Detailed Action
This action is in response to application filed on 10/08/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 10/08/2023 are accepted.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to a method to provide site reliability engineering (SRE) as a service for software products residing in a first computing environment, the method comprising:
implementing a SRE service site, which provides the SRE service, at a second computing environment remote from the first computing environment;
implementing a SRE agent at the first computing environment, wherein the SRE agent is configured to obtain information regarding a software product in the first computing environment and to provide the obtained information to the SRE service site;
analyzing, at the SRE service site, the information provided by the SRE agent to identify an issue pertaining to the software product;
performing diagnosis, at the SRE service site, to identify a cause of the issue;
determining, at the SRE service site and from the cause of the issue, a remediation to address the issue; and
instructing the SRE agent to apply the remediation at the first computing environment.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”). For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform a method to provide site reliability engineering (SRE) as a service for software products residing in a first computing environment, the method comprising: mentally analyzing, the information provided by the SRE agent to identify an issue pertaining to the software product; mentally performing diagnosis, to identify a cause of the issue; mentally determining, from the cause of the issue, a remediation to address the issue; and instructing the SRE agent/user via pen/paper/message to apply the remediation at the first computing environment.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “implementing a SRE service site, which provides the SRE service, at a second computing environment remote from the first computing environment; implementing a SRE agent at the first computing environment, wherein the SRE agent is configured to obtain information regarding a software product in the first computing environment and to provide the obtained information to the SRE service site” and for arguments sake “instructing the SRE agent to apply the remediation at the first computing environment”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “implementing a SRE service site, which provides the SRE service, at a second computing environment remote from the first computing environment; implementing a SRE agent at the first computing environment, wherein the SRE agent is configured to obtain information regarding a software product in the first computing environment and to provide the obtained information to the SRE service site” and for arguments sake “instructing the SRE agent to apply the remediation at the first computing environment”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 9, and 15 are medium and system claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 9, and 15 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 9, and 14.
In particular:
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the first computing environment includes a virtualized computing environment where the software product resides.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein performing the diagnosis and determining the remediation respectively comprise: using a diagnostic script stored at a diagnosis repository at the SRE service site to identify the cause of the issue; and using a remediation script stored at a remediation repository at the SRE service site to determine the remediation to address the issue.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper to make determinations/identification using received data/documents.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites, further comprising updating the SRE agent in response to a change in the software product.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites, further comprising after having analyzed the information and identified the issue: triggering the performing the diagnosis to identify the cause of the issue; generating an alarm to notify a first entity, being a user of the software product, of the issue; and generating a ticket to inform a second entity, being a provider of the software product, of the issue, wherein reference information exists at the SRE service site that is applicable to the issue.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising after having analyzed the information and identified the issue: generating an alarm to notify a first entity, being a user of the software product, of the issue; and generating a ticket to inform a second entity, being a provider of the software product, of the issue, wherein the issue is a new issue at the first computing environment for which reference information applicable to the issue is absent from the SRE service site.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites, wherein: a first entity is a user of the software product, a second entity is a provider of the software product, a third entity maintains the SRE service site and the SRE agent, and the third entity provides at least one interface to the SRE service and to the SRE agent to enable the second entity to update functionality of the SRE service and the SRE agent.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 further incorporated, further recites, further comprising maintaining, at the SRE service site, at least one or more of: a first repository to store reference metric information; a second repository to store reference diagnosis information; a third repository to store reference remediation information, wherein the second entity provides and updates the reference metric information, the reference diagnosis information, and the reference remediation information.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claims 10, 12-13.
Claims 10, 12-13 are medium and/or system claims corresponding to method claims 3, 5-6 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 10, and 12-13, are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 3, 5-6.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein the method further comprises updating the SRE agent in response to a change in the software product.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recties wherein the method further comprises providing an interface to the SRE service site to enable an entity, which provides the software product, to update functionality of the SRE service site or the SRE agent.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 further incorporated, further recites wherein the instructions, in response to execution by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform operations to: provide an interface to enable an entity to update functionality of the SRE agent, wherein the entity is a provider of the software product, and wherein the functionality of the SRE agent is updated in response to a change in the software product.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 15 further incorporated, further recites wherein the instructions, in response to execution by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform operations to: generate an alarm to notify a first entity, being a user of the software product, of the issue; and generate a ticket to notify a second entity, being a provider of the software product, to investigate the issue to determine the cause of the issue and the remediation to address the issue.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 18, the rejection 15 further incorporated, further recites, wherein the remote computing environment includes a virtualized computing environment where the SRE agent resides, and wherein the analysis, diagnosis, and remediation units reside in a cloud computing environment.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 15 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: a first repository to store reference metric information usable by the analysis unit to identify the issue; a second repository to store reference diagnosis information usable by the diagnosis unit to identify the cause of the issue; a third repository to store reference remediation information usable by the remediation unit to determine the remediation.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 15 further incorporated, further recites, wherein the information received from the SRE agent is received from a proxy.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
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 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fighel (US 20180114234 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Official Notice.
As per claim 1, D1 discloses,
A method to provide site reliability engineering (SRE) as a service for software products residing in a first computing environment, the method comprising, (D1, abstract, 0027 discloses providing production assistant 100 which determines/diagnosis if issues or problems have occurred and generates reports, and applies remediation actions to fix issues/problems.).
implementing a SRE service site, which provides the SRE service, at a second computing environment remote from the first computing environment, (D1, 0027-0028, 0167, 00168 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments in a client server architecture that are remote from each other.).
implementing a SRE agent at the first computing environment, wherein the SRE agent is configured to obtain information regarding a software product in the first computing environment and to provide the obtained information to the SRE service site, wherein the information is collected by the SRE agent and pertains to operational behavior of the software product, (D1, figure 1, 0027-0028, 0039 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments, where D1 specifically discloses production environment assistant includes a data collection unit 200 which is responsible for receiving or obtaining data from a client's production environment. The data collection unit 200 would typically receive data via application programming interfaces (APIs) which have been installed and configured on the client's systems. The APIs would be configured to automatically send certain types of data to the data collection unit 200 on a periodic or continuous basis…. storage unite 300 receiving the data or in the alternative, using a dedicated agent installed on the client servers or networking equipment.).
analyzing, at the SRE service site, the information provided by the SRE agent to identify an issue pertaining to the software product, (D1, figure 1, 0027-0028, 0032-0036 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue pertaining to the software product/production environment.).
performing diagnosis, at the SRE service site, to identify a cause of the issue, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0034, 0067, 0072 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including performing diagnosis, to identify a cause of the issue (e.g. ”diagnosis is that problem n2 has occurred”).
determining, at the SRE service site and from the cause of the issue, a remediation to address the issue, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0067, 0072-0074 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including performing diagnosis, to identify a cause of the issue (e.g. ”diagnosis is that problem n2 has occurred”, as well as determining based on the cause of the issue/query to database, a remediation to address the issue).
and instructing the SRE agent to apply the remediation at the first computing environment, (D1, figure 1, 8-9, 17 and accompanying text, 0032-0035-0036, 0072-0074, 0080, 0083-0086 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including performing diagnosis, to identify a cause of the issue (e.g. ”diagnosis is that problem n2 has occurred” as well as taken action to apply remediation to the computing environment, wherein API/agent and active inspector (collectively “sre agent”) are installed in the on client production environment to communicate with production assistant system and receive and/or have instruction to apply remediation action the production environment.).
As noted above, D1 arguably/inherently discloses second computing environment is separate and therefore remote from the first computing environment; nevertheless, for sake of completeness, the examiner further takes official notice that second computing environment remote from the first computing environment was well known before effective fling of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include second computing environment remote from the first computing environment. This would have been obvious with predictable results of networked computing devices/environment in communication with each other while being remote from each other as known the art and to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the first computing environment includes a virtualized computing environment where the software product resides, (D1, 0002, 0027-0028, 0167, 00168 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments in a client server architecture that are remote from each other.).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein performing the diagnosis and determining the remediation respectively comprise, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0067, 0072-0074 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including performing diagnosis, to identify a cause of the issue (e.g. ”diagnosis is that problem n2 has occurred”, as well as determining based on the cause of the issue/query to database, a remediation to address the issue).
using a diagnostic script stored at a diagnosis repository at the SRE service site to identify the cause of the issue, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0062-0073 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including using a diagnostic script (e.g. rules and AI) stored at a diagnosis repository at the SRE service site to identify the cause of the issue).
and using a remediation script stored at a remediation repository at the SRE service site to determine the remediation to address the issue, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0062-0075 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including using a diagnostic script (e.g. rules and AI) stored at a diagnosis repository at the SRE service site to identify the cause of the issue, and furthermore using a remediation script stored (e.g. remediation unit) at a remediation repository at the SRE service site to determine/perform the remediation actions to address the issue.).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
further comprising after having analyzed the information and identified the issue, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0062-0075 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including using a diagnostic script (e.g. rules and AI) stored at a diagnosis repository at the SRE service site to identify the cause of the issue, and furthermore using a remediation script stored (e.g. remediation unit) at a remediation repository at the SRE service site to determine/perform the remediation actions to address the issue.).
triggering the performing the diagnosis to identify the cause of the issue, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0062-0075 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including using a diagnostic script (e.g. rules and AI) stored at a diagnosis repository at the SRE service site to identify the cause of the issue, and furthermore using a remediation script stored (e.g. remediation unit) at a remediation repository at the SRE service site to determine/perform the remediation actions to address the issue.).
generating an alarm to notify a first entity, being a user of the software product, of the issue, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0078 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including generating an alarm to notify a first entity, being a user of the software product, of the issue).
and generating a ticket to inform a second entity, of the issue, wherein reference information exists at the SRE service site that is applicable to the issue, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0078 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including generating an alarm to notify a first entity/second entity (e.g. user, client and/or system administrator), where issues and remediation are stored in database of the production assistant 100.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [second entity] being a provider of the software product.
However, the examine takes official that providing error notifications about services/applications to an entity being provider of the software product was well known before effective fling of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include [second entity] being a provider of the software product. This would have been obvious with predicable results of providing error/ticket information to a provider of the software product so that provider may make future updates as known in the art and to one of ordinary skill the art.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
further comprising after having analyzed the information and identified the issue, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0062-0075 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including using a diagnostic script (e.g. rules and AI) stored at a diagnosis repository at the SRE service site to identify the cause of the issue, and furthermore using a remediation script stored (e.g. remediation unit) at a remediation repository at the SRE service site to determine/perform the remediation actions to address the issue.).
generating an alarm to notify a first entity, being a user of the software product, of the issue, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0078 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including generating an alarm to notify a first entity, being a user of the software product, of the issue).
and generating a ticket to inform a second entity, of the issue, wherein the issue is a new issue at the first computing environment for which reference information applicable to the issue is absent from the SRE service site, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0078 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including generating an alarm to notify a first entity/second entity (e.g. user, client and/or system administrator), where database in queried to determine if he issues are new or same as previous issues.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [second entity] being a provider of the software product.
However, the examine takes official that providing error notifications about services/applications to an entity being provider of the software product was well known before effective fling of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include [second entity] being a provider of the software product. This would have been obvious with predicable results of providing error/ticket information to a provider of the software product so that provider may make future updates as known in the art and to one of ordinary skill the art.
As per claims 9-10, 12-13, and 15
Claims 9-10, 12-13, and 15 are medium and system claims corresponding to method claims 1, 3, 5-6 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 9-10, and 12-13, and 15 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 1, 3, 5-6.
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 15 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the instructions, in response to execution by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform operations to, (D1, 0027-0028)
generate an alarm to notify a first entity, being a user of the software product, of the issue; (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0078 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including generating an alarm to notify a first entity, being a user of the software product, of the issue).
and generate a ticket to notify a second entity, to investigate the issue to determine the cause of the issue and the remediation to address the issue, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0078 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including generating an alarm to notify a first entity/second entity (e.g. user, client and/or system administrator), where issues and remediation are stored in database of the production assistant 100, and provided to user for selection to remedy identified issues.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [second entity] being a provider of the software product.
However, the examine takes official that providing error notifications about services/applications to an entity being provider of the software product was well known before effective fling of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include [second entity] being a provider of the software product. This would have been obvious with predicable results of providing error/ticket information to a provider of the software product so that provider may make future updates as known in the art and to one of ordinary skill the art.
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 15 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the remote computing environment includes a virtualized computing environment where the SRE agent resides, and wherein the analysis, diagnosis, and remediation units reside in a cloud computing environment, (D1, 0027-0028, 0084, 00162, 0167, 00168 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments in a client server architecture that are remote from each other, where the system may be virtual machines/environments and/or cloud.).
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 15 further incorporated, D1 disclose
further comprising: a first repository to store reference metric information usable by the analysis unit to identify the issue; a second repository to store reference diagnosis information usable by the diagnosis unit to identify the cause of the issue; a third repository to store reference remediation information usable by the remediation unit to determine the remediation, (D1, 0051, 0056, 0073, 0129, 0134 discloses databases for storing reference metric information, diagnosis information, reference remediation, customer feedback information among other databases usable various unite as shown in figure 1.).
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 15 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the information received from the SRE agent is received from a proxy, (D1, 0039 discloses agent sends collected to data collection unit using one or more separate APIs (e.g. proxy)).
Claim 4, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fighel (US 20180114234 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Basak et al. (US 20130145349 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Nikam et al. (US 20170161051 A1, referred hereinafter as D3).
As per claims 4, the rejection of claims 1 and 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
further comprising [configuring] the SRE agent..., (D1, 0039-0042 discloses configuring API/agent).
D1 discloses SRE agent; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - updating the... agent…
D2 (abstract) discloses updating the agent.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include updating agent. This would have been obvious with predicable results of updating agent as disclosed by D2.
D1/D2 discloses updating agent/modules; however, D1/D2 fails to expressly disclose – [updates first application] in response to a change in the software product.
D3 (0018) discloses dependency based updating of services/applications/code including updates first application in response to a change in the software product.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to… in response to a change in the software product. This would have been obvious with predictable results of updating application/services while preventing cascading failures as disclosed by D3 (0004).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 16 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the instructions, in response to execution by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform operations to, (D1, 0027).
an entity to [configure] functionality of SRE agent, (D1, 0039-0042. 0063 discloses configuring API/agent).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – wherein the entity is a provider of the software product.
However, the examine takes official that providing error notifications about services/applications to an entity being provider of the software product was well known before effective fling of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include [second entity] being a provider of the software product. This would have been obvious with predicable results of providing error/ticket information to a provider of the software product so that provider may make future updates as known in the art and to one of ordinary skill the art.
D1 discloses SRE agent; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – update functionality of the… agent.
D2 (abstract) discloses updating the agent.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include updating functionality of the agent. This would have been obvious with predicable results of updating agent as disclosed by D2.
As noted above, D1 discloses SRE service site and SRE agent, and known entity that provides software product; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose- providing an interface to the [services/application] to enable [updates] in response to change in the software product.
D3 (0018-0019) discloses dependency based updating of services/applications/code including updates first application in response to a change in the software product, where D3 includes update system/ entity which provides at least one interface to services/applications in order to update the services/applications.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, third entity provides at least one interface to services/applications in order to update the services/applications. This would have been obvious with predictable results of updating application/services while preventing cascading failures as disclosed by D3 (0004).
Claim are 7-8, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fighel (US 20180114234 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Nikam et al. (US 20170161051 A1, referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Basak et al. (US 20130145349 A1, referred hereinafter as D2).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein: a first entity is a user of the software product, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0036, 0078 discloses providing production assistant 100 which monitors separate/remote client production environments for analyzing/evaluating the information provided by the SRE agent/API to identify an issue/incident/problem pertaining to the software product/production environment including generating an alarm to notify a first entity and other entity (e.g. user, client and/or system administrator).).
a third entity maintains the SRE service site and the SRE agent, (D1, figure 1, 5-6 and accompanying text, 0032-0037, 0043, 0062, discloses system admin correlating issues or problems in the business of a production environment with the rood hardware and/or software issues that give rise to those business issues and problems… to set up pre-defined rules which will determine when and how the active collection unit 208 seeks out information from a client's production environment…. The evaluation rules unit 502 includes a rules set up unit 504 that allows system administrators and clients to set up various rules which determine what types of evaluations are to be performed for a client's production environment. The rules could also establish how frequently and/or under what circumstances a particular type of evaluation should be performed. The rules could also establish various other aspects of how a particular analysis is to be performed which reads on third entity maintains the SRE service site (e.g. rules) and the SRE agent (e.g. Frequency to data collection via API/agent)).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – second entity being a provider of the software product.
However, the examine takes official that providing error notifications about services/applications to an entity being provider of the software product was well known before effective fling of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include [second entity] being a provider of the software product. This would have been obvious with predicable results of providing error/ticket information to a provider of the software product so that provider may make future updates as known in the art and to one of ordinary skill the art.
As noted above, D1 discloses SRE service and SRE agent, as well as third entity, and known second entity being software provider; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - and the third entity provides at least one interface to enable … to update functionality of the [service/application].
D3 (0018-0019) discloses dependency based updating of services/applications/code including updates first application in response to a change in the software product, where D3 includes update system/the third entity which provides at least one interface to services/applications in order to update the services/applications.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, third entity provides at least one interface to services/applications in order to update the services/applications. This would have been obvious with predictable results of updating application/services while preventing cascading failures as disclosed by D3 (0004).
D1 discloses SRE agent; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – update functionality of… the… agent.
D2 (abstract) discloses updating the agent.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include updating agent. This would have been obvious with predicable results of updating agent as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
further comprising maintaining, at the SRE service site, at least one or more of: a first repository to store reference metric information; a second repository to store reference diagnosis information; a third repository to store reference remediation information, (D1, 0051, 0056, 0073, 0129, 0134 discloses databases for storing reference metric information, diagnosis information, reference remediation, customer feedback information among other databases.).
wherein… provides and updates the reference metric information, the reference diagnosis information, and the reference remediation information, (D1, 0051, 0056, 0073, 0129, 0134 discloses collecting various data and providing/updating databases for storing reference metric information, diagnosis information, reference remediation, customer feedback information among other databases.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - the second entity…
However, the examine takes official that providing error notifications about services/applications to an entity being provider of the software product was well known before effective fling of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include [second entity] being a provider of the software product. This would have been obvious with predicable results of providing error/ticket information to a provider of the software product so that provider may make future updates as known in the art and to one of ordinary skill the art.
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses
wherein the method further comprises, (D1, 0027-0028).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – entity being a provider of the software product.
However, the examine takes official that providing error notifications about services/applications to an entity being provider of the software product was well known before effective fling of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include [second entity] being a provider of the software product. This would have been obvious with predicable results of providing error/ticket information to a provider of the software product so that provider may make future updates as known in the art and to one of ordinary skill the art.
As noted above, D1 discloses SRE service site and SRE agent, and known entity that provides software product; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose- providing an interface to the [services/application] to enable…, to update functionality of [services/applications] ….
D3 (0018-0019) discloses dependency based updating of services/applications/code including updates first application in response to a change in the software product, where D3 includes update system/ entity which provides at least one interface to services/applications in order to update the services/applications.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, third entity provides at least one interface to services/applications in order to update the services/applications. This would have been obvious with predictable results of updating application/services while preventing cascading failures as disclosed by D3 (0004).
D1 discloses SRE agent; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – update … the… agent.
D2 (abstract) discloses updating the agent.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include updating agent. This would have been obvious with predicable results of updating agent as disclosed by D2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
ON-DEMAND OR DYNAMIC DIAGNOSTIC AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SUPPORT SERVICE
DOCUMENT ID
US 20180095847 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2018-04-05
Abstract
An assistance service through its local client application or agent at a user's device hardware and software environment information and monitor a health of one or more applications. Upon detecting an issue or being activated by the user, the assistance service may perform diagnostic and/or recovery actions. If predefined or dynamically determined recovery actions are inadequate to address the issue, the assistance service may engage a support service providing collected user device environment information and received server environment information to the support service. A history of attempted recovery actions and diagnostic results may also be provided. The assistance service may, through a user interface of its local, client or agent, facilitate communication with the supports service and perform recovery actions, suggested by the support service providing feedback to the support service. When needed, the assistance service may rollback a version of locally installed or server-side applications to address the issue.
AUTONOMOUS MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTING SYSTEMS
DOCUMENT ID
US 20220413983 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
Abstract
Implementations described herein relate to methods, systems, and computer-readable media to monitor a distributed computing system. In some implementations, a method may include obtaining a first plurality of monitoring metrics of a respective application of one or more applications executing over the distributed computing system, obtaining time-series data of the first plurality of monitoring metrics, programmatically analyzing the time-series data of the first plurality of monitoring metrics to determine a second plurality of monitoring metrics, wherein the second plurality of monitoring metrics is determined to be a predictive set of the first plurality of monitoring metrics, and monitoring the distributed computing system by monitoring the second plurality of monitoring metrics.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. 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.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194