DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having application No. 18/411,850 filed on January 12, 2024, presents claims 1-20 for examination. The instant application has no priority data.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/12/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, last line, “the corresponding impact” is not clear whether it refers to “a corresponding impact” in line 9 or “each corresponding impact” in line 10. Suggestion: -the each corresponding impact-. Claims 2-8 are objected to because they depend from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a system claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 1,
“filter the set of events to generate a filtered set of events;
add the filtered set of events to a queue service;
determine, for each event in the filtered set of events, a corresponding impact;”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually filter the set of events and generate a filtered set of events. Similarly, human can manually add the filtered set of events to a queue service, and can manually determine a corresponding impact as defined in the claim element. Thus these claim limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“receive, from a plurality of monitoring instances deployed across a plurality of individual accounts, a set of events associated with the cloud environment;
transmit, for each corresponding impact, a notification to a set of users associated with the corresponding impact.” And
“a system”, “one or more memories”, “one or more processors”.
Wherein “receive …”, and “transmit …” are insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering and transmitting data, according to MPEP 2106.05(g); thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. And the system, memories, and processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. 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.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “a system”, “one or more memories”, “one or more processors”, that are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, are not an inventive concept. The “receive …”, and “transmit …” are insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering and transmitting which are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 2, “wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit a plurality of commands to deploy the plurality of monitoring instances.” Wherein “transmit …” is insignificant extra-solution activity which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). “deploy …” is like storing data which is insignificant extra-solution activity and is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. for retrieving and storing data. And the processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. 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.
With respect to claim 3, “wherein the one or more processors, to filter the set of events, are configured to: apply at least one rule to the set of events in order to generate the filtered set of events.” Further defines the filtering process in claim 1 and is the same mental process, e.g. human can manually apply a rule to the set of events as defined in the claim element. And the processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. 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.
With respect to claim 4, “wherein the one or more processors, to determine the corresponding impact, are configured to: extract, from a cloud configuration event in the filtered set of events, the corresponding impact for the cloud configuration event.” Further defines the determining process in claim 1 and is the same mental process, e.g. human can manually extract the cloud corresponding impact as defined in the claim element. And the processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. 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.
With respect to claim 5, “wherein the one or more processors, to determine the corresponding impact, are configured to:
receive, from an external system, metadata associated with a binary update event in the filtered set of events; and
determine the corresponding impact for the binary update event based on the metadata.”
Wherein “receive…” is insignificant extra-solution activity which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). “determine …” is mental process, e.g. human can manually determine the corresponding impact as defined in the claim element. And the processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. 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.
With respect to claim 6, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
transmit, to the external system, a request for the metadata,
wherein the metadata associated with the binary update event is received in response to the request.”
Wherein “transmit …” and “receive…” are insignificant extra-solution activities which are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). And the processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. 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.
With respect to claim 7, “wherein the external system comprises a code repository.”
as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 8, “wherein the one or more processors, to determine the corresponding impact, are configured to:
determine, using a dependency mapping, a list of affected applications for each event in the filtered set of events.”
Wherein “determine …” is mental process, e.g. human can manually determine a list of affected applications as defined in the claim element. And the processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. 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.
With respect to claim 9, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 1,
“recording, …, an event associated with a change to the cloud environment, based on the indication of the API call;”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually record an event as defined in the claim element. Thus the claim limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“receiving, from a user device and at a monitoring instance associated with an individual account, an indication of an application programming interface (API) call;
transmitting, from the monitoring instance and to a monitoring system associated with a centralized account, the event.” And
“a cloud environment”, “a user device”, “a monitoring instance”, and “a monitoring system”.
Wherein “receiving …”, and “transmitting …” are insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering and transmitting data, according to MPEP 2106.05(g); thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. And “a cloud environment”, “a user device”, “a monitoring instance”, and “a monitoring system” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device of software performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. 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.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “a cloud environment”, “a user device”, “a monitoring instance”, and “a monitoring system” that are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, are not an inventive concept. The “receiving …”, and “transmitting …” are insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering and transmitting which are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 10, “further comprising:
transmitting, from the monitoring instance and to the monitoring system, metadata associated with the event.” Wherein “transmit …” is insignificant extra-solution activity which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). And the “the monitoring instance”, and “the monitoring system” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device or software performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 11, “further comprising:
receiving, from the monitoring system and at the monitoring instance, a request for the metadata,
wherein the metadata associated with the event is transmitted in response to the
request.” Wherein “receiving …” and “is transmitted” are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). And the “a monitoring instance”, and “a monitoring system” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device or software performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 12, “further comprising:
receiving, at the monitoring instance and from the monitoring system associated with the centralized account, a configuration for the monitoring instance,
wherein the event is recorded using the configuration.” Wherein “receiving …” is insignificant extra-solution activity which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). “recording …” is like storing data and is insignificant extra-solution activity which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). And the “a monitoring instance”, and “a monitoring system” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device or software performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 13, “wherein the event indicates a binary update.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 14, “wherein the event indicates a cloud configuration.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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 of this title, 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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAES (WO 2015065368 A1, hereinafter “MAES”) in view of Bharatkumar et al. (US 20190356566 A1, hereinafter “Bharatkumar”).
With respect to claim 1, MAES discloses A system for detecting changes to a cloud environment (e.g. Fig. 3A), the system comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories,
configured to (e.g. para [0059], “Capabilities such as the nature of the processors, memory, capacity, OS, middleware type and version, among others, define what each node (302-1 , 302-2, 302-3, 302-4, 302-5, 302-6, 302-7) offers. …”):
receive, from a plurality of monitoring instances deployed across a plurality of
individual accounts, a set of events associated with the cloud environment (e.g. para [00150], “The remediation method of Fig. 8 may include monitoring (block 801 ) an instantiated topology (Fig. 3A, 312) for a number of events. …. In one example, the monitoring system, based on the policies, monitors for a number or set of metrics. A number of events may be derived from the detected metrics, …” para [00106], “In another example, incidents may be identified from a number of ticket support systems. …, the !TS system (316-1 ) is managed by the user, a service provider, a third party, or combinations thereof, in which a service ticket is opened by one of these groups or individuals, …” wherein each ticket support system reads on an individual account);
filter the set of events to generate a filtered set of events (e.g. para [00151], “… how the events and incidents are processed (e.g., processed as aggregated, filtered, or correlated events, among other forms of processing), and how the resulting incidents are handled.”);
determine, for each event in the filtered set of events, a corresponding impact (e.g. para [00153], “… Further, in one example, the incidents are generated (block 803) by the event handier (Fig. 3A, 316) based on the events detected by the monitoring system (313). …” wherein the incidents read on a corresponding impact); and
transmit, for each corresponding impact, a notification to a set of users associated with the corresponding impact (e.g. para [00154], “… A number of notifications are sent (block 804) regarding the incidents created by the event handler (313). These notifications may he sent (block 804} to a number of devices and users within the system (200). …”).
MAES does not appear to explicitly disclose
add the filtered set of events to a queue service;
However, this is taught in analogous art, Bharatkumar (e.g. para [0067], “… the computing system generates a batch of event records by batching all of the appended event records that correspond to the different monitoring events that were identified during the predetermined batch period of time (act 440). …” also see para [0068] wherein serializing the different batches reads on adding to a queue service.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of MAES with the invention of Bharatkumar because it provides techniques for facilitating event storage and diagnostic processing within hybrid cloud environments. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for facilitating event storage and diagnostic processing within hybrid cloud environments as suggested by Bharatkumar (see para [0022]).
With respect to claim 3, MAES discloses wherein the one or more processors, to filter the set of events, are configured to:
apply at least one rule to the set of events in order to generate the filtered set of events (e.g. para [00152], “A number of events detected by the monitoring system (313) may be processed by the event handler (318) based on a number of the policies described above. Handling (block 802) of events may include, for example, processing the events as aggregated, filtered, or correlated events, among other forms of processing. …” wherein the policies read on at least one rule).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAES in view of Bharatkumar as applied to claim 1, in further view of Singhal et al. (US 20110249572 A1, hereinafter “Singhal”).
With respect to claim 2, MAES as modified by Bharatkumar discloses The system of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
transmit a plurality of commands to deploy the plurality of monitoring instances.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Singhal (e.g. para [0030], “… The manager 102 may perform one or more of the following functions: …, (ii) receive parameters from a user for setting the operation of the network monitors 104, (iii) send commands to the network monitors 104 to set parameters or preferences for their operations, …” wherein to set parameters or preferences for their operations reads on to deploy monitoring instances.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Singhal because it provides techniques for network monitoring system to analyze events, issues or performance of the network more efficiently and effectively. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for network monitoring system to analyze events, issues or performance of the network more efficiently and effectively as suggested by Singhal (see Abstract).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAES in view of Bharatkumar as applied to claim 1, in further view of Gupta (US 20180287914 A1, hereinafter “Gupta”).
With respect to claim 4, MAES as modified by Bharatkumar discloses The system of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to determine the corresponding impact, are configured to:
extract, from a cloud configuration event in the filtered set of events, the corresponding impact for the cloud configuration event.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Gupta (e.g. para [0065], “At step 350, the assessment for deviation is performed. If there is any deviation in the runtime data with respect to configurations a configuration event is generated, …” para [0066], “… The controller 228 further assesses the impact of such event on the service and determines the priority of the event. The controller 28 then invokes corresponding actuator services 234 for handling the events.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Gupta because it provides techniques for a system to monitor failures and ensure the availability of required resources or alternate resources. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for a system to monitor failures and ensure the availability of required resources or alternate resources as suggested by Gupta (see para [0004-0008]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAES in view of Bharatkumar as applied to claim 1, in further view of Banford et al. (US 20180143820 A1, hereinafter “Banford”).
With respect to claim 5, MAES as modified by Bharatkumar discloses The system of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to determine the corresponding impact, are configured to:
receive, from an external system, metadata associated with a binary update event in the filtered set of events; and
determine the corresponding impact for the binary update event based on the metadata.
However, in analogous art, Banford discloses wherein the one or more processors, to determine the corresponding impact, are configured to:
receive, from an external system, metadata associated with a binary update event in the filtered set of events (e.g. para [0071], “The patch directory 110, in some embodiments, can be a file system location (local or remote to the executing CPM 140) that can include one or more patches 111a-n (e.g., binary patches) and associated configuration patch metadata 112. …. In some embodiments, declarations may be provided within files aggregated alongside a set of one or more binary patches. In some embodiments, declarations may be obtained via a network request to an online service or API. …” wherein remote to the executing CPM indicates that the patch directory is an external system); and
determine the corresponding impact for the binary update event based on the metadata (e.g. para [0072], “… In some embodiments, a subset of those patches 111a-n may have (or include) metadata (e.g., configuration patch metadata 112) showing that they require configuration actions to be completed, and list those actions. …” wherein configuration actions read on the corresponding impact).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Banford because it provides techniques for performing application configuration patching for one or many applications in an automated, efficient, traceable, secure manner. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for performing application configuration patching for one or many applications in an automated, efficient, traceable, secure manner as suggested by Banford (see para [0013]).
With respect to claim 6, MAES as modified by Bharatkumar and Banford discloses The system of claim 5, Banford further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
transmit, to the external system, a request for the metadata (e.g. para [0071], “The patch directory 110, in some embodiments, can be a file system location (local or remote to the executing CPM 140) that can include one or more patches 111a-n (e.g., binary patches) and associated configuration patch metadata 112. As described above, in some embodiments, actions needed for a given patch are declared via patch metadata declarations. ... In some embodiments, declarations may be obtained via a network request to an online service or API. . …” wherein a network request is request to the patch directory which is an external system. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 5),
wherein the metadata associated with the binary update event is received in response to the request (e.g. para [0071], “... In some embodiments, declarations may be obtained via a network request to an online service or API. . …” wherein the declarations read on the metadata. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 5).
With respect to claim 7, MAES as modified by Bharatkumar and Banford discloses The system of claim 5, Banford further discloses wherein the external system comprises a code repository. (e.g. para [0071], “The patch directory 110, in some embodiments, can be a file system location (local or remote to the executing CPM 140) that can include one or more patches 111a-n (e.g., binary patches) and associated configuration patch metadata 112. …” For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 5),
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAES in view of Bharatkumar as applied to claim 1, in further view of MAHISHI et al. (US 20230297358 A1, hereinafter “MAHISHI”).
With respect to claim 8, MAES as modified by Bharatkumar discloses The system of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to determine the corresponding impact, are configured to:
determine, using a dependency mapping, a list of affected applications for each event in the filtered set of events. However, this is taught in analogous art, MAHISHI (e.g. para [0020], “… For example, the network device (e.g., using the orchestration module) may process (e.g., parse and/or install) the data package to identify a first set of one or more applications, of a plurality of applications of the network device, that are to be updated
as a result of performance of the ISSU procedure (e.g., the data package may list or otherwise indicate the set of one or more applications). The network device then may
determine (e.g., based on the first set of one or more applications and/or by searching a table of application dependencies) a second set of one or more applications, of the plurality of applications, that rely on the first set of one or more applications (and therefore are to be affected by an update of the first set of one or more applications).
…” MAHISHI’s teaching renders the claim obvious.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of MAHISHI because it provides techniques for reducing a likelihood of networking issues (e.g., misrouting issues, blackholing issues, or other issues) resulting from performance of the ISSU procedure. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of reducing a likelihood of networking issues (e.g., misrouting issues, blackholing issues, or other issues) resulting from performance of the ISSU procedure as suggested by MAHISHI (see para [0015]).
Claims 9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20240311281 A1, hereinafter “Wu”) in view of Tucker et al. (US 20190286500 A1, hereinafter “Tucker”).
With respect to claim 9, Wu discloses A method of detecting changes to a cloud environment, comprising:
receiving, from a user device and at a monitoring instance associated with an individual account, an indication of an application programming interface (API) call (e.g. Fig. 2, para [0037], “… event tracking interface 240 to distribute event tracking method call APIs and receive event messages for storage of the event messages and event message data in user data store 216, …” para [0045], “In one embodiment, event tracking API manager and interface 240 of application monitoring and configuration server 210 may receive event messages on an ongoing basis, …” wherein interface 240 reads on a monitoring instance, end user system 270 reads on a user device);
recording, by the monitoring instance, an event associated with a change to the cloud environment, based on the indication of the API call (e.g. para [0037], “… event tracking interface 240 to distribute event tracking method call APIs and receive event messages for storage of the event messages and event message data in user data store 216, …” para [0045], “In one embodiment, event tracking API manager and interface 240 of application monitoring and configuration server 210 may receive event messages on an ongoing basis, and store the relevant data (e.g., customer key, user key, event type, value, timestamp, etc.) in user data store 216. …” wherein store the relevant data reads on recording an event);
Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose
transmitting, from the monitoring instance and to a monitoring system associated with a centralized account, the event.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Tucker (e.g. Fig. 3, para [0038], “The web service API 310 pulls or receives event data (e.g., from the external monitors 304, the connector 302, the SNMP trap listener 306, and/or other event data generating components) and passes the event data to the events database 312, …” wherein web service API 310 reads on a monitoring system associated with a centralized account.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wu and with the invention of Tucker because it provides techniques for the system to initiate automatic remedial action to resolve some issues. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of resolving system issues by initiating automatic remedial actions as suggested by Tucker (see para [0004]).
With respect to claim 12, Wu as modified by Tucker discloses The method of claim 9, Wu further discloses further comprising:
receiving, at the monitoring instance and from the monitoring system associated with the centralized account, a configuration for the monitoring instance (e.g. para [0045], “In one embodiment, event tracking API manager and interface 240 of application monitoring and configuration server 210 may receive event messages on an ongoing basis, and store the relevant data (e.g., customer key, user key, event type, value, timestamp, etc.) in user data store 216. …” wherein the relevant data such as customer key, user key are configuration data),
wherein the event is recorded using the configuration (e.g. para [0045], “… Experiment and event attribution engine 220 then accesses the user data store to obtain event message data associated with the customer key and user key (e.g., event messages associated with application developer system 250, and the end users of that developer including end user system 270).” this paragraph indicates that the event is recorded using the configuration).
With respect to claim 14, Wu as modified by Tucker discloses The method of claim 9, Wu further discloses wherein the event indicates a cloud configuration (e.g. para [0045], “In one embodiment, event tracking API manager and interface 240 of application monitoring and configuration server 210 may receive event messages on an ongoing basis, and store the relevant data (e.g., customer key, user key, event type, value, timestamp, etc.) in user data store 216. …” wherein the relevant data such as customer key, user key are configuration data, Fig. 2 shows a network environment which is analogous to a cloud, i.e. Wu’s teaching applies to a cloud environment).
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Tucker as applied to claim 9, in further view of Banford.
With respect to claim 10, Wu as modified by Tucker discloses The method of claim 9, but does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising:
transmitting, from the monitoring instance and to the monitoring system, metadata associated with the event.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Banford (e.g. Fig. 1, para [0071], “The patch directory 110, in some embodiments, can be a file system location (local or remote to the executing CPM 140) that can include one or more patches 111a-n (e.g., binary patches) and associated configuration patch metadata 112. …. In some embodiments, declarations may be provided within files aggregated alongside a set of one or more binary patches. In some embodiments, declarations may be obtained via a network request to an online service or API. …” wherein the configuration patch reads on the event, the patch directory 110 is analogous to the monitoring instance, and CPM 140 is analogous to the monitoring system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Banford because it provides techniques for performing application configuration patching for one or many applications in an automated, efficient, traceable, secure manner. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for performing application configuration patching for one or many applications in an automated, efficient, traceable, secure manner as suggested by Banford (see para [0013]).
With respect to claim 11, Wu as modified by Tucker and Banford discloses The method of claim 10, Banford further discloses further comprising:
receiving, from the monitoring system and at the monitoring instance, a request for the metadata (e.g. para [0071], “The patch directory 110, in some embodiments, can be a file system location (local or remote to the executing CPM 140) that can include one or more patches 111a-n (e.g., binary patches) and associated configuration patch metadata 112. …. In some embodiments, declarations may be provided within files aggregated alongside a set of one or more binary patches. In some embodiments, declarations may be obtained via a network request to an online service or API. …” wherein the network request is from the monitoring system (CPM 140) to the monitoring instance (patch directory 110). For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 10),
wherein the metadata associated with the event is transmitted in response to the
request (e.g. para [0071] as cited above, “The patch directory 110, in some embodiments, can be a file system location (local or remote to the executing CPM 140) that can include one or more patches 111a-n (e.g., binary patches) and associated configuration patch metadata 112. …. In some embodiments, declarations may be provided within files aggregated alongside a set of one or more binary patches. In some embodiments, declarations may be obtained via a network request to an online service or API. …” For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 10).
With respect to claim 13, Wu as modified by Tucker discloses The method of claim 9, but does appear to explicitly disclose wherein the event indicates a binary update. However, this is taught in analogous art, Banford (e.g. para [0071], “The patch directory 110, in some embodiments, can be a file system location (local or remote to the executing CPM 140) that can include one or more patches 111a-n (e.g., binary patches) and associated configuration patch metadata 112. …” For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 10).
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Seth et al. (US 20230004447 A1, hereinafter “Seth”).
With respect to claim 15, Wu discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for processing notifications about changes to a cloud environment, the set of instructions comprising (e.g. Fig. 5):
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to:
transmit a set of credentials associated with an individual account (e.g. para [0045], “In one embodiment, event tracking API manager and interface 240 of application monitoring and configuration server 210 may receive event messages on an ongoing basis, and store the relevant data (e.g., customer key, user key, event type, value, timestamp, etc.) in user data store 216. …” wherein the relevant data such as customer key, user key reads on the credentials);
receive, using a communication software executed by the device, a notification of an impact of the API call (e.g. para [0037], “… event tracking interface 240 to distribute event tracking method call APIs and receive event messages for storage of the event messages and event message data in user data store 216, …” Fig. 3, para [0060], “… processing logic begins by receiving a plurality of event tracking messages generated by configurable applications executed by a plurality of end user systems after a feature treatment is deployed to the configurable applications, …” wherein event tracking massages read on a notification of an impact of the API call).
Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose
transmit, to an instance of the cloud environment associated with the individual account, a command to trigger an application programming interface (API) call;
However, this is taught in analogous art, Seth (e.g. para [0072], “… When the administrator decides to apply the plan for one or more of the VPCs, the global controller sends a command to the cluster agent of each affected VPC. Each cluster agent that receives a command then makes the API calls to cloud infrastructure managers (e.g., the AWS managers) to execute the plan (e.g., resize instance types).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wu with the invention of Seth because it provides techniques for efficiently managing workloads across different public clouds of different public cloud providers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for efficiently managing workloads across different public clouds of different public cloud providers as suggested by Seth (see para [0001-0002]).
With respect to claim 16, Wu discloses wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to:
output a user interface including the notification (e.g. para [0028], “… In one embodiment, alerts may be generated in messages (e.g., email, text, etc.), graphical user interfaces, or a combination when metric degradation is detected by application monitoring and configuration server 110. …”).
With respect to claim 17, Wu as modified by Seth discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, Wu further discloses wherein the communication software is executed by the device separately from software that transmits the command (e.g. para [0060], “… processing logic begins by receiving a plurality of event tracking messages generated by configurable applications executed by a plurality of end user systems after a feature treatment is deployed to the configurable applications, …” wherein the communication software is executed by end user systems which are separate from the software that transmits the command, e.g. the software that transmits the command is executed by the global controller, see para [0072] of Seth as cited above for claim 15. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 15).
With respect to claim 20, Wu as modified by Seth discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, Seth further discloses wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to:
detect interaction with a console associated with the instance of the cloud environment (e.g. Fig. 8, para [0064], “As shown, the process 800 starts (at 805) when an administrator directs the global controller cluster 310 through its user interface (e.g., its web interface or APIs) to reduce the number of machines on which the legacy and containerized workloads managed by the administrator are deployed. …” For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 15),
wherein the command is transmitted in response to the interaction (e.g. para [0068], “… The process 800 configures (at 830) forwarding elements and/or load balancers in one or more affected VPCs to forward API (application programming interface) requests that are sent to the migrated workload applications to the new machine on which the workload applications now execute.” For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 15).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Seth as applied to claim 15, in further view of Banford.
With respect to claim 18, Wu as modified by Seth discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to transmit the command, cause the device to:
transmit an update to a binary to a code repository associated with the instance of the cloud environment.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Banford (e.g. para [0071], “The patch directory 110, in some embodiments, can be a file system location (local or remote to the executing CPM 140) that can include one or more patches 111a-n (e.g., binary patches) and associated configuration patch metadata 112. …. In some embodiments, declarations may be obtained via a network request to an online service or API. A list of identifiers for the binary patches of interest may be provided as part of the request. …”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Banford because it provides techniques for performing application configuration patching for one or many applications in an automated, efficient, traceable, secure manner. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for performing application configuration patching for one or many applications in an automated, efficient, traceable, secure manner as suggested by Banford (see para [0013]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Seth as applied to claim 15, in further view of Jain et al. (US 20240154884 A1, hereinafter “Jain”).
With respect to claim 19, Wu as modified by Seth discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to transmit the command, cause the device to:
transmit an update to a cloud configuration using a command line.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Jain (e.g. para [0101], “… the computer system 110 can generate and transmit an updated module 174 or updated settings over the network 120. …” wherein setting reads on configuration, and the network is analogous to a cloud.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Jain because it provides techniques that enable the system to measure and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of monitoring performed by remote devices, and take actions to improve performance in the system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques that enable the system to measure and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of monitoring performed by remote devices, and take actions to improve performance in the system as suggested by Jain (see para [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Stuedi et al., US 8701155 B2 teaches Communicating Using A Cloud Infrastructure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, 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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197