utilization of application instances, runtime information, memory and network bandwidth, and number of virtual machine and application instances, etc. In one embodiment, the one or more rules for scaling-up and scaling-down shared cloud resources can include, without limitation, rules to scale-up aggressively (i.e., when application needs more resources than presently allocated) where there exists no lack of resources (i.e., application can benefit from more resources when there exists direct or indirect waiting for such resources), and rules to scale-down (i.e., when application utilizes less resources than presently provisioned) conservatively where limited resources are available (i.e., resource idleness can be used to determine scaling-down). In the exemplary embodiment, the one or more rules establish upper and lower thresholds for state conditions and monitor information, such that when the upper and lower thresholds are exceeded (i.e., a trigger condition exists), a scaling action automatically reallocates resources to bring shared resources within established upper and lower thresholds (i.e., scaling rules). For example, a scale-up rule may be expressed in terms of an empirical formula AVG(CPU_Utilization)>Upper Threshold, such that when a cumulative or average CPU utilization of an application instance exceeds an upper threshold of, for example, eighty percent, a scale-up event initiates…Autoscaling service 106 extracts trigger conditions from the scaling policy (304). In the exemplary embodiment, autoscaling service 106 extracts one or more trigger conditions from the scaling policy by referencing the one or more trigger conditions provided in the scaling policy and select each of the one or more trigger conditions relevant to the scope of autoscaling desired. For example, if it is desirable to autoscale applications when a certain percentage of CPU capacity is exceeded, autoscaling policy will extract each of the one or more trigger conditions relevant to CPU capacity by selecting each of the one or more trigger conditions provided in the scaling policy pertaining to CPU capacity…” paragraphs 0057/0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Kitagawa, Uchida and Narayanaswamy with the teaching of Dettori because the teaching of Dettori would improve the system of Kitagawa, Uchida and Narayanaswamy by providing a pluggable scaling policy engine for setting a scaling policy for cloud resource management (Dettori paragraph 0057).
As to claims 13 and 20, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claims 7, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 9,350,681 B1 issued to Kitagawa et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0182831 A1 to Uchida et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0336592 A1 to Narayanaswamy et al. as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0214506 A1 to Narayan et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0019705 A1 to Zettel et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0035197 A1 to Shepis et al.
As to claim 7, Kitagawa as modified by Uchida and Narayanaswamy teaches the apparatus of claim 1, however is it silent with reference to wherein the infrastructure configuration file is a text encoded file and the configurable parameters include security settings, performance settings, and cost settings of the cloud resource.
Narayan teaches wherein the configurable parameters include security settings (“runtime policy rule”) of the cloud resource (“…An “IaC resource” refers to any resource managed by IaC via a configuration file/template. Resource can include program modules, program functions, physical memory, virtual machines, security policies, cloud resources, etc. The dependencies and scope of each resource are defined by a section of a template according to an API for the corresponding IaC tool. Resources can be updated and monitored for best practices and security policy consistency using version control via the IaC tool…A “runtime policy rule” refers to a security policy rule in a syntax configured to execute in a runtime environment. For instance, the runtime policy rule can be a rule for a resource query language (RQL) expressed as a JSON rule. The JSON rule can define a security policy rule for resources hosted by a CSP, and an RQL engine can convert the RQL rule to queries according to the CSP API…” paragraphs 0014/0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Kitagawa, Uchida and Narayanaswamy with the teaching of Narayan because the teaching of Narayan would improve the system of Kitagawa, Uchida and Narayanaswamy by providing security rule or policy for managing and controlling access to cloud resources (Narayan paragraphs 0014/0015).
Zettel teaches wherein the infrastructure configuration file is a text encoded file (text file) (“…As a rather simple example of configuration data management, an application may be arranged to read a configuration file upon its initialization or from time to time as the application executes. The configuration file may be a text file with content formatted in accordance with XML, JAVASCRIPT® Object Notation (JSON), Yet Another Markup Language (YAML), a flat file, comma-separated values (CSV), or some other layout. The configuration file may specify two IP addresses, the first of a database with which the application can store and retrieve data, the second of an email server to which the application can send messages such that the email server will format the messages into emails and send them to designated recipients…” paragraph 0123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Kitagawa, Uchida, Narayanaswamy and Narayana with the teaching of Zettel because the teaching of Zettel would improve the system of Kitagawa, Uchida, Narayanaswamy and Narayana by providing configuration file as text file that contains data in the form of text and allows for storing and sharing textual data
Shepis teaches performance settings, and cost settings of the cloud resource (“…Increasingly modern cloud infrastructure layout is controlled using configuration files managed in source control systems using a paradigm called “infrastructure as code.” Methods, apparatus, systems and articles of manufacture disclosed herein propose inspecting source code changes prior to merging the source code changes in into production code, analyzes the source code changes, compare the source code changes against data and trends for target infrastructure that the source code would impact and make projections (cost, performance), and recommendations (rightsizing, governance, compliance) based on the presumed or inferred impact of the changes. Thus, the methods, apparatus, and systems disclosed herein may determine the cost of the impact of a source code change that may result in, for example a security lapse (which causes loss in money, time, and reputation) and may also compare those costs to achieve a more efficient infrastructure and/or to determine a right-sized set of servers. As such, the methods, apparatus, systems and articles of manufacture disclosed herein are able to assess an impact of a proposed source code change in a cloud environment holistically…” paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Kitagawa, Uchida, Narayanaswamy, Narayana and Zettel with the teaching of Shepis because the teaching of Shepis would improve the system of Kitagawa, Uchida, Narayanaswamy, Narayana and Zettel by providing a technique for using trends for target infrastructure or cloud resource determining impact and make projections for cost and performance (Shepis paragraph 0013).
As to claims 14 and 21, see the rejection of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0342179 A1 to Shuttle et al. and directed to a method comprise scanning configuration of cloud resources and identifying where the cloud resources may have drifted from a desired state.
U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0004529 A1 to Ravipati et al. and directed to systems, methods, and storage media for automatically managing an on-demand cloud computing platform.
U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0171466 A1 to Kandasamy et al. and directed to a method for dynamically harmonizing a management configuration of a cloud environment in a cloud environment based on policy or best practices updates.
U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0354213 A1 to Narayan et al. and directed to configuration checks or verification system for identifying misconfigurations of specific cloud resources which may contribute to compromises of misconfigured resources.
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0013637 A1 to Sander et al. and directed to cloud computing resource orchestration.
U.S. Pat. No. 10,360,025 B2 issued to Foskett et al. and directed to infrastructure instantiation, collaboration, and validation architecture for serverless execution frameworks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES E ANYA whose telephone number is (571)272-3757. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fir. 9-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at 571-270-3180. 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.
/CHARLES E ANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194