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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-12, 14-21, 23-25, 27-31, and 33-63 are allowed over the prior art.
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 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma (US 2023/0023744 A1), and further in view of xxx.
For claim 1, Verma teaches a system to identify an actionable event for a product deployed in a connected environment having a plurality of distinct ecosystems, the system comprising: (see paragraphs [0011], [0001], [0064-0065], abstract, and other locations; by example, view fault as said actionable event; every computer in which software is deployed upon is in a different location; view said as distinct ecosystems) a processor to: extract, for the product, an event correlation map in relation to a plurality of events generated by the plurality of distinct ecosystems, wherein an event is indicative of an activity at one or more entities operating in the plurality of distinct ecosystems; (see [0033-0034] and other locations: view DAG and knowledge graph as such map; view component as said entity) identify a plurality of actionable items based on the event correlation map, wherein an actionable item is a response trigger associated with one or more events from amongst the plurality of events; (see [0033-0034] and other locations: view fault types as said as said actionable items which are triggers for corrective actions) deduce correlations among the plurality of actionable items; identify, based on the correlations, a hierarchical product parameter associated with each of the plurality of actionable items, wherein the hierarchical product parameter is an operational factor associated with the product within a hierarchy of operational factors; (see locations pointed to above: view ordering of remediation as said hierarchy of operational factors) determine an entity from amongst the one or more entities operating in the plurality of distinct ecosystems in relation to the identified hierarchical product parameter, wherein the determined entity is authorized to undertake an action in relation to the identified hierarchical product parameter; and transmit an indication of each set of the identified hierarchical product parameter and associated actionable items therefor to the determined entity (see locations pointed to above: view taking first (prioritized) remedial action by a controller among controllers automatically as said determine entity (controller) executing remediation using the information as input (transmitted to it)); wherein the hierarchy of operational factors is formed of: a capability as a sub-unit of the product, wherein the capability represents functions performed by the product: a feature as a sub-unit of the capability, wherein the feature represents an item configurable to perform the capability, and a microservice as a sub-unit of the feature, wherein the microservice represents backend constructs for configuring the item performing the capability, wherein the hierarchical product parameter comprises at least one of the capability, the feature, and the microservice; wherein the hierarchy of operational factors is formed of: a capability as a sub-unit of the product, wherein the capability represents functions performed by the product (see [0012]: view the ability to remediate as aid capability); a feature as a sub-unit of the capability, wherein the feature represents an item configurable to perform the capability (see [0012]: view the ability to view deciding how many resources to use for migrating on the fly, as said configurable item), and a microservice as a sub-unit of the feature, wherein the microservice represents backend constructs for configuring the item performing the capability, wherein the hierarchical product parameter comprises at least one of the capability, the feature, and the microservice (see [0012]: microservice is performing the capability; microservice is backend because it is invisible).
For claim 2, Verma teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the plurality of distinct ecosystems comprises at least one of a developer-end ecosystem and a user-end ecosystem (see [0017], [0029], [0082], and other locations: view administrator as said developer).
For claim 5, Verma teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the processor is to transmit the indication of the each set of the identified hierarchical product parameter and the associated actionable items therefor in response to a condition being fulfilled, wherein the condition is at least one of: a rate of occurrence of event exceeding a threshold, an identification of anomaly in one or more parameters associated with the actionable item; and a level of severity of the associated actionable items exceeding a threshold level (see locations pointed to above: view remedial action found to correct root cause as said condition).
For claim 6, Verma teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the processor is to determine, within the hierarchy of operational factors comprising the identified hierarchical product parameter, another hierarchical product parameter affected by the action undertaken by the entity in relation to the identified hierarchical product parameter (see locations pointed to above: ordered list of possible problems and their remedial actions as said another parameter).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights