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 .
Claims 1-10, 12 and 14-22 have been examined.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 8/10/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 9-10 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0312356 (hereinafter Roth) and Jha et al, U.S. Patent 9,959,198 (hereinafter Jha) in view of Kroll et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0263195 (hereinafter Kroll).
As per claim 1, Roth teaches the invention substantially as claimed comprising:
generating, by a simulator platform, a plurality of simulated resources based on a customized simulation configuration expression that defines one or more resource types and a respective number of each of the one or more resource types to generate ([117]-[119], e.g., generating simulated resources based on customized simulation configuration expression that defines resource type (e.g., instance computer storage network resources) and defines the desired configuration settings at each resources in each tier (e.g., number of each resource type to generate e.g., fail/success, cost, etc.)); and
executing, by the simulator platform, a simulation with the plurality of simulated resources to produce simulated observability metrics for the simulation ([119], e.g., implementing the simulation).
Roth is silent in regard to defining in the customized simulation configuration expression, observability metrics to be produced in relation to the plurality of simulated resources and a plurality of possible values for the observability metrics. Jha teaches defining, by the simulator platform and in the customized simulation configuration expression, observability metrics to be produced in relation to the plurality of simulated resources and a plurality of possible values for the observability metrics (col. 13, line 19-col. 14, line 42; col. 17, line 3-col. 18, line 12, e.g., defining in the user customized simulation programming codes, plurality of types of data to be expected from the simulated response such as metric “age” and a plurality of specific default values to be returned during simulation for one or more data types).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jha’s teaching with Roth’s system in order to allow verification of the desired responses prior to implementation in Roth’s system (col. 14, lines 35-42).
Roth and Jha are silent in regard to executing the simulation periodically in response to a cron trigger. Kroll teaches executing, periodically in response to a cron trigger that schedules execution at fixed time intervals, a simulation ([42], e.g., running, periodically in response to a crontab command that schedules run/execution every two minutes, the simulator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kroll’s teaching with Roth’s and Jha’s system in order to allow a user in Roth’s and Jha’s system to script the characteristics for a simulation, thus enhancing the user control of the simulation in Roth’s and Jha’s system.
As per claim 2, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Roth further teach comprising: determining, from the customized simulation configuration expression, state changes associated with the plurality of simulated resources ([121][124], e.g., determining from the customized simulation configuration expression, the initial state and desired/final state after change);
determining resource performance metrics responsive to the state changes associated with the plurality of simulated resources [121], e.g., determining fail/success, cost indicators responsive to change to desire/final state); and
executing the simulation using the state changes associated with the plurality of simulated resources ([121], e.g., generating enumeration of configuration operations).
As per claim 3, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 2 above. Roth further teach wherein the resource performance metrics change based on the state changes ([121].
As per claim 4, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Roth and Jha further teach wherein the observability metrics comprise metrics, events, logs, and traces (Roth, [12], e.g., cost, fail/success, etc.; Jha, col. 13, line 19-col. 14, line 42)
As per claim 5, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Roth further teach comprising: defining one or more simulated identifiable attributes for each of the one or more resource types based on the customized simulation configuration expression, wherein the one or more simulated identifiable attributes are formatted to appear as real identifiable attributes ([118], e.g., defining specific OS machine image for the instance, e.g., specific OS 32-bit machine images).
As per claim 6, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 5 above. Roth further teach comprising: assigning a same value to all of the one or more simulated identifiable attributes having a particular attribute ([118], e.g., assigning a score value to one simulated attribute having a particular attribute).
As per claim 7, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 5 above. Roth further teach comprising: concatenating a dynamic portion of the one or more simulated identifiable attributes with a static portion of the one or more simulated identifiable attributes within a particular attribute among the one or more simulated identifiable attributes ([118], e.g., version (static)+ID(dynamic); machineImage (static)+ID (dynamic)).
As per claim 9, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Roth further teach wherein the customized simulation configuration expression defines a configuration for sets of the one or more resource types concurrently ([118], e.g., defines configuration for sets (e.g., parameters, resources, etc.) of one resource type (e.g., computer instance)concurrently).
As per claim 10, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Roth further teach comprising: defining one or more simulated identifiable attributes for each of the one or more resource types based on the customized simulation configuration expression [118], wherein:
the one or more simulated identifiable attributes have respective values associated therewith [118], and
the respective values comprise numbers or strings, or both [118].
As per claim 14, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Roth further teach comprising: filtering the plurality of simulated resources to generate a plurality of filtered simulated resources ([42], e.g., filtering types of resources in resource descriptors); and reporting observability metrics corresponding to the plurality of filtered simulated resources ([42][115][121][123], e.g., state view corresponding to the filtering).
As per claim 15, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Roth further teach wherein: the simulation is specified in a JavaScript Object Notation format [117], and the customized simulation configuration expression is specified in a query and translation language for the JavaScript Object Notation format [115][117].
As per claims 16 and 20, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above. See figure 28 for one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network; a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes; and a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor, the process, when executed, configured to perform the method of claim 1.
As per claim 17, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
As per claim 18, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 above.
As per claim 19, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 above.
As per claim 21, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Roth further teach wherein the simulator platform is an observability platform configured to monitor application and infrastructure performance (e.g., monitoring application/resources performance including application running on compute resources [114][129][65]. Resources include compute, storage instances and network interfaces [42]).
As per claim 22, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Roth further teach comprising: storing a current state of the simulation and the simulated observability metrics in a state store ([113][114], e.g., storing/copying initial state representation of the simulation and simulated result/returned values); and updating the current state in response to a state transition ([114] e.g., updating the initial state representation to an end/final state representative; generating an end state of the simulation from the initial state; updating the different resources being used for a given service than in the initial state, and/or indications of different expected utilization or performance levels at various resources than in the initial state in response to transition to end/final state).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth, Jha and Kroll in view of Wrigley et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0243334 (hereinafter Wrigley).
As per claim 8, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 5 above. Roth, Jha and Kroll are silent in regard to randomly generating values at defined lengths as part of defining the one or more simulated identifiable attributes. Wrigley teaches randomly generating values at defined lengths as part of defining the one or more simulated identifiable attributes ([81][106][135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wrigley’s teaching with Roth’s, Jha’s and Kroll’s system in order to allow different ways to generate simulated attributes in Roth’s, Jha’s and Kroll’s system, thus increasing the customization of the configuration in Roth’s, Jha’s and Kroll’s system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth, Jha and Kroll in view of Janes, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0071772 (hereinafter Janes).
As per claim 12, Roth, Jha and Kroll teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Although, Kroll further teach comprising: executing the simulation periodically based on a set of user defined parameters chosen from a group consisting of: a frequency of execution of the simulation ([42], e.g., run the simulator every two minutes), however, Roth, Jha and Kroll are silent in regard to a frequency of reporting the simulated observability metrics for the simulation. Janes teaches executing the simulation periodically based on a set of user defined parameters chosen from a group consisting of: a frequency of reporting the simulated observability metrics for the simulation ([27]-[29], e.g., reporting the metrics for the simulation after every test (e.g., every 5 mins)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Janes’s teaching with Roth’s, Jha’s and Kroll’s system in order to allow a user in Roth’s, Jha’s and Kroll’s system to script the characteristics for a simulation, thus enhancing the user control of the simulation in Roth’s, Jha’s and Kroll’s system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set
forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO
MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end
of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the
date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated
from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply
expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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://pair- direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights