DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 11-14, 21, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterioff in view of Burdine (US20050204237).
Regarding claim 1, 14, 21, Sterioff teaches, identifying a provisioned physical machine for diagnosing an issue (“The device ID field 173 can be configured to contain data representing an identification of a selected client device 102 (FIG. 1A) that is to be tested” ¶43); the provisioned physical machine comprising a plurality of components; (“the diagnostic system can be configured to analyze the submitted description and/or other suitable information to determine which areas or components of the gaming console are to be tested” ¶7) executing respective tests on the components in a first subset of components of the plurality of components, to generate a target component log (“The diagnostic system can then be configured to combine or aggregate the received description from the laptop and the diagnostic information from the gaming console into a database record (referred to herein as a “diagnostic record” ¶8); wherein the first subset of components comprises one or more components; obtaining a set of base component logs generated by execution of the respective tests on a second subset of components of a set of base physical machines (“The diagnostic system can then combine or align the received diagnostic information from the selected computing device and the description from the other computing device into a diagnostic record useful for further processing.” ¶19); wherein the set of base physical machines comprises one or more physical machines (“the client devices 102 include a desktop computer 102a, a gaming console…” ¶26); evaluating the target component log based on the set of base component logs to identify an anomalous portion of the target component log; selecting a remediation operation based on the anomalous portion of the target component log; and executing the remediation operation for the provisioned physical machine for addressing the issue; and executing the remediation operation for the provisioned physical machine for addressing the issue (“In other embodiments, the diagnostic system can also be configured to analyze the description in combination with the retrieved diagnostic information to determine a root cause of the reported issue with the gaming console and automatically apply a remedial action to the gaming console” ¶9). Sterioff does not teach obtaining a set of base component logs generated by execution of the respective tests on a second subset of components of a set of base physical machines that does not include the provisioned physical machine, wherein the set of base physical machines comprises one or more physical machines that are operating as expected and wherein the second subset of components corresponds to the first subset of component.
Burdine teaches obtaining a set of base component logs generated by execution of the respective tests on a second subset of components of a set of base physical machines that does not include the provisioned physical machine, wherein the set of base physical machines comprises one or more physical machines that are operating as expected and wherein the second subset of components corresponds to the first subset of component (“At step 206, the expected results of the test pattern set are determined. They may be determined by applying the test patterns to a region of the integrated circuit 102 that is known to operate without errors (e.g., an operating region). If there is no known operating region on the integrated circuit 102, a region on another integrated circuit may be utilized. This method of obtaining actual good machine responses is referred to as the "bootstrapping" technique” ¶21). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device testing and evaluation methods of Sterioff with the comparison to tests on separate, good devices as described by Burdine. This is a way to determine what the expected results are (¶7).
Regarding claim 11, Sterioff teaches wherein the operations further comprise: identifying the first subset of components on which to execute the respective tests using a mapping between the issue and one or more components of the plurality of components (“the diagnostic system can be configured to analyze the submitted description and/or other suitable information to determine which areas or components of the gaming console are to be tested” ¶7).
Regarding claim 12, Sterioff teaches further comprising: executing a first test on a first component in the first subset of components to generate a first target component log (“Upon completion of executing the diagnostic programs on the gaming console, the diagnostic system can be configured to retrieve or otherwise receive suitable diagnostic information generated during execution of the diagnostic programs” ¶8) executing a second test on a second component in the first subset of components to generate a second target component log, wherein the first test is different from the second test (“the diagnostic system can be configured to test one or more of a BIOS, an operating system, a power supply, or other suitable hardware/software components of the gaming console.” ¶7); obtaining a first base component log, from the set of base component logs, generated by executing the first test on a third component in the second subset of components, wherein the third component corresponds to the first component (“the diagnostic system can be configured to retrieve or otherwise receive suitable diagnostic information generated during execution of the diagnostic programs “ ¶8) obtaining a second base component log, from the set of base component logs, generated by executing the second test on a fourth component in the second subset of components, wherein the fourth component corresponds to the second component (“In certain implementations, the collection engine 154 can be configured to analyze the submitted description and/or other suitable information in the feedback package 162 to determine which areas or components of the second client device 102b are to be tested” ¶35) evaluating the first target component log based on the first base component log; evaluating the second target component log based on the second base component log and responsive to identifying an anomalous portion of at least one of the first target component log or the second target component log, selecting a remediation operation based on the anomalous portion (“For example, the diagnostic system can be configured to analyze the feedback and diagnostic information and determine that the operating system on the gaming console has crashed. In response, the diagnostic system can be configured to issue a reboot command that causes the gaming console to restart. In another example, the diagnostic system can be configured to determine that the network interface card has failed on the gaming console. In response, the diagnostic system can be configured to provide a message to the user for replacement of the network interface card on the gaming console” ¶9)
Regarding claim 13, Sterioff teaches wherein the operations further comprise: identifying the individual components in the plurality of component for the provisioned physical machine; and identifying one or more tests corresponding to the respective individual components (“In another example, when the description indicates that the gaming console has no network connection, the diagnostic system can be configured to test one or more of a network interface card (“NIC”), a NIC driver, and/or other suitable network components of the gaming console.” ¶7).
Regarding claim 25, Sterioff teaches wherein the identifying a provisioned physical machine for diagnosing an issue comprises identifying a malfunctioning provisioned physical machine based on a system-generated monitoring agent log (“The device ID field 173 can be configured to contain data representing an identification of a selected client device 102 (FIG. 1A) that is to be tested… The diagnostic data field 175 can be configured to contain data representing the diagnostic information 166 (FIG. 1D) received from the client device 102.” ¶43).
Regarding claim 26, Sterioff teaches the operations further comprising: selecting the first subset of components for testing independently of the issue (“Diagnostic programs can often facilitate performance of diagnostics of computing devices. For example, during normal start-up of a desktop computer, a basic input/output system (“BIOS”) embedded power-on self-test (“POST”) program can be automatically executed to validate integrity of hardware components” ¶1). Testing of devices automatically on startup is considered independent of the testing in response to detected or user reported issues.
Claim(s) 2-4, 15, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiroff and Burdine in view of Zhou (US 20200089594).
Regarding claim 2, Steiroff and Burdine teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of Claim 1. They do not teach wherein evaluating the target component log based on the set of base component logs comprises comparing a set of data characteristics of events in the target component log to an expected set of data characteristics that are determined based on the set of base component logs.
Zhou teaches wherein evaluating the target component log based on the set of base component logs comprises comparing a set of data characteristics of events in the target component log to an expected set of data characteristics that are determined based on the set of base component logs (“This can also be done, for example, by comparing the sequences of events in the test logs to sequences of events from earlier test logs. Block 161 can proceed to block 163.” ¶52). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the test component identification and initiation methods taught by Steiroff with the comparison to expected data taught by Zhou. This would allow for the identification of new events that wouldn’t be expected based on previous data (Zhou ¶7).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou teaches wherein identifying the anomalous portion of the target component log comprises: determining that a detected sequence of events in the target component log does not match an expected sequence of events that is determined based on the set of base component (“, the AI system can be configured to analyze logs of the software execution and compare the logs to the model. Any differences in the sequence of scenarios and/or events can be optionally flagged for review” ¶36)
Regarding claim 4, Zhou teaches wherein identifying the anomalous portion of the target component log comprises: determining that an expected time between a pair of events in the target component log does not match an expected time between the pair of events that is determined based on the set of base component logs (“The distributions of times between events can also be updated or replaced based on the timings that occurred in the test logs. In some embodiments, the AI system 317 can additionally or alternatively compare the identified sequences of events to sequences of events from even earlier test logs to find the differences.” ¶80).
Regarding claim 15, it recites the same additional limitations as claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, it recites the same additional limitations as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 22, Sterioff teaches the system of claim 1, and the claim recites the same additional limitations as claims 2 and 15.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterioff and Burdine in view of Chen (US 20220091949 ).
Regarding claim 5, Sterioff and Burdine do not teach wherein identifying the anomalous portion of the target component log comprises, for a test: determining that a set of components identified in the target component log as being accessed during the test does not match an expected set of components that would have been accessed during the test as determined based on the set of base component logs.
Chen teaches wherein identifying the anomalous portion of the target component log comprises, for a test: determining that a set of components identified in the target component log as being accessed during the test does not match an expected set of components that would have been accessed during the test as determined based on the set of base component logs (“ The testing computer 170 may also track any delays, unexpected events, inappropriate access device 125 actions” ¶118). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the component testing methods of Sterioff with monitoring of device access as Chen teaches. Recording these interactions would help identify systemic errors (Chen ¶119).
Regarding claim 18, Sterioff teaches The method of Claim 14, and it recites the same additional limitations as claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterioff and Burdine in view of Sade (20160253229). Sterioff and Burdine does not teach wherein identifying the anomalous portion of the target component log comprises: determining that version or configuration data identified in the target component log does not match expected version or configuration data determined based on the set of base component logs.
Sade teaches wherein identifying the anomalous portion of the target component log comprises: determining that version or configuration data identified in the target component log does not match expected version or configuration data determined based on the set of base component logs (“The method continues by comparing the first set of event log elements and the second set of event log elements to identify a configuration difference between the target computer and the plurality of computers. “ abstract). It would have been obvious to combine the component testing methods of Sterioff with the comparing of configuration information like taught by Sade. Doing so would help make the analysis of many logs more efficient (Sade ¶8).
Claim(s) 7-9, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterioff and Burdine in view of Harutyunyan (US 20240028444).
Regarding claim 7, Steiroff teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of Claim 1 but does not teach wherein the operations further comprise: generating expected log data or expected log data characteristics, based on the set of base component logs, for executing the evaluating operation
Harutyunyan teaches wherein the operations further comprise: generating expected log data or expected log data characteristics, based on the set of base component logs, for executing the evaluating operation (“The analytics engine 312 performs system health assessments b monitoring key performance indicators (“KPIs”) for problems with applications or other data center objects, maintains dynamic thresholds of metrics, and generates alerts in response to KPIs that violate corresponding thresholds” ¶50). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the component testing methods taught by Steiroff with the generating of data characteristics from recorded data taught by Harutyunyan. This allows for data outliers to be detected (Harutyunyan ¶81).
Regarding claim 8, Harutyunyan teaches wherein generating expected log data or expected log data characteristics comprises training a machine learning model to generate the expected log data or expected log data based on the set of base component logs (“The analytics engine 312 uses machine learning as described below to train a model that contains specific rules relating events recorded in log messages to KPI values of the KPI recorded in a historical time period” ¶78).
Regarding claim 9, Harutyunyan teaches wherein the target component log and base component logs are structured logs in accordance with a definition (“The automated methods use machine learning to obtain rules defining relationships between probabilities of event types of in log messages and performance problems” ¶8).
Regarding claim 19, it recites the same additional limitations as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, it recites the same additional limitations as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterioff and Burdine in view of Beales (US 10146666).
Sterioff does not teach wherein the operations further comprise: prior to executing the respective tests, disabling a connection to a storage component comprised in the provisioned physical machine
Beales teaches wherein the operations further comprise: prior to executing the respective tests, disabling a connection to a storage component comprised in the provisioned physical machine (“For example, directing module 106 may direct an operating system associated with mobile computing device 204 to unmount a physical drive of the mobile computing device 204 prior to execution of the comparative performance test. “ column 16 lines 37-41). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the component testing methods of Sterioff with the disconnecting of a storage component prior to testing as taught by Beales. This would allow for the testing system to instead intercept the write commands and write to RAM, and remove inconsistencies in the performance of some tests caused by the latency of the storage device (Beales column 16 lines 1-9).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterioff in view of Zhou and Sade.
Sterioff does not teach wherein identifying the anomalous portion of the target component log comprises at least one of: determining that an expected time between a pair of events in the target component log does not match an expected time between the pair of events that is determined based on the set of base component logs; and determining that version or configuration data identified in the target component log does not match expected version or configuration data determined based on the set of base component logs.
Zhou teaches wherein identifying the anomalous portion of the target component log comprises: determining that an expected time between a pair of events in the target component log does not match an expected time between the pair of events that is determined based on the set of base component logs (“The distributions of times between events can also be updated or replaced based on the timings that occurred in the test logs. In some embodiments, the AI system 317 can additionally or alternatively compare the identified sequences of events to sequences of events from even earlier test logs to find the differences.” ¶80). Sade teaches determining that version or configuration data identified in the target component log does not match expected version or configuration data determined based on the set of base component logs (“The method continues by comparing the first set of event log elements and the second set of event log elements to identify a configuration difference between the target computer and the plurality of computers. “ abstract). It would have been obvious to combine the component testing methods of Sterioff with the comparing of configuration information like taught by Sade. Doing so would help make the analysis of many logs more efficient (Sade ¶8). It would have ben obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the comparing of configuration information taught by Sade with the log analysis methods taught by Zhou and Sterioff. Zhou already teaches comparing log data, and that version data can be recorded in ¶86.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterioff and Burdine in view of Edri (20150150001).
Sterioff and Burdine do not teach wherein the set of base physical machines comprise a set of provisioned physical machines that are reserved for testing purposes. Edri teaches wherein the set of base physical machines comprise a set of provisioned physical machines that are reserved for testing purposes (“described herein are systems and methods for allowing a user (such as a developer, testing software, or another human or machine user) to reserve one or more host machines in a virtualization system for testing and to release the host machines when the testing is completed” ¶8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the system testing and remediation methods taught by Sterioff and Burdine with the reserving of machines for testing as taught by Edri. This would make the system better able to make use of resources and respond to additional requests to perform tests (Edri ¶17).
Regarding claim 24, Edri teaches wherein the set of base physical machines comprise a set of provisioned physical machines that operating for non-testing purposes (“and to release the host machines when the testing is completed” ¶8). It is interpreted that machines for tested being released for other purposes is equivalent to the claim as it is worded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN KEVIN MCNAMARA whose telephone number is (703)756-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/SEAN KEVIN MCNAMARA/Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/PHILIP GUYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights