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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered and the amendments overcome the prior art rejections set forth in the office action having notification date of 10/22/2025.
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.
Claims 1-20 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) to not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) claim interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at lines 7-10 claims “wherein a first zoom level provides a view of the compute nodes and at least one further zoom level provides, for a given one of the compute nodes, a view of services executed by the distributed application on the selected compute node and inter-process connections between the services;” which is indefinite because:
the claim limitation “a view of services executed by the distributed application” does not clearly link to previously claimed “services executed by the distributed application”; and
the claim limitation “for a given one of the compute nodes” as well as all the other preceding claim limitations do not set forth “the selected”, thus, “the selected compute node and inter-process connections between the services” lacks antecedent basis in the claim and does not clearly claim which of the preceding compute nodes and inter-process connections are “a view of services executed by the distributed application on the selected compute node and inter-process connections between the services”. In summary the entire wherein clause at lines 7-10 is indefinite. Dependent claims 2-14 inherit and do not correct this issue.
Claim 12 at line 6 claims “a third zoom level provides a view of application services, and” while preceding in parent claim 1 at lines 2-3 and 9-10 is claimed “services executed by the distributed application”. In claim 12 the claimed “application” does not clearly link to the previously claimed “services executed by the distributed application” or does not clearly distinguish from the previously claimed “services executed by the distributed application”.
Claim 15 at lines 9-12 claims the same limitations discussed above for claim 1 and claim 15 is indefinite for the same reasons given for claim 1. Dependent claims 16-19 inherit and do not correct this issue.
Claim 17 at line 7 claims the same limitations discussed above for claim 12 and claim 17 is indefinite for the same reasons given for claim 12.
Claim 20 at lines 13-16 claims the same limitations discussed above for claim 1 and claim 20 is indefinite for the same reasons given for claim 1.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Erlingsson et al., US Patent No. 12,489,771, describes selecting a container node which effectively causes an exploded view or zoom-in which causes displaying process nodes and process-level behavioral links for those process nodes, refer to column 103 lines 21 to 64 which are reproduced for convenience.
In some embodiments, behavior at a different hierarchical level may be performed with respect to a particular node in response to a selection of that node. For example, assume that a graph depicts behavior at a particular hierarchical level and that a node at the particular hierarchical level is selected. Continuing with this example, assume that a graph shows container-level behavior and a container node is selected. In some embodiments, the graph may depict lower-level (e.g., process level) behavior with respect to the selected container node by displaying the process nodes of the selected container node and depicting the process-level behavioral links for those process nodes. Thus, selection of the node effectively causes an exploded view or zoom-in with respect to the selected node.
In some embodiments, the graph may depict higher-level behavior in response to selecting a node at a higher hierarchical level than the depicted behavioral links associated with descendent nodes for the selected node. For example, assume that the graph depicts process-level behavioral links for process nodes associated with a particular container node. Further assume that the graph depicts the container node linked via component links with the process nodes. Selection of the container node may cause the graph to instead depict container-level behavioral with respect to the selected node. For example, the process nodes associated with the selected container node and their respective behavioral links and component links may be removed from presentation in the graph. Instead, container-level behavioral links for the selected container node may be depicted based on a union of the removed process-level behavioral links. Thus, selection of the node effectively collapses or zooms out a behavioral view with respect to the selected node.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-14:
Applicant’s arguments present on page 8-13 is agreed with. The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in the context of independent claim 1:
“generating, by the device, a graph with the inter-process connections as edges of the graph, the graph being structured for hierarchical visualization to enable comprehension of increasing numbers of processes and inter-process connections in a single interface, wherein a first zoom level provides a view of the compute nodes and at least one further zoom level provides, for a given one of the compute nodes, a view of services executed by the distributed application on the selected compute node and inter-process connections between the services; and”.
Claims 15-19:
Applicant’s arguments present on page 8-13 is agreed with. The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in the context of independent claim 15:
“generating a graph with the inter-process connections as edges of the graph, the graph being structured for hierarchical visualization to enable comprehension of increasing numbers of processes and inter-process connections in a single interface, wherein a first zoom level provides a view of the compute nodes and at least one further zoom level provides, for a given one of the compute nodes, a view of services executed by the distributed application on the selected compute node and inter-process connections between the services; and”.
Claim 20:
Applicant’s arguments present on page 8-13 is agreed with. The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in the context of independent claim 20:
“generate a graph with the inter-process connections as edges of the graph, the graph being structured for hierarchical visualization to enable comprehension of
increasing numbers of processes and inter process connections in a single interface, wherein a first zoom level provides a view of the compute nodes and at least one further zoom level provides, for a given one of the compute nodes, a view of services executed by the distributed application on the selected compute node and inter-process connections between the services; and”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A BRIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30am-3:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao M Wu, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
JEFFERY A. BRIER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/JEFFERY A BRIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613