DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-12 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. Each of claim 1-4 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); For example, each of claims 5 and 7-9 fall within category of process and claims 6 and 10-12 are directed to a “A non-transitory computer readable medium” and therefore falls within category of manufacture.
Regarding Claims 1-4
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of a service graph illustrating a dependency between components constituting the service.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A control device for controlling an operation phase of a maintenance control system that performs maintenance on a service implementing specific features by means of a chained operation of multiple components using a service graph illustrating a dependency between components constituting the service, the control device comprising one or more processors configured to:
acquire update information of the service;
determine update convergence of the service graph;
shift the operation phase to a learning phase in which the service graph is updated when the update information has been received, and shift the operation phase to a detection phase in which anomalies are detected using the service graph when it is determined that the update of the service graph has converged..
The italicized limitations above represent a c mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “acquire [..]; determine update [..];shift the operation phase to a learning phase [..]; shift the operation phase to a detection phase [..] ” are mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “ acquire update information of the service” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For example, 2nd additional first element is “A control device for controlling an operation phase of a maintenance control system that performs maintenance on a service implementing specific features by means of a chained operation of multiple components, the control device comprising one or more processors configured to”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic device with computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic control system with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. control system, processor”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-4
Dependent claims 2-4 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-4 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For Examples, claim 2-4: claims limitations are mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding Claims 6-12
Claims 6-12 contains language similar to claims 1-4 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 6-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitehouse et al. (US 2007/0043803).
Regarding Claims 1, 5 and 6. Whitehouse teaches a control device for controlling an operation phase (345: fig.3) of a maintenance control system (fig. 3) that performs maintenance on a service implementing specific features by means of a chained operation of multiple components using a service graph illustrating a dependency between components constituting the service(fig.3), the control device comprising one or more processors configured to(fig.14):
acquire update information of the service (305: fig. 3);
determine update convergence of the service graph (310-315: fig. 3);
and shift the operation phase to a learning phase in which the service graph is updated(320: fig. 3) when the update information has been received(325: fig. 3), and shift the operation phase to a detection phase(345: fig. 3; service runtime composition process 325 can include the interface specifications for one or more given services 205, and can also include an implementation of the service executable by the runtime process 325: [0045]) in which anomalies are detected using the service graph when it is determined that the update of the service graph has converged(350: fig. 3; the Object Detection Service 515 may determine that it can not longer meet the specified confidence constraints. In this case, it will signal an error to the execution engine 325 as feedback 350. This feedback 350 serves to ask the query processor 120 or query planning process 305 for another service graph 310. This process is also known as execution monitoring and re-planning in the artificial intelligence art.
Implementation: [0297]).
Regarding Claims 2, 7 and 10. Whitehouse further teaches the maintenance control system is provided with a generation device that updates the service graph using monitoring data including information on a series of processing in the service(315: fig. 3; [0043]), and an analysis device that detects anomalies from the monitoring data using the service graph(325: fig. 3), and the control device is configured to distribute the monitoring data to the generation device during the learning phase(320: fig. 3), and distribute the monitoring data to the analysis device during the detection phase(330: fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 8-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse in view of Sakai et al. (A service graph construction method based on distributed tracing data of multiple cooperation services, 2020(applicant admitted prior arts))
Regarding Claims 3, 8 and 11. Whitehouse silent about the service graph represents a state before, during and after processing of the component as places in a Petri net, represents processing start and processing end of the component as transitions in the Petri net, and represents a dependency between the components by arranging a new node and are between the Petri nets of the components.
However, Sakai teaches the service graph represents a state before, during and after processing of the component as places in a Petri net, represents processing start and processing end of the component as transitions in the Petri net, and represents a dependency between the components by arranging a new node and are between the Petri nets of the components (section 3.4, figs 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Whitehouse, the service graph represents a state before, during and after processing of the component as places in a Petri net, represents processing start and processing end of the component as transitions in the Petri net, and represents a dependency between the components by arranging a new node and are between the Petri nets of the components, as taught by Sakai, so as to construct a service graph.
Regarding Claim 4. Sakai further teaches the determination unit is configured to determine that the update of the service graph has converged when the number of nodes in the service graph does not change and a connection matrix in the Petri net does not change for a certain period of time (section 3.4, figs 2-3; section 4.3).
Regarding Claims 9 and 12. Sakai further teaches: determining that the update of the service graph has converged when the number of nodes in the service graph does not change and a connection matrix in the Petri net does not change for a certain period of time(section 3.4, figs 2-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Kanso et al. (US 2012/0233501) disclose etri net can be described by a directed graph, in which the bars represent transitions, the hollowed circles represent states, and the arrows connect states to transitions or transitions to states. A state may include one or more tokens (denoted by filled circles). A transition of a Petri net may fire (i.e., be enabled) whenever a guard condition is met and other predefined conditions (if any) are satisfied. When a transition fires, it consumes one or more tokens from each of its input arrows and places one or more token at each of its output arrows. DSPNs are a subclass of a Petri net that support immediate (denoted by vertical lines), timed (denoted by filled bars) and stochastic (denoted by hollowed bars) transitions from one state to another. DSPNs can be used to describe the structure and behavior of the entities managed by the AMF. Although DSPNs are described herein, it is understood that different stochastic models (e.g., Markov chains) may also be used.
b) Agarawal et al. (US 11,727,016) disclose the metrics data associated with the metric events modality, implementations of the monitoring service disclosed herein are able to render a service graph that visually indicates critical information regarding the services in an architecture, e.g., number of requests between services, the number of errors generated by a service, number of errors for which the service was the root cause, etc. The service graph 900 allows clients the ability to visually distinguish between errors that originated at the recommendation service 904 as compared with errors that simply propagated through the recommendation service 904. As shown in FIG. 9, the node associated the recommendation service 904 comprises a solid-filled circular region 966 and a partially-filled region 962, where the region 966 represents errors that originated at the recommendation service 904 while the region 962 represents errors that propagated through the recommendation service 904 but originated elsewhere (e.g., at the product catalog service 906).
d) Anwar et al. (US 10,805,171) disclose annotating knowledge graph model of the service based on the quantified impact of the change of the significant variable. A method, system, computer readable storage medium, or apparatus may provide for obtaining a policy for maintaining a service; parsing the policy to extract a first object; querying for a second object based on the first object; based on the first object and the second object, determining workload variables exposed by the first object and the second object; emulating the service based on the first object, second object, and the workload variables; determining a significant variable for the service based on the emulating; and annotating knowledge graph model of the service based on an impact of the change of the significant variable.
e) Khan et al. (US 2006/0342453) disclose It is quite possible that a state in a particular service graph is absent because of another service problem or error. Therefore, it can be advantageous to associate a set of reasons with each state identifier (and corresponding API state) as to the possible set of reasons if a particular event is absent. As shown in the graph of FIG. 3, state identifier 1 310 can have a number of properties 311 associated with it, for example, failure_reasons={“S2:4”, “S4:3” } which means that the failure reasons or absence of state identifier 1 in an example service S1 can be a 4th state of Service 2 and/or a 3rd state of Service 4. Accordingly, the state anomaly module may identify the error parameters associated with a particular missing state when an anomaly is identified and may present the error parameters to an administrator to assist in trouble shooting anomalies.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857