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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
103 Rejection
Applicant argues Ruan fails to teach or suggest any “transient” environmental conditions that occur “in the first duration of time [when the criteria are met]”.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Ruan teaches [0089] the environment parameter may include a temperature, an air humidity, an atmospheric pressure, an electromagnetic interference, an altitude, an air pH, a power supply current stability, or the like, or any combination thereof. Under the broadest and most reasonable interpretation of the word “transient”, Ruan describes a non-steady state where a processing system responses to conditions like temperature, air humidity, or atmospheric pressure change. These environmental conditions, especially temperature, air humidity and atmospheric pressure, are known to change over time in response to shifting external factors like weather, including when criteria are met. Therefore, based on the teachings of Ruan, it’s the position of the Office that the argued limitation is taught by the prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan et al. (2023/0082761) in view of Crabtree et al. (2021/0168175).
With respect to claim 1, Ruan et al. teaches a method of managing functionality of data processing systems (i.e. target devices 110 are disclosed to be a computer [0046] and further in para. [0046], Ruan et al. teaches the monitoring system monitors more than one target device 110) throughout a distributed environment (i.e. an environment defined by the various target devices 110) by a data processing system manager (i.e. 120, disclosed as a big data center; [0054]), the method comprising: identifying an occurrence of a first event (i.e. a sensed operating speed; [0082]) indicating that first operation of a first data processing system (i.e. a first computer 110; [0046] [0054]) of the data processing systems (i.e. the disclosed plurality of target devices 110) meets criteria for a first duration of time (i.e. during the operation of the first computer 110); collecting first environmental data using a sensor (210) positioned in a first environment of the first data processing system (as Ruan et al. teaches the sensor(s) 210 are position in the environment of the first computer 110; [0058]); performing, using a digital twin of the first data processing system (as system 120 generates a digital twin of the first computer 110; [0060]), a first simulated operation of the first data processing system (i.e. via the digital twin of the first computer 110; as Ruan et al. teaches data collected from the sensors 210, reference devices 130, and the digital twin of the first computer 110, is used to simulate different types of environments based on the collected data; [0061]) based on the first environment data (collected via 210); making a first determination, based on the occurrence of the first event (i.e. the sensed operation speed of the first computer 110), regarding whether the first operation matches the first simulated operation (disclosed as being simulated in a digital twin model, Fig. 2) within a threshold (as Ruan et al. teaches in [0149] a determination is made if a difference between the first event and a target parameter simulated by the digital twin is larger than a threshold); in an instance of the first determination (i.e. based on the difference between the obtained processing speed event and the reference defined by the digital twin) in which the first operation matches the first simulated operation within the threshold (i.e. the difference being smaller than the threshold; [0149]): attributing the first determination (i.e. the determined difference between the measurement and simulation measurement) to transient environmental conditions (temperature, air humidity, or atmospheric pressure, which changes according to external factors, like weather; [0089]) in the first duration of time (as Ruan et al. teaches in [0101] the first environment model may include a plurality of association rules between a first operating parameter Q and the second operating parameter P. Each of the plurality of association rules may correspond to one of the plurality of types of environment. The association rule corresponding to a certain type of environment may indicate a correlation between the first operating parameter and the second operating parameter in the certain type of environment; hence Ruan et al. teaches a step that can attribute that sensed measurement to a "certain type of environment" by selecting the corresponding association rule); continuing to operate the first data processing system (i.e. the first computer 110) without attempting to remediate an apparent performance deficit in the first operation (i.e. processing speed) indicated by the criteria (as defined by the threshold and determined difference).
Ruan et al. remains silent regarding the simulation includes a scenario of an attack on the first data processing system.
Crabtree et al. teaches similar method that includes a simulation that takes into account a scenario of an attack on a computer system (as Crabtree teaches in [0058] simulating cyber-attacks on a computing system and their impacts on the computer system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Ruan et al. to include in the simulation of cyber-attack scenarios, as taught in Crabtree et al., because Crabtree teaches such a modification allows for more accurate recommendations based on an analysis of the simulation results against a variety of cost/benefit indicators (as read in the abstract), thereby improving the method of Ruan et al.
With respect to claim 14, Ruan et al. as modified teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium [0038] having instructions stored therein (i.e. an executable program), which when executed by a processor (software module, as modified), cause the processor (module, as modified) to perform the rejected operations of claim 1 (as seen above) for managing functionality of data processing systems throughout a distributed environment by a data processing system manager (120).
With respect to claim 18, Ruan et al. as modified teaches a data processing system (Fig. 2; as modified), comprising: a processor (module; [0038], as modified); and a memory [0038] coupled to the processor (module) to store instructions (i.e. disclosed executable program; [0038]), which when executed by the processor (module), cause the processor (module) to perform the rejected operations (see the rejection for claim 1) for managing functionality of data processing systems (i.e. computers; [0042]) throughout a distributed environment by a data processing system manager (Fig. 2).
With respect to claims 2, 15 and 19 Ruan et al. teaches the method wherein identifying the occurrence of the first event (i.e. the processing speed of the first targe computer 110) comprises: obtaining operational data for the first data processing system (via sensors) during the first duration of time (i.e. its operation), the operational data representing the first operation (i.e. the processing speed of the computer 110); and comparing the operational data to the criteria (i.e. as defined by the threshold and the determined difference).
With respect to claims 3, 16 and 20 Ruan et al. teaches the method wherein making the first determination comprises: obtaining simulated operational data for the first data processing system (via the digital twin), the simulated operational data being based on simulated nominal operation (i.e. a simulated environment surrounding 110) of the first data processing system (i.e. computer 110) using the digital twin (Fig. 2), obtaining a difference (D; [0149]) based on the operational data (i.e. the processing speed) and the simulated operational data (from the digital twin); and comparing the difference to the threshold [0149].
With respect to claims 4 and 17, Ruan et al. teaches the method wherein obtaining the simulated operational data (via the digital twin) comprises initiating operation of the digital twin based on the first environment data (as Ruan et al. teaches running the digital twin of the computer under the same sensed environment data of the first computer; [0061]).
With respect to claim 5, Ruan et al. teaches the method wherein obtaining the first environment data comprises: querying a meteorological data source (i.e. an environment sensor; [0058]) to request weather data (like humidity or temperature) for the first environment (of the first computer 110).
With respect to claim 6, Ruan et al. teaches the method further comprising: generating, based on the first environment data (via 210) and historical environment data for environments proximal to the first environment (as Ruan teaches historical data maybe collected from a reference device operating under similar conditions; [0059]), synthetic environment data indicating likely environment conditions of the proximal environments during the first duration of time (as Ruan teaches simulating environment data around the reference device 130 during the operation of the first computer, as sensed); and adding the synthetic environment data to the first environment data (as Fig. 2 depicts data being added from the reference device 130 to the digital twin to simulate the environment).
With respect to claim 7, Ruan et al. teaches the method further comprising: wherein the transient environmental conditions correspond to the first environment data (sensed by 210).
With respect to claim 8, Ruan et al. teaches the method further comprising: identifying an occurrence of a second event (as Ruan teaches measuring data to other devices; [0042], thereby reading on the claimed invention) indicating that second operation of a second data processing system (i.e. another, difference device; [0042]) of the data processing systems (i.e. other computers, for example) meets the criteria for a second duration of time (i.e. a second duration of time occurring during the operation of the second computer); making a second determination, based on the occurrence of the second event (i.e. a detected processing speed for the second computer), regarding whether the second operation (i.e. processing speed of the second computer) matches second simulated operation of the second data processing system (disclosed as being simulated in the digital twin, Fig. 2) within the threshold (as Ruan et al. teaches in [0149] a determination is made if a difference between the first event and a target parameter simulated by the digital twin is larger than a threshold), the second simulated operation being obtained using a digital twin (Fig. 2) of the second data processing system (i.e. the second computer); in an instance of the second determination (i.e. based on the difference between the obtained processing speed event and the reference defined by the digital twin for the second computer) in which the second operation (processing speed) does not match the second simulated operation within the threshold (i.e. the difference D being larger than the threshold; [0149]): performing an action set to attempt to remediate a performance deficit in the second operation (as Ruan et al. teaches in Fig. 8, s830 sending a control signal to modifying the operating parameters like processing speed based on the determination; [0130-0131]).
With respect to claim 9, Ruan et al. teaches the method wherein the transient environmental conditions are fist environmental conditions (as sensed by sensor 210) corresponding to the first environment data and wherein performing the action set comprises: deducing that second environmental conditions (as sensed by a second of the sensor(s) 210) of a second environment in which the second data processing system (i.e. the second computer system) is positioned are not responsible for the second operation meeting the criteria (defined by the threshold) and that deterioration (i.e. loss in processing speed) of the second data processing system (i.e. the second computer) is responsible for the second operation meeting the criteria (as Ruan teaches a system that performs various control logic steps to deduce why the difference was outside the defined criteria; the disclosed system during operation will determine the cause of the loss in performance, whether it being environmental or degradation).
With respect to claim 10, Ruan et al. teaches the method wherein the first environmental conditions are (capable of being) different from the second environmental conditions (as this conditional statement does not further define the method itself, but rather the conditions occurring during the performance of the method; further, it is the position of the Office, the taught method of Ruan et al. is capable of experiencing same processing speeds during difference environmental conditions of the two difference computers located at two difference positions).
With respect to claim 11, Ruan et al. teaches the method wherein the first event is a first reduction in computation speed [0082] by the first data processing system (i.e. the first computer) and the second event is a second reduction in computation speed [0082] by the second data processing system (i.e. the second computer).
With respect to claim 12, Ruan et al. teaches the method wherein the operational data comprises a rate of computations performed by the first data processing system (processing speed; [0082]).
With respect to claim 13, Ruan et al. teaches the method wherein the threshold is a multi-dimensional threshold comprising a list of thresholds, each threshold of the list of the thresholds corresponding to a characteristic of the list of the characteristics (as Ruan et al. teaches each parameter used to judge a target device’s operations contains its own threshold, thereby reading on the method comprising a list of threshold corresponding to characteristics of a device of the list of characteristics for that device).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berti et al. (2022/0114310) teaches a similar method and system which utilizes a digital twin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights