DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 Line 1 and Claim 12 Line 1 recites the limitation "wherein the instructions further enable". These claims are indefinite since the phrase, “the instructions” could refer to at either of “instructions that enable the processing device to perform the steps of” recited in Claim 1 Line 3 or “the accessible notice includes one or more of a) instructions” recited in Claim 9 Line 2. For purposes of examination “the instructions” recited in Claims 10 and 12 have been interpreted as referring to the “instructions that enable the processing device to perform the steps of” recited in Claim 1.
Claim 10 further recites the limitation "the step of utilizing a tracking ID" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the step of storing" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to obtaining and analyzing log information without significantly more.
The limitation in Independent Claims 1 and 16 of converting and analyzing information, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations of “converting the log information into data having a common format” and “analyzing the data to determine issues with respect to the microservices,” in Claims 1 and 16, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 16 recite the following additional elements “obtaining log information from a plurality of customer level devices and microservices in a network” and “publishing an accessible notice to allow software troubleshooting of the issues with respect to the microservices,” these limitations do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, with regard to the “processing device” and “memory device configured to store computer logic having instructions that enable the processing device to perform the steps” elements of Claim 1, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With regard to the individual dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 17 recite, “wherein the accessible notice allows a software developer to modify software associated with one or more of the microservices to reduce the issues thereof.”
Claims 3 and 18 recite, “obtain the log information at runtime after the microservices have been deployed in the network.”
Claims 4 and 19 recite, “store the data in a database or in the memory device.”
Claims 5 and 20 recite, “wherein the step of publishing the accessible notice includes creating a bulletin in a bulletin board system that is accessible by other devices on the network.”
Claim 6 recites, “wherein the bulletin board system allows access to multiple accessible notices by one or more vendors, developers, network operators, admins, and network designers for troubleshooting purposes.”
Claim 7 recites, “wherein the bulletin board system allows access at both a static design stage before deployment and a dynamic operational stage after deployment.”
Claim 9 recites, “wherein the accessible notice includes one or more of a) instructions, b) next-steps, c) reference to additional documents or resources, d) root cause analysis, e) suggestions, and f) recommendations, regarding remediation of the issues with respect to the microservices.”
These limitations of Claims 2-7, 9 and 17-20 do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering, transmitting and outputting the results of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, these limitations of Claims 2-7, 9 and 17-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using well-understood, routine and conventional computer components and functions, recited at a high level of generality, i.e. receiving/transmitting data over a network and storing/retrieving information in memory. As such, these additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept and are not by themselves sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible invention, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 8 recites, “wherein the plurality of customer level devices include at least one or more embedded devices.”
Claim 12 recites, “automatically remediate the issues with respect to the microservices.”
Claim 14 recites, “upon detection of an issue… initiate an enhanced data collection mode for obtaining log information at a greater resolution for a predetermined amount of time.”
Claim 15 recites, “invoke one or more Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs) from related devices to initiate self-diagnosis or self-healing stages without a need for user intervention.”
These limitations of Claims 8, 12 and 14-15 are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, these limitations of Claims 8, 12 and 14-15 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using well-understood, routine and conventional computer components and functions, recited at a high level of generality, i.e. receiving/transmitting data over a network and storing/retrieving information in memory. As such, these additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept and are not by themselves sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible invention, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 10 recites, “perform the step of utilizing a tracking ID for monitoring execution of remediation steps.”
Claim 11 recites, “wherein the issues with respect to the microservices include one or more of a) formatting issues, b) software bugs, c) storage or filesystem issues, d) misconfiguration issues, e) configuration reading issues, f) communication issues, g) improper use of system resources, h) issues with communicating with system resources, i) disabled system features, j) noisy log information, and k) irrelevant log information.”
Claim 13 recites, “collating a plurality of accessible notices across multiple microservices; and creating a system level report.”
These limitations of Claims 10-11 and 13, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out this function through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 1-7, 9-11, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0229545; hereinafter “Yadav”) in view of Kulkarni et al. (US Patent 8,166,348; hereinafter “Kulkarni”) and Rodgers et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0303440; hereinafter “Rodgers”).
Claim 1:
Yadav teaches a test system comprising:
a processing device (Fig. 8: Processor 1010); and
a memory device configured to store computer logic having instructions that enable the processing device to perform the steps of (Fig. 8: System Memory 1015. [0060] “FIG. 8 is a block diagram of a computer system used to execute one or more software components of a system for performing some of the processor-based functions, under some embodiments… Computer system 1000 further includes subsystems such as central processor 1010, system memory 1015.” [0064] “As disclosed herein, software written in accordance with the present invention may be stored in some form of computer-readable medium, such as memory.”)
obtaining log information from a plurality of customer level devices and microservices in a network ([0040] “Client 403 is a backup client that executes certain backup program operations such as data backups, restores, deletes, and so on, through local backup/restore agents 418. These operations are logged using standard operation logging processes controlled by a log manager.” [0059] “The network environment of FIG. 1 may comprise any number of individual client-server networks coupled over the Internet,” wherein the plurality of clients, i.e. “client 403”, are the “customer level devices”. [0042] “The log manager 420 also handles logs from other microservices 410. These microservices log enough information about the trace IDs and contexts, and the log manager 420 is aware of all the logs 422 generated in the overall system 400.”), and
analyzing the data to determine issues with respect to the microservices ([0022] “These logs can then be analyzed to determine causes of the failure, and build failure models to predict future failure conditions.” [0058] “the logs for failed components are bundled and sent to a user or process for further analysis. This analysis is used to help troubleshoot the failure conditions to determine causes of the failure. The failure analysis can also be used to build failure models to predict future failure conditions, which can then be used by certain artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) processes.”).
With further regard to Claim 1, Yadav does not teach the following, however, Kulkarni teaches:
converting the log information into data having a common format (Col. 5 ll. 28-33: “debug tool 150 analyzes the execution state information stored in a set of formats (for example, text format), converts the analyzed information to a common/tabular format appropriate for storage in databases, and stores the converted execution state information in the common format in a database.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by Yadav with the conversion of log information into a common format as taught by Kulkarni in order “to facilitate determination of the errors in the software system” (Kulkarni Col. 7 ll. 60-61).
With further regard to Claim 1, Yadav in view of Kulkarni does not teach the following, however, Rodgers teaches:
publishing an accessible notice to allow software troubleshooting of the issues with respect to the microservices ([0059] “The method may also include extracting information related to the error for the one or more log messages (1004).” [0060] “The method may additionally include generating a URL using the extracted information (1006).” [0054] “the support URL may address a discussion forum or social media interface where a discussion of the error can take place. The support URL may generate a stub or new thread in the forum and post the contents of the error message and/or any other details related to the log file 106.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by Yadav in view of Kulkarni with the publishing of a notice as taught by Rodgers in order to “streamline the debugging process for run-time issues from both a developer standpoint as well as a support standpoint” (Rodgers [0025]).
Claim 2:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches the system of claim 1. Yadav in view of Kulkarni does not teach the following, however, Rodgers teaches:
wherein the accessible notice allows a software developer to modify software associated with one or more of the microservices to reduce the issues thereof ([0037] “The purpose of the developer URL 404 may be to provide a link directly to a location in a source code file that generated the error message. When the developer workstation accesses the log file 106, the developer may simply click on the URL 404 to be automatically taken to the location in the source code file. For example, the developer workstation may access a source code repository and automatically open the corresponding source code file and move the cursor to the specified line number.” [0023] “code developers generally work to fix bugs in the source code such that patches or new versions of the executable process can later be distributed to customers.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by Yadav in view of Kulkarni with the accessible notice as taught by Rodgers in order to “streamline the debugging process for run-time issues from both a developer standpoint as well as a support standpoint” (Rodgers [0025]).
Claim 3:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches the system of claim 1. Yadav further teaches wherein the instructions enable the processing device to obtain the log information at runtime after the microservices have been deployed in the network ([0027] “During the course of operation, each microservice logs its operation activity in a log file.” [0022] “These logs can then be analyzed to determine causes of the failure, and build failure models to predict future failure conditions.”).
Claim 4:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches the system of claim 1. Yadav in view of Rodgers does not teach the following, however, Kulkarni teaches:
wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to store the data in a database or in the memory device (Col. 5 ll. 28-33: “debug tool 150 analyzes the execution state information stored in a set of formats (for example, text format), converts the analyzed information to a common/tabular format appropriate for storage in databases, and stores the converted execution state information in the common format in a database.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by Yadav in view of Rodgers with the storage of converted log information in a database as taught by Kulkarni in order “to facilitate determination of the errors in the software system” (Kulkarni Col. 7 ll. 60-61).
Claim 5:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches the system of claim 1. Yadav in view of Kulkarni does not teach the following, however, Rodgers teaches:
wherein the step of publishing the accessible notice includes creating a bulletin in a bulletin board system that is accessible by other devices on the network ([0059] “The method may also include extracting information related to the error for the one or more log messages (1004).” [0060] “The method may additionally include generating a URL using the extracted information (1006).” [0054] “the support URL may address a discussion forum or social media interface where a discussion of the error can take place. The support URL may generate a stub or new thread in the forum and post the contents of the error message and/or any other details related to the log file 106.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by Yadav in view of Kulkarni with the publishing of the notice to a bulletin board system as taught by Rodgers in order to “streamline the debugging process for run-time issues from both a developer standpoint as well as a support standpoint” (Rodgers [0025]).
Claim 6:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches the system of claim 5. Yadav in view of Kulkarni does not teach the following, however, Rodgers teaches:
wherein the bulletin board system allows access to multiple accessible notices by one or more vendors, developers, network operators, admins, and network designers for troubleshooting purposes ([0060] “The method may additionally include generating a URL using the extracted information (1006).” [0054] “the support URL may address a discussion forum or social media interface where a discussion of the error can take place. The support URL may generate a stub or new thread in the forum and post the contents of the error message and/or any other details related to the log file 106,” wherein the “discussion forum” in Rodgers is not disclosed to be a private forum and as such would allow “access to multiple accessible notices by one or more vendors, developers, network operators, admins, and network designers for troubleshooting purposes”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by Yadav in view of Kulkarni with the bulletin board system functionality as taught by Rodgers in order to “streamline the debugging process for run-time issues from both a developer standpoint as well as a support standpoint” (Rodgers [0025]).
Claim 7:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches the system of claim 6. Yadav in view of Kulkarni does not teach the following, however, Rodgers teaches:
wherein the bulletin board system allows access at both a static design stage before deployment and a dynamic operational stage after deployment ([0060] “The method may additionally include generating a URL using the extracted information (1006).” [0054] “the support URL may address a discussion forum or social media interface where a discussion of the error can take place. The support URL may generate a stub or new thread in the forum and post the contents of the error message and/or any other details related to the log file 106,” wherein the “discussion forum” in Rodgers is not disclosed as being limited in use for any specific design stage and as such would allow “access at both a static design stage before deployment and a dynamic operational stage after deployment”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by Yadav in view of Kulkarni with the bulletin board system functionality as taught by Rodgers in order to “streamline the debugging process for run-time issues from both a developer standpoint as well as a support standpoint” (Rodgers [0025]).
Claim 9:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches the system of claim 1. Yadav in view of Kulkarni does not teach the following, however, Rodgers teaches:
wherein the accessible notice includes one or more of a) instructions, b) next-steps, c) reference to additional documents or resources, d) root cause analysis, e) suggestions, and f) recommendations, regarding remediation of the issues with respect to the microservices ([0035] “The diagnostic tool 104 may receive the log messages and generate one or more URLs 402 that may be used by a developer workstation and/or a support workstation. The URLs may include information extracted from the log messages themselves, as well as additional information that may be extracted from a configuration 410 and/or from other sources.” [0054] “The developer URL 404 may be provided to a developer workstation for the benefit of developer personnel, and may provide a link directly to a location in a source code file in a source code repository.,” wherein the “link directly to a location in a source code file” is a type of “reference to additional documents or resources”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by Yadav in view of Kulkarni with the accessible notice functionality as taught by Rodgers in order to “streamline the debugging process for run-time issues from both a developer standpoint as well as a support standpoint” (Rodgers [0025]).
Claim 10:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches the system of claim 9. Yadav further teaches wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to perform the step of utilizing a tracking ID for monitoring execution of remediation steps ([0038] “In the event of a failure, the process identifies the logs involved for that failure based on trace ID.” [0034] “During the course of operation, each microservice logs its operation activity in a log file. Each log conforms to a defined format, such as date—timestamp—context_ID—trace_ID—error—criticality, and so on, depending on the system configuration. Such a format can be defined by an industry standard format, or it can be a proprietary format, and must at least identify the operation to which the log belongs, such as through the context_ID and trace_ID fields.”).
Claim 11:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches the system of claim 9. Yadav further teaches wherein the issues with respect to the microservices include one or more of a) formatting issues, b) software bugs, c) storage or filesystem issues, d) misconfiguration issues, e) configuration reading issues, f) communication issues, g) improper use of system resources, h) issues with communicating with system resources, i) disabled system features, j) noisy log information, and k) irrelevant log information ([0042] “The log manager 420 also handles logs from other microservices 410.” [0058] “the logs for failed components are bundled and sent to a user or process for further analysis. This analysis is used to help troubleshoot the failure conditions to determine causes of the failure.” [0052] “Each log message conforms to a certain internal schematic format.” [0053] “The example of FIG. 6 illustrates an example backup operation having ID ‘001ABC.’ Such an operation can be a centralized filesystem backup operation using PowerProtect Data Manager,” wherein the issues in Yadav are associated with a “backup operation”, i.e. “storage or filesystem issues”.).
Claim 14:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches the system of claim 1. Yadav further teaches wherein, upon detection of an issue, the instructions further enable the processing device to initiate an enhanced data collection mode for obtaining log information at a greater resolution for a predetermined amount of time ([0035] “Logs are thus stored in a database and rotated in accordance with a set log retention schedule, and different microservices may have different retention times. A typical retention period may be on the order of seven days.” [0050] “If a microservice is used by or uses one or more other microservices, the weighting for each microservice will be the longest of the weightings for each of the microservice. That way, logs are retained for an equally long period of time for combinations of microservices. For example, if there are three microservices, A, B, and C, and both A and B are successful and not critical, their logs will be retained for seven days. If C has failed and/or is a critical component with warnings, it's log will be extended an additional seven days for a retention period of 14 days. Since C is used with A and B for this operation, the log retention times for A and B will also be extended for the extra seven days. That way, all of the logs for all of the relevant microservices for the operation involving C will be available for analysis during this extended time.”).
Claims 16-20:
With regard to Claims 16-20, these claims are equivalent in scope to Claims 1-5 rejected above, merely having a different independent claim type, and as such Claims 16-20 are rejected under the same grounds and for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Claims 1-5.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0334020; hereinafter “Lu”).
Claim 8:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers does not teach the following, however, Lu teaches:
wherein the plurality of customer level devices include at least one or more embedded devices ([0031] “The log messages are data generated by systems, components, applications, devices, embedded systems, etc. that can be used to monitor its activities and to diagnose and/or troubleshoot issues. The log messages are typically collected and printed or written to logs.” [0033] “log manager 230 may be configured to manage the logging of functions in code 220… Code 220 may be a software code such as an application.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers with the embedded device as taught by Lu as this “improves the technological field associated with embedded systems by improving the software-based ability to debug and/or identify issues associated with the embedded systems at runtime” (Lu [0029]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Sethi et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0176837; hereinafter “Sethi”).
Claim 12:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers does not teach the following, however, Sethi teaches:
wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to automatically remediate the issues with respect to the microservices ([0083] “FIG. 6C shows an event viewer 610 with log details for the unhandled exception… The code change suggestion logic 344-2 will get the microservice source code 344-3 for the class (e.g., Program.cs) and generate the code in accordance with the rule as shown in the updated code 615 of FIG. 6D. The second version microservice 322-2 may utilize the suggestion (e.g., the updated code 615), such that it will not result in the unhandled exception and hang in an unpredictive way.” [0086] “the microservice code regeneration logic 144 is capable of adaptive self-code correction of microservices to address some of the anomalies encountered during execution of microservices in particular environment. Self-upgrade of microservices is thereby enabled, through automatic code changes”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers with the automatic remediation as taught by Sethi in order to “enable microservices to intelligently adapt to the environments in which they will run” (Sethi [0049]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Shilane et al. (US PGPUB 2025/0208968; hereinafter “Shilane”).
Claim 13:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers does not teach the following, however, Shilane teaches wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to perform the steps of:
collating a plurality of accessible notices across multiple microservices ([0029] “A collector service component gathers the information necessary for an overall system support bundle. System and log information is collected from each component and and persistent volumes on each node while applying filter criteria,” wherein “each component” is the “microservices” as taught above by Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers. [0060] “a support bundle may include all of the logs written by the various services running within the cluster, as well as topology information listing which services are running on particular nodes and their version numbers.”); and
creating a system level report ([0111] “As shown in FIG. 13, process 1300 begins by creating a support bundle to report system states and issues to a vendor, 1302. This step entails gathering system statistics and log information, as illustrated in FIG. 6. For a multi-node cluster system, support bundle information is gathered for all of the nodes by a controller module, such as shown in FIG. 12, step 1304. A single support module for all of the nodes can then be created for transfer to the vendor, step 1306.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers with the report creation as taught by Shilane in order to “help the user or vendor debug detected problems encountered in the cluster network” (Shilane [0112]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuh et al. (US Patent 6,324,683; hereinafter “Fuh”).
Claim 15:
Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers does not teach the following, however, Fuh teaches
wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to invoke one or more Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs) from related devices to initiate self-diagnosis or self-healing stages without a need for user intervention (Col. 21 ll. 38-40: “When the debugger front-end receives a notification that an external program is about to be executed, it will execute a getInvStkFrame Remote Procedure Call (RPC).” Col. 21 ll. 48-51: “The debugger can use the getInvStkFrame routine to get the information that it needs to determine the context that the program is executing in, and then display the corresponding information to the user,” wherein RPCs are used in Fuh to initiate a type of “self-diagnosis”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by Yadav in view of Kulkarni and Rodgers with the use of RPCs as taught by Fuh as “This enables the same debugger that is attached to the application to be dynamically attached to the external program so that both can be debugged under the same debugger” (Fuh Col. 9 l. 67 – Col. 10 l. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Bagarolo et al. (US Patent 10,896,084) discloses a method, computer program product, and a computer system for mitigating a fault in an information service comprised of multiple microservices and obtaining a notification of a fault in the information service which includes logs tracking execution of the information service in a shared computing environment.
Zhou et al. (“Fault Analysis and Debugging of Microservice Systems: Industrial Survey, Benchmark System, and Empirical Study,” 2018) discusses the typical faults of microservice systems, current practice of debugging, and the challenges faced by developers, including discussion regarding the development of a benchmark microservice system used to replicate industrial fault cases.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joanne G. Macasiano whose telephone number is (571)270-7749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:30 AM to 6:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571) 272-3338. 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.
/JOANNE G MACASIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 2197