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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Ramakrishnan et al. (US 20110167105 A1) teaches the generation of a domain context as described by the claims.
Examiner notes that the amendment created some indefiniteness to the claims, and has provided guidance on addressing these issues below.
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.
2. Claims 26-32 and 36-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 26 refers to two instances of an SLO: (1) “receive... an intent-based service level objective (SLO) for execution of a plurality of tasks,” and “a service level agreement (SLA) rule related to a respective SLO for a task of the plurality of tasks.”
The claim lacks proper antecedent basis, wherein the respective SLO has not been accurately related to the previous instance of an SLO. As such, the claim is unclear as to the relationship between the initial recitation of the SLO and the subsequent recitation of the SLO, as the initial recitation only recites a single SLO (i.e. an SLO for a plurality of task) whereas the latter recitation seemingly recites a plurality of SLO’s (i.e. an SLO for a task of the plurality).
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets that the “respective SLO for a task of the plurality of tasks” can be identical to “an intent-based SLO for execution of a plurality of tasks,” i.e. the respective SLOs are identical to one another.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27-32 and 36-48 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 26.
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.
3. Claims 26-32, 38-41, and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keating et al. (US 20200145337 A1) in view of Ramakrishnan et al. (US 20110167105 A1).
Claim 26 Keating teaches an orchestration system, comprising:
a processor; (Keating, FIG. 2, processor 214) and
memory (Keating, FIG. 2, memory 206) to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the orchestration system to:
receive, at the orchestration system, an intent-based service level objective (SLO) for execution of a plurality of tasks; (Keating, FIG. 8, ¶0132, receiving by a orchestrator node 804 service level objective for execution of a plurality of edge services or tasks; ¶0116, wherein edge computing nodes perform edge services to accomplish one more tasks; ¶0028, wherein the SLO is intent based, i.e. is an intended result between the network orchestrator and system)
generate a common context that relates the SLO to the execution of the plurality of tasks; (Keating, FIG. 12 and FIGS. 13A-13B, ¶0132, generating a context, specifically the usage of one or more SLO/SLAs in connection with containers or edge services; ¶0116, wherein edge computing nodes perform edge services to accomplish one more tasks)
select a plurality of monitors to monitor the execution of the plurality of tasks, the plurality of monitors to log a plurality of key performance indicators; (Keating, ¶0039, Key performance indicators (KPIs) may be used to identify where sensor data is best transferred and where it is processed or stored; FIG. 4, ¶0062, wherein the sensor data is monitored from a plurality of sensor monitors, for example, cameras or weather sensors)
generate a domain context for the plurality of tasks; (Keating, ¶0030, generating a domain context via translating SLOs to a low-level, fine-grained flatform resource control)
configure an analytics system with the plurality of monitors and the plurality of key performance indicators (Keating, ¶0030, configure a platform resource manager (PRM), i.e. an analytics system, to receive an translate SLOs specifying KPIs with lower granularity, as well as to set low-level, fine-grained platform resource controls allowing platform resource allocation and monitoring to ensure compliance) correlated by the domain contexts; (See 112(b) rejection, the claim only recites a single domain context rather than a plurality; Keating, ¶0030, wherein translating the SLOs specifying KPIs comprises correlating them)
deploy the plurality of monitors to collect telemetry; (Keating, FIG. 4, ¶0062, deploying the monitors to collect telemetry)
monitor the execution of the plurality of tasks using the telemetry from the plurality of monitors; (Keating, ¶0052, monitoring resources of the edge nodes 320 in connection with one or more SLAs) and
perform a responsive action based on the telemetry. (Keating, ¶0046, an edge-computing system may be configured to responses for various client endpoints from multiple virtual edge instances)
However, Keating does not explicitly teach generate, based on a service level agreement (SLA) rule related to a respective SLO for a task of the plurality of tasks, a domain context for each of the plurality of tasks.
From a related technology, Ramakrishnan teaches generate a common context that relates the SLO to the execution of the plurality of tasks; (Ramakrishnan, ¶0152, Table – “Elements of an LAW solution,” Element Name– “Service Context” wherein the service context, i.e. common context, is generated based on a business function, i.e. SLO, related to the execution of workflow, activities, or tasks) and
generate, based on a service level agreement (SLA) rule related to a respective SLO (Ramakrishnan, ¶0156, Table – “Planning a Business Wrapper,” Step – “By reviewing implemented Enterprise IT systems and their Use Cases,” Example – “SLA,” based upon reviewing an SLA related to business wrapper/function, i.e. the respective SLO) for a task of the plurality of tasks, a domain context (Examiner interprets a domain context in contrast to a common context, wherein the common context is shared among the plurality of tasks, whereas a domain context is for each of the plurality of tasks) for each of the plurality of tasks; (Ramakrishnan, ¶0156, Table – “Planning a Business Wrapper,” Step – “Identify Contexts based on the Mobilization Use Cases;” generating, via identifying, a domain context for each of a plurality of tasks, for example “Weekly Sales,” “Review,” “Setting up appointment with Customer,” etc., Examiner interprets that as opposed to a “Service Context” that relates to the plurality of tasks as a whole, the Mobilization Use Cases provide context for specific tasks, i.e. a domain context, such as Weekly Sales vs Setting up appointments, which are distinct from one another, i.e. the context is for a given domain of tasks of the overall plurality of tasks)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Keating to expand the methods applied to a single domain context and task over a plurality of domain contexts and corresponding tasks as described by Ramakrishnan in order to more effectively utilize network resources across various implementations.
Claim 27 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein the common context includes a unique identifier associated with the plurality of tasks. (Keating, FIG. 12 and FIGS. 13A-13B, ¶0132, wherein KPIs are specified, i.e. possess a unique identifier, for an edge services, i.e. the plurality of tasks)
Claim 28 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein the common context includes a tag associated with the plurality of tasks. (Keating, FIG. 12 and FIGS. 13A-13B, ¶0132, wherein KPIs comprise tags associated with the plurality of tasks)
Claim 29 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein to generate the common context, the orchestration system is to access a rules database that stores control parameters. (Keating, ¶0177-¶0179, wherein the system access a database that stores resource configurations, i.e. control parameters)
Claim 30 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein the plurality of monitors include software-implemented operators or agents. (Keating, ¶0185, wherein the modules include software-implemented agents)
Claim 31 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein to deploy the plurality of monitors, the orchestration system is to associate a transformation function with a telemetry metric type for a monitor of the plurality of monitors, (Keating, ¶0071, wherein the system transforms the raw telemetry data into information) the transformation function used by the monitor to transform data detected by the monitor before being transmitted to the analytics system. (Keating, ¶0071, transforming the raw data before delivering the metric data)
Claim 32 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein the analytics system trains a machine learning model from the telemetry (Keating, FIG. 11, ¶0019, training a computational model used by the PRM) and uses a trained machine learning model to update rules (Keating, ¶0145, wherein the model is directed to develop its own rule, and wherein the model comprises a trained model) that are used to configure and deploy the plurality of monitors. (Examiner notes that “that are used to configured and deploy…” comprises an intended use statement and does not have patentable weight)
Claim 38 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein to monitor execution of the plurality of tasks, the orchestration system to adaptively adjust an intensity of monitoring proportional to an amount of slack with respect to an SLO of the plurality of tasks, (Keating, ¶0052, adjusting low-level controls for monitoring resources with regards to SLAs/SLOs of the tasks) wherein the amount of slack is a representation of a different between a measured KPI and an SLO threshold. (¶0052, wherein the “slack” represents the range or difference, upon which that the controls adjust between the measured data i.e. KPI, and the SLO threshold)
Claim 39 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein the orchestration system is to:
generate remediation policies (Keating, ¶0136, wherein a remedial actions are generated to address noncompliance with an SLA/SLO) to be used when a task of the plurality of tasks violates an SLO associated with the task; (Examiner notes that “to be used when a task of the plurality of tasks violates an SLO associated with the task” comprises an intended use statement and does not have patentable weight) and
configure the analytics system with the allowable remediation policies. (See 112(b) rejection, the claim does not previously recite “allowable remediation policies”, Keating, ¶0136, wherein the system is configured to perform remedial actions)
Claim 40 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 39, and further teaches
detect a deviation from the SLO associated with the task; (Keating, ¶0136, detecting noncompliance with one or more SLA/SLO associated with a task) and
apply a remediation based on the remediation policies. (Keating, ¶0136, performing a remedial action according policy)
Claim 41 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 40, and further teaches wherein to apply the remediation, the analytics system to apply a cluster-based remediation. (Keating, ¶0136, performing a remedial action according policy; ¶0066, wherein the remedial action is based upon the cluster of IoT devices of the systems, and therefore is a cluster-based remediation)
Claim 44 is taught by Keating in view of Ramakrishnan as described for Claim 26.
Claim 45 is taught by Keating in view of Ramakrishnan as described for Claim 38.
Claim 46 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein the orchestration system is to use domain context to associate telemetry from multiple sources with the respective SLO. (Keating, ¶0046, wherein the domain context associates the telemetry with the SLO, i.e. Ramakrishnan, the business function)
Claim 47 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein multiple telemetry monitors of the plurality of monitors share a same domain context, (Keating, ¶0052, monitoring resources of the edge nodes 320 in connection with an SLO; Ramakrishnan, the business intents) and wherein the orchestration system is to associate telemetry from the multiple telemetry monitors with the respective SLO. (Keating, ¶0046, wherein the domain context associates the telemetry with the SLO, i.e. Ramakrishnan, the business function)
Claim 48 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein the domain context is an infra domain, a virtual domain, a service mesh domain, an Extended Berkeley Packet Filter (eBPF) domain, a Top-down Microarchitecture Analysis Method (TMAM) domain, or a resource domain. (Ramakrishnan, ¶0156, Table – “Planning a Business Wrapper,” Step – “Identify Contexts based on the Mobilization Use Cases;” the domain context comprises a resource domain such as “Ongoing Order Management” or “Calendar Management” wherein the orders or calendar are resources)
4. Claims 33-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keating et al. (US 20200145337 A1) in view of Ramakrishnan et al. (US 20110167105 A1) and in further view of He et al. (US 20210243247 A1).
Claim 33 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein to select the plurality of monitors, the orchestration system is to assemble monitor agents. (Keating, ¶0185, wherein the monitoring modules can comprise agents)
However, Keating does not explicitly teach wherein the agent comprises a microservice monitor agent.
From a related technology, He teaches wherein the agent comprises a microservice agent. (He, ¶0114, wherein the agent can comprises a microservice agent)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Keating to incorporate well known software agent technology, such as the microservice monitoring agent described in He in order to more effectively manage IoT devices on a network.
Claim 34 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein to select the plurality of monitors, the orchestration system is to assemble monitor agents. (Keating, ¶0185, wherein the monitoring modules can comprise agents)
However, Keating does not explicitly teach wherein the agent comprises a infrastructure monitor agents.
From a related technology, He teaches wherein the agent comprises a infrastructure agent. (He, ¶0076, wherein the agent can comprises a infrastructure agent)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Keating to incorporate well known software agent technology described in, He in order to more effectively manage IoT devices on a network.
Claim 36 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein to select the plurality of monitors, the orchestration system is to assemble monitor agents. (Keating, ¶0185, wherein the monitoring modules can comprise agents)
However, Keating does not explicitly teach wherein the agent comprises a mesh monitor agents.
From a related technology, He teaches wherein the agent comprises a mesh agent. (He, ¶0079, wherein the agent can comprises a mesh agent)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Keating to incorporate well known software agent technology described in He in order to more effectively manage IoT devices on a network.
5. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keating et al. (US 20200145337 A1) in view of Ramakrishnan et al. (US 20110167105 A1) and in further view of Raney et al. (US 20210243091 A1)
Claim 35 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, and further teaches wherein to select the plurality of monitors, the orchestration system is to assemble monitor agents. (Keating, ¶0185, wherein the monitoring modules can comprise agents)
However, Keating does not explicitly teach wherein the agent comprises a packet filter monitor agents.
From a related technology, Raney teaches wherein the agent comprises a packet filter agent. (Raney, ¶0097, an extended Berkley packet filter agent)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Keating to incorporate well known software agent technology described in Raney in order to more effectively manage IoT devices on a network.
6. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keating et al. (US 20200145337 A1) in view of Ramakrishnan et al. (US 20110167105 A1) and in further view of Lenrow et al. (US 20230047880 A1).
Claim 37 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan teaches Claim 26, but does not explicitly teach wherein to deploy the plurality of monitors, the orchestration system is to inject the plurality of monitors as sidecars to corresponding tasks of the plurality of tasks.
From a related technology, Lenrow teaches injecting the plurality of monitors as sidecars to corresponding tasks of the plurality of tasks. (Lenrow, ¶0012-¶0013, injecting a sidecar that comprises a proxy application for monitoring the main application tasks)
7. Claims 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keating et al. (US 20200145337 A1) in view of Ramakrishnan et al. (US 20110167105 A1) and in view of Algarawi et al. (US 20220269785 A1).
Claim 42 Keating teaches Claim 26, but does not explicitly teach wherein the analytics system is to:
evaluate the remediation to determine a score; and
perform cleanup of the remediation in response to when the score is below a quality threshold.
From a related technology, Algarawi teaches evaluate the remediation to determine a score; (Algarawi, FIG. 3, step 340, ¶0042, evaluating a remediation score) and
perform cleanup of the remediation in response to when the score is below a quality threshold. (Algarawi, FIG. 3, step 365, ¶0043, performing a cleanup when the score is below a threshold)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Keating to perform further evaluation upon remediation of non-compliance to SLOs as described in Algarawi in order to more effectively utilize network resources when performing remediation tasks.
Claim 43 Keating in view of Ramakrishnan and Algarawi teaches Claim 42, and further teaches wherein the analytics system is to create a new remediation policy when the score is below the quality threshold. (Algarawi, ¶0039, identifying a new remediation action or policy when a score is below threshold)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444