CTNF 18/394,003 CTNF 100762 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-05-06 Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 15. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-7, 10-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. With Respect to Claim 1: Step 1 : Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One : Claim 1 recites the limitations: associating , by a device, an application with an agent that instruments the application during execution; (The “agent” could represent a person such as a customer representative.) configuring , by the device, the agent to load an extension that alters functionality of the agent; (the “extension” could represent additional responsibility that the person/customer representative executes) configuring , by the device, an implementation of the extension of the agent as a wrapper to launch one or more custom extensions; (The “wrapper” could represent a customer service protocol that the person/customer representative uses to execute the additional responsibilities.) and executing , by the device, the one or more custom extensions via the wrapper. (The person/customer representative executes the additional responsibilities via the customer service protocol.) These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity (“managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).). Step 2A, Prong Two : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: by a device The additional element (a) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, and thus does not integrate into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements: by a device The additional element (a) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, and thus does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). With Respect to Claim 2: Under Step 2A Prong 1 , Claim 2 depends on Claim 1, and it recites the following limitation: wherein the agent generates OpenTelemetry data while instrumenting the application. (Continuing from the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claim 1, the generation of OpenTelemetry data could represent the person/customer representative taking notes.) These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity (“managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).). Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements. With Respect to Claim 3: Under Step 2A Prong 1 , Claim 3 depends on Claim 1, and it recites the following limitation: wherein the extension of the agent is an AgentListener interface implementation. (Continuing from the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claim 1, the interface implementation could represent the person/customer representative following a clause of the customer service protocol.) These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity (“managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).). Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements. With Respect to Claim 4: Under Step 2A Prong 1 , Claim 4 depends on Claim 3, and it recites the following limitation: wherein the AgentListener interface implementation is configured to launch the one or more custom extensions of the agent responsive to an afterAgent method being called. (Continuing from the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claim 1, the “afterAgent method” being called results in the person/customer representative being granted additional responsibility.) These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity (“managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).). Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements. With Respect to Claim 5: Under Step 2A Prong 1 , Claim 5 depends on Claim 1, and it recites the following limitation: wherein the extension of the agent is an AgentExtension interface implementation. (Continuing from the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claim 1, the interface implementation could represent the person/customer representative following a clause of the customer service protocol.) These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity (“managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).). Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements. With Respect to Claim 6: Under Step 2A Prong 1 , Claim 6 depends on Claim 5, and it recites the following limitation: wherein the AgentExtension interface implementation is configured to launch the one or more custom extensions of the agent responsive to an extend method being called. (Continuing from the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claim 1, the “extend method” being called results in the person/customer representative being granted additional responsibility.) These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity (“managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements. With Respect to Claim 7: Under Step 2A Prong 1 , Claim 7 depends on Claim 1, and it recites the following limitation: wherein launching the one or more custom extensions includes integrating additional functionality to the agent from outside of the implementation of the extension. (Continuing from the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claim 1, the integration of additional functionality to the agent could represent the person/customer representative being given additional responsibility.) These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity (“managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).). Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements. With Respect to Claim 10: Under Step 2A Prong 1 , Claim 10 depends on Claim 1, and it recites the following limitation: wherein the implementation of the extension of the agent is configured to block execution of the agent until a launch of the one or more custom extensions is completed. (Continuing from the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claim 1, blocking execution of the agent could represent the person/customer representative having to refrain from execute responsibility until additional responsibility is authorized.) These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity (“managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).). Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements. With Respect to Claim 11: Under Step 2A Prong 1 , Claim 11 depends on Claim 1, and it recites the following limitation: wherein the wrapper is configured to be expanded to launch an additional custom extension responsive to creation of a new properties file for the additional custom extension. (Continuing from the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claim 1, a new responsibility could be added to the person/customer representative’s list of responsibilities, and the new properties file could be written agreement.) These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity (“managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).). Claim 11 does not recite any additional elements. With Respect to Claim 13: Under Step 2A Prong 2 , Claim 13 depends on Claim 1, and it recites the following additional element: further comprising: embedding logic from the one or more custom extensions in a jar of the agent. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element (a) is mere data gathering. Therefore, (a) is an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Under Step 2B, The claim recites the additional element: further comprising: embedding logic from the one or more custom extensions in a jar of the agent. With regards to additional element (a), the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). Claims 8, 9, and 12 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional limitations in those claims do not allow the interpretation of the claims to fit in the organization-of-human-activity category based on the preponderance of evidence. With Respect to Claims 14-18: Claims 14-18 are tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium claims corresponding to the method claims 1 and 3-7 (Claim 14 corresponds to Claim 1, Claim 15 corresponds to Claims 3 + 4, Claim 16 corresponds to Claims 3 + 4, Claim 17 corresponds to Claims 5 + 6, and Claim 18 corresponds to Claim 7). Under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, they recite the following additional element: a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon The additional element (a) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, and thus does not integrate into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Claim 19 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional limitations in those claims do not allow the interpretation of the claims to fit in the organization-of-human-activity category based on the preponderance of evidence. With Respect to Claim 20: Claim 20 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1. Under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, it recites the following additional elements: one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network; a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes; and a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor The additional element (a) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, and thus does not integrate into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 7, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi (US 20250103347 A1) in view of Harano1109 (How to install plugins in JMeter 3.x) and Yang (US 20190129734 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Kondapi teaches a method, comprising: associating, by a device, an application with an agent that instruments the application during execution ( Kondapi discloses, “ The performance optimization agent 346 can provide IHS optimization (e.g., AI-based optimization) designed to automatically improve application and device performance , PC and accessory battery run-time, audio/video settings and privacy in the background. The performance optimization agent 346 can gather and analyzes optimization data locally on the system to continually improve IHS performance and usage,” ¶ 0056 , “The performance optimization agent 446 is associated with the notifications 472, alerts 475, suggestions 467, application optimization 466 , and preferences 471 plugins ,” ¶ 0095 , and “The application optimization plug-in may provide monitoring and configuration support for the application management 484 portion of the operating system ,” ¶ 0097 . The claimed “ agent ” is mapped to the disclosed “performance optimization agent”. Here, the performance optimization agent optimizes application performance based on gathering and analyzing optimization data locally on the system. This is done using the agent’s application optimization plug-in, which provides support for passively monitoring applications without active intervention from the agent. Page 10 of the present application’s specification states that “Each of the agents may then instrument (e.g., passively monitor activities) and/or run tests (e.g., actively create events to monitor) from their respective devices, allowing a customer to customize from a suite of tests against different networks and applications or any resource that they're interested in having visibility into…” The disclosed performance optimization agent using the application optimization plug-in to passively monitor applications for data, aligns with the passive monitoring of activities of an application as stated by the specification.); configuring, by the device, the agent to load an extension that alters functionality of the agent ( Kondapi discloses, “The performance optimization agent 446 is associated with the notifications 472, alerts 475, suggestions 467, application optimization 466, and preferences 471 plugins ,” ¶ 0095 , and “The application optimization plug-in may provide monitoring and configuration support for the application management 484 portion of the operating system ,” ¶ 0097 . Here, the performance optimization agent can load different plugins in order to provide additional functionality for more sophisticated monitoring and configuration support. The addition of new functionality alters the existing functionality of the performance optimization agent.). Kondapi does not teach configuring, by the device, an implementation of the extension of the agent as a wrapper to launch one or more custom extensions; and executing, by the device, the one or more custom extensions via the wrapper . However, Harano1109 teaches configuring, by the device, an implementation of the extension of the agent as a wrapper plugin manager to launch one or more custom extensions ( PNG media_image1.png 315 472 media_image1.png Greyscale , Page 3, PNG media_image2.png 394 525 media_image2.png Greyscale , Page 4. Here, the JMeter Plugins Manager installs and runs plugins on the JMeter application. After the combination of Kondapi with Harano1109, the JMeter Plugins Manager is a plugin of the performance optimization agent from Kondapi in order to install and run additional plugins to alter functionality of the agent.); and executing, by the device, the one or more custom extensions via the wrapper plugin manager ( PNG media_image3.png 444 518 media_image3.png Greyscale , Page 5, PNG media_image4.png 527 533 media_image4.png Greyscale , Page 6, PNG media_image5.png 459 536 media_image5.png Greyscale , Page 7. Here, a plugin is installed and then executed (run) via the plugin manager.). Kondapi and Harano1109 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi to incorporate the teachings of Harano1109 and provide configuring, by the device, an implementation of the extension of the agent as a plugin manager to launch one or more custom extensions; and executing, by the device, the one or more custom extensions via the plugin manager. Doing so would help improve the modularity of the agent by allowing it to launch custom extensions with additional features (Harano1109 discloses, “In addition to the official features of JMeter, there are some good features called plugins,” Page 2.). Kondapi in view of Harano1109 does not teach wherein the plugin manager is a wrapper . However, Yang teaches wherein the plugin manager is a wrapper ( Yang discloses, “In response to request 142, report component 117 calls plugin wrapper 150 using the plugin name from request 142. Plugin wrapper 150 includes program code configured to call plugins from memory space 119 in response to calls from either report component 117 or poll component 116 . As shown, memory space 119 includes a number of pre-compiled programming language plugins including QUERY, SFTP, and SSH that have API's conforming the API interface for report component 117. In response to a collection request that is or includes a call to one of the pre-compiled plugins, plugin wrapper calls the corresponding plugin (e.g., QUERY) which is then directly executed by report component 117 ,” ¶ 0035 . Here, the plugin wrapper also acts as a plugin manager by loading plugins for execution. Page 17 of the present application’s specification states “By utilizing extensions that operate as wrappers to launch custom extensions, these techniques provide mechanisms that greatly reduce the time, complexity, total cost of ownership required to write an extension for an agent. The extensions operating as wrappers do not actually provide the implementations themselves, but rather they operate as wrappers around an invocation method which handles the implementation.” The disclosed “plugin wrapper” aligns with the definition of a wrapper because it is not an implementation of the required additional functionality itself, but rather loads different plugins that provide required additional functionality.). Kondapi in view of Harano1109, and Yang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data collection software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi in view of Harano1109 to incorporate the teachings of Yang and provide wherein the plugin manager is a wrapper. Doing so would help reduce the complexity of the plugin manager by making it a lightweight wrapper that invokes separate implementations, thereby improving the flexibility of the software architecture. Claim 14 and Claim 20 are a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium claim and an apparatus claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 14 and Claim 20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding Claim 7, Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein launching the one or more custom extensions includes integrating additional functionality to the agent from outside of the implementation of the extension ( Harano1109 discloses, “In addition to the official features of JMeter, there are some good features called plugins . For example: Dummy Sampler for debugging and programming tests AutoStop Trigger Transactions per Second etc.,” Page 2. Here, the additional plugins add additional functionality that is not included in the implementation of the extension (which is the JMeter Plugins Manager here. After the combination of Kondapi in view of Harano1109, with Yang, the plugins manager becomes a lightweight wrapper as specified by Yang, in order to load the additional plugins).). Kondapi and Harano1109 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi to incorporate the teachings of Harano1109 and provide wherein launching the one or more custom extensions includes integrating additional functionality to the agent from outside of the implementation of the extension. Doing so would help improve the modularity of the agent by allowing it to launch custom extensions with additional features (Harano1109 discloses, “In addition to the official features of JMeter, there are some good features called plugins,” Page 2.). Claim 18 is a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the method Claim 7. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 7 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi (US 20250103347 A1) in view of Harano1109 (How to install plugins in JMeter 3.x), Yang (US 20190129734 A1), and Bitincka (US 12210899 B1) . Regarding Claim 2, Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 . Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang does not teach wherein the agent generates OpenTelemetry data while instrumenting the application . However, Bitincka teaches wherein the agent generates OpenTelemetry data while instrumenting the application ( Bitincka discloses, “The data sources 102 detect, monitor, create, or otherwise produce machine data during their operation. The machine data are provided to the observability pipeline system 110 through the network 108. In some cases, the machine data are streamed to the observability pipeline system 110 as pipeline input data ,” Col 5, Lines 5-10, and “The example pipeline input data 201 shown in FIG. 2 includes logs 204, metrics 206, traces 208, stored data payloads 210 and possibly other types of machine data. In some cases, some or all of the machine data can be generated by agents (e.g. Fluentd, Collectd, OpenTelemetry) that are deployed at the data sources , for example, on various types of computing devices in a computing environment (e.g., in the computing environment 100 shown in FIG. 1, or another type of computing environment,” Col 10, Lines 37-45. Here, OpenTelemetry machine data is generated by agents during the operation of the data sources. Kondapi already teaches instrumenting the application (e.g. passively monitoring the application). After the combination of Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, with Bitincka, such monitoring is implemented through the use of OpenTelemetry data.). Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, and Bitincka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang to incorporate the teachings of Bitincka and provide wherein the agent generates OpenTelemetry data while instrumenting the application. Doing so would help allow for debugging using the generated data in order to find and fix any issues with the instrumented application (Bitincka discloses, “For instance, the event data 202 can include data elements that provide insight into the performance of the computing environment 100 to monitor, track, and triage incidents (e.g., to diagnose issues, reduce downtime, or achieve other system objectives in a computing environment),” Col 11, Lines 15-20.) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi (US 20250103347 A1) in view of Harano1109 (How to install plugins in JMeter 3.x), Yang (US 20190129734 A1), and OMI (OshiMetricsInstaller) . Regarding Claim 3, Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 . Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang does not teach wherein the extension of the agent is an AgentListener interface implementation . However, OMI teaches wherein the extension of the agent is an AgentListener interface implementation ( PNG media_image6.png 418 676 media_image6.png Greyscale , Page 1. Here, it can be seen that the class OshiMetricsInstaller implements an AgentListener interface. After the combination of Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, with OMI, the extension of the agent from Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang implements the AgentListener interface from OMI.). Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, and OMI are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang to incorporate the teachings of OMI and provide wherein the extension of the agent is an AgentListener interface implementation. Doing so would help allow the extension of the agent to conform to established standards of the OpenTelemetry software by implementing the required methods of the interface. Regarding Claim 4, Kondapi in view of Harano1109, Yang, and OMI teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the AgentListener interface implementation is configured to launch the one or more custom extensions of the agent responsive to an afterAgent method being called ( PNG media_image7.png 390 575 media_image7.png Greyscale , Page 1. Here, it can be seen that the class OshiMetricsInstaller contains an afterAgent method which enables SystemMetrics by loading an extension called “oshi.SystemInfo”. This loading of the extension happens in response to the afterAgent method being called. After the combination of Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, with OMI, the extension of the agent from Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang is configured to launch one or more custom extensions of the agent in response to the afterAgent method being called as specified by OMI.). Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, and OMI are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang to incorporate the teachings of OMI and provide wherein the AgentListener interface implementation is configured to launch the one or more custom extensions of the agent responsive to an afterAgent method being called. Doing so would help allow the extension of the agent to conform to established standards of the OpenTelemetry software by implementing the required methods of the interface. Claims 15-16 are tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium claims corresponding to the method Claims 3 + 4. Therefore, Claims 15-16 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claims 3 + 4 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi (US 20250103347 A1) in view of Harano1109 (How to install plugins in JMeter 3.x), Yang (US 20190129734 A1), and IL (InstrumentLoader) . Regarding Claim 5, Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 . Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang does not teach wherein the extension of the agent is an AgentExtension interface implementation . However, IL teaches wherein the extension of the agent is an AgentExtension interface implementation ( PNG media_image8.png 503 648 media_image8.png Greyscale , Page 2. Here, it can be seen that the class InstrumentationLoader implements an AgentExtension interface. After the combination of Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, with IL, the extension of the agent from Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang implements the AgentExtension interface from IL.). Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, and IL are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang to incorporate the teachings of IL and provide wherein the extension of the agent is an AgentExtension interface implementation. Doing so would help allow the extension of the agent to conform to established standards of the OpenTelemetry software by implementing the required methods of the interface. Regarding Claim 6, Kondapi in view of Harano1109, Yang, and IL teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the AgentExtension interface implementation is configured to launch the one or more custom extensions of the agent responsive to an extend method being called ( PNG media_image9.png 650 655 media_image9.png Greyscale , Page 2. Here, it can be seen that the class InstrumentationLoader contains an extend() method which installs and loads modules. This installing and loading of the modules happens in response to the extend() method being called. After the combination of Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, with IL, the extension of the agent from Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang is configured to launch one or more custom extensions of the agent in response to the extend method being called, as specified by IL.). Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, and IL are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang to incorporate the teachings of IL and provide wherein the AgentExtension interface implementation is configured to launch the one or more custom extensions of the agent responsive to an extend method being called. Doing so would help allow the extension of the agent to conform to established standards of the OpenTelemetry software by implementing the required methods of the interface. Claim 17 is a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the method Claims 5 + 6. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claims 5 + 6 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi (US 20250103347 A1) in view of Harano1109 (How to install plugins in JMeter 3.x), Yang (US 20190129734 A1), and Hulick (US 20130263096 A1) . Regarding Claim 8, Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 . Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang does not teach further comprising: dynamically loading or unloading the one or more custom extensions without rebooting an application server executing the agent . However, Hulick teaches further comprising: dynamically loading or unloading the one or more custom extensions without rebooting an application server executing the agent ( Hulick discloses, “The application diagnostics apparatus also includes a code extension updating unit configured to update the code extension or add one or more new code extensions based on information received via a code extension interface. In one embodiment, the code extension updating unit is configured to update the code extension or add the one or more new code extensions without restarting the application ,” ¶ 0006 . Here, it can be seen that code extensions are added ( loaded ) without restarting the application. The application runs the code extensions, essentially making it an application server hosting the code extensions. This is consistent with page 20 of the present application’s specification, which states “Dynamic extension loading or unloading is an extremely useful addition (e.g., for adding span, sampling extensions, etc.) given that restarting an application server is not a trivial task in terms of procedures and sign off from stakeholders.” In the disclosure, code extensions are indeed added without having to restart the application.). Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, and Hulick are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang to incorporate the teachings of Hulick and provide further comprising: dynamically loading or unloading the one or more custom extensions without rebooting an application server executing the agent. Doing so would help allow the application to continue running without having to restart the application, thereby improving efficiency and performance (Hulick discloses, “In one embodiment, the code extension updating unit is configured to update the code extension or add the one or more new code extensions without restarting the application ,” ¶ 0006 .). Claim 19 is a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the method Claim 8. Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 8 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi (US 20250103347 A1) in view of Harano1109 (How to install plugins in JMeter 3.x), Yang (US 20190129734 A1), and Douglas (US 20210132959 A1) . Regarding Claim 9, Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 . Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang does not teach wherein the one or more custom extensions are launched from a designated folder using a specified property during a bootstrap phase of the agent . However, Douglas teaches wherein the one or more custom extensions are launched from a designated folder using a specified property during a bootstrap phase of the agent ( Douglas discloses, “After receiving the class files 162, the compiler 160 may load the class files (block 510). For example, the compiler 160 may load class files 162 with a bootstrap class loader , an extension class loader, an application class loader, etc. The bootstrap class loader may be responsible for loading classes from a bootstrap class path ,” ¶ 0050 . Here, it can be seen that the bootstrap class loader specifies a class path (which directs to a folder mapped to the designated folder ) for loading custom extensions during a bootstrap phase . The class path is defined using a variable, which is a specified property . This aligns with page 23 of the present application’s specification, which states “The second option is launching the extensions from a folder such as by using the dotel.javaagent.extensions=folder/jar property (e.g., build-and-install-extension- 20 wrappersinto-ossagent-extension-folder.sh). The procedure for this may include executing the procedure of the first option. Additionally, the procedure for the second option may include copying the extension to a working deployment folder (e.g., an inst folder) and/or copying the extension wrapper and extension util classes into the folder. Then, the .classes may be renamed back to .class from .classdata and/or an extension JAR 25 (e.g., opentelemetry-javaagent-extensions.jar) may be created. The JAR may be placed into a folder and the Dotel.javaagent.extensions property may be set to point to it upon OSS Java agent startup . The second option OSS Java agent modified JAR 802 is illustrated in FIG. 8B.”). Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, and Douglas are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang to incorporate the teachings of Douglas and provide wherein the one or more custom extensions are launched from a designated folder using a specified property during a bootstrap phase of the agent. Doing so would help ensure that all of the extensions must be loaded from the specified folder, thereby improving security by disallowing loading extensions from a different folder . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi (US 20250103347 A1) in view of Harano1109 (How to install plugins in JMeter 3.x), Yang (US 20190129734 A1), and Nandakumar (US 20170102976 A1) . Regarding Claim 10, Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 . Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang does not teach wherein the implementation of the extension of the agent is configured to block execution of the agent until a launch of the one or more custom extensions is completed . However, Nandakumar teaches wherein the implementation of the extension of the agent is configured to block execution of the agent until a launch of the one or more custom extensions is completed ( Nandakumar discloses, “ responsive to receipt of the plugin from the application server, preventing execution of the application until completing the operation for modifying the OS API calls that are among the set of OS APIs of the application from being directed to OS APIs of the previous OS version that was operating on the mobile device to, based on the mapping contained in the plugin, being directed to the OS APIs of the present OS version operating on the mobile device,” Claim 16. Here, it can be seen that execution of the application is blocked until the plugin/extension is loaded into the OS API. This aligns with the claimed “ block execution of the agent ”, as the disclosed application cannot execute until the plugin/extension finishes loading. After the combination of Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, with Nandakumar, the agent from Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang is blocked from execution – by the implementation of its extension - until a launch of the one or more custom extensions is completed, as specified by Nandakumar.). Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, and Nandakumar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang to incorporate the teachings of Nandakumar and provide wherein the implementation of the extension of the agent is configured to block execution of the agent until a launch of the one or more custom extensions is completed. Doing so would help ensure operational security by preventing an agent/operation from executing when system is under an ongoing change and thus is unstable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi (US 20250103347 A1) in view of Harano1109 (How to install plugins in JMeter 3.x), Yang (US 20190129734 A1), and KairosDB . Regarding Claim 11, Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 . Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang does not teach wherein the wrapper is configured to be expanded to launch an additional custom extension responsive to creation of a new properties file for the additional custom extension . However, KairosDB teaches wherein the wrapper is configured to be expanded to launch an additional custom extension responsive to creation of a new properties file for the additional custom extension ( KairosDB discloses, “Here is how KairosDB loads libraries and plugins : All jar files in lib are automatically added to the classpath by the startup script. Properties in kairosdb.properties are loaded first from the classpath and then from the file. For every .properties file in the conf directory besides kairosdb.properties, the following happens: Kairos attempts to load the file from the classpath. (this lets you add default values to future releases of your plugin) Kairos loads the conf properties file Kairos looks through all the loaded properties for ones starting with kairosdb.service. These are expected to point to Guice modules. Load all discovered Guice modules . Look through Guice bindings for implementations of KairosDBService and start them ,” Page 3. Here, the additional custom extensions are implementations of KairosDBService associated with the Guice modules. They are launched in response to a .properties file being created in the conf directory.). Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, and KairosDB are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang to incorporate the teachings of KairosDB and provide wherein the wrapper is configured to be expanded to launch an additional custom extension responsive to creation of a new properties file for the additional custom extension. Doing so would help ensure that new custom extensions can be automatically detected and launched . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi (US 20250103347 A1) in view of Harano1109 (How to install plugins in JMeter 3.x), Yang (US 20190129734 A1), and Zhang (CN 108595246 A) . Regarding Claim 12, Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 . Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang does not teach wherein the one or more custom extensions operate in an environment isolated from agent class loaders of the agent . However, Zhang teaches wherein the one or more custom extensions operate in an environment isolated from agent class loaders of the agent ( Zhang discloses, “the container by several mutually independent class loader, loading different plug-in or application of the method in a different class loader, loading the target application dependent plug-in and/or other applications ,” Page 1. Here it can be seen that there are different, mutually independent class loaders that are isolated from each other. Therefore, any plugins or applications running on a class loader will be in an environment isolated from other class loaders. This is consistent with Page 22 of the present application’s specification, which states “The agent class loader may be the OSS Java agent's own isolated class loader. For example, the agent class loader may be specific to the OSS Java agent loader. The extension class loader is for extensions. It may be possible to isolate them as well, with their parent being the agent class loader.” After the combination of Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, with Zhang, the custom extensions from Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang operate in an environment of a class loader that is isolated from agent class loaders of the agent, as specified by Zhang.). Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, and Zhang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang to incorporate the teachings of Zhang and wherein the one or more custom extensions operate in an environment isolated from agent class loaders of the agent. Doing so would help ensure that the custom extensions and the agent do not interfere with each other in a way that hinders performance or reduces security . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi (US 20250103347 A1) in view of Harano1109 (How to install plugins in JMeter 3.x), Yang (US 20190129734 A1), and Bunker (US 20050240902 A1) . Regarding Claim 13, Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 . Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang does not teach further comprising: embedding logic from the one or more custom extensions in a jar of the agent . However, Bunker teaches further comprising: embedding logic from the one or more custom extensions in a jar of the agent ( Bunker discloses, “For complex extensions, a JAR file can contain the code that is the extension's implementation , a manifest file which defines the class path, and attributes that reference dependent JARs that need to be available at run time by the extension,” ¶ 0020 . After the combination of Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, with Bunker, the custom extensions from Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, have their code stored in JAR files of Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang’s agent, as specified by Bunker.). Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang, and Bunker are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application telemetry software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kondapi in view of Harano1109 and Yang to incorporate the teachings of Bunker and provide further comprising: embedding logic from the one or more custom extensions in a jar of the agent. Doing so would help allow for securely containing the code in the JAR file as a static library (Bunker discloses, “For complex extensions, a JAR file can contain the code that is the extension's implementation , a manifest file which defines the class path, and attributes that reference dependent JARs that need to be available at run time by the extension,” ¶ 0020 .) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ueda et al. (US 20240160453 A1): Driver Plugin Wrapper for Container Orchestration Systems Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00. 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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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. /ANDREW NMN SUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195 /Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 2 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 3 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 4 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 5 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 6 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 7 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 8 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 9 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 10 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 11 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 12 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 13 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 14 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 15 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 16 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 17 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 18 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 19 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 20 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 21 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 22 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 23 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 24 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 25 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 26 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 27 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 28 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 29 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 30 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/394,003 Page 31 Art Unit: 2195
