CTFR 18/430,339 CTFR 89155 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim status in the amendment received on 3/11/2026: Claims 1, 20 and 25 have been amended. Claims 1-25 are pending. Response to Amendments Applicant’s amendments have been considered and in response to the amendments: The previous 101 rejections have been withdrawn. Response to Arguments 07-38 Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 9-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5 and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al. (Pub. No.: US 20030041264 A1) in view of Harutyunyan et al. (Pub. No.: US 20240028955 A1) . As to claim 1, Black teaches a method comprising: detecting an event in a computing system (fig. 9, 900) ; adding the event to an event group (fig.9, 904) ; determining a group confidence level for the event group based on an event confidence level for the event and at least one of: one or more attributes of the event or one or more relationships between a source of the event and sources of events in the event group (paragraph [0043], “…In the example, the severity level of group 600 is 21 (i.e. 7 points for each event in the group-note again, however, that any formula for calculating a severity level that is reasonably related to the qualitative severity of the events making up the group may be used)…”, “severity level of group” teaches a group confidence level) ; determining whether the group confidence level exceeds a threshold (paragraph [0043], “…If the threshold for this type of group (i.e., one holding (1, 2, 3) events) is set at 18, then group 600 is designated a situation, since group 600's severity level of 21 exceeds the threshold 18…”) ; detecting an anomaly based on the group confidence level exceeding the threshold (paragraph [0043], “…If the threshold for this type of group (i.e., one holding (1, 2, 3) events) is set at 18, then group 600 is designated a situation, since group 600's severity level of 21 exceeds the threshold 18…”). Black does not explicitly teach increasing processing capacity for a resource based on detected anomaly. However, in an analogous art (detecting and resolving performance problems) Harutyunyan teaches detecting an anomaly with respect to a resource of the computing system based on the group confidence level exceeding the threshold (paragraph [0150], “…identifying the violation of the KPI threshold and the log messages…”) ; and performing a remedial action on the computing system based on detecting the anomaly, wherein the remedial action includes increasing processing capacity available to the resource threshold (paragraph [0150], “…remedial measures to resolve the performance problem associated with the KPI threshold violation detected in block 2403 are executed. The remedial measures include, but are not limited to, restarting a host that runs the object, restarting the object, increasing memory or CPU allocation to the object…”). Based on Black in view of Harutyunyan, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate increasing processing capacity for a resource based on detected anomaly (taught by Harutyunyan) with detecting anomaly (taught by Black) in order to improve system availability and prevent downtime. As to claim 2, Black teaches wherein the one or more relationships comprise one or more transactional relationships or one or more infrastructure relationships (paragraph [0044], “…a group is a collection of similar or identical events …”). As to claim 3, Black teaches wherein calculating the group confidence level comprises calculating the group confidence level based on whether a source of the event shares one or more relationships with sources of any other events in the event group (paragraph [0043], “…group 600 represents that a number of events with source "1," target "2," and event category "3"…”). As to claim 4, Black teaches wherein the one or more attributes comprise an event type or an event source (paragraph [0043], “…group 600 represents that a number of events with source "1," target "2," and event category "3"…”). As to claim 5, Black teaches wherein calculating the group confidence level comprises calculating the group confidence level based on whether the event shares the one or more attributes with any other events in the event group (paragraphs [0043]-[0044], “…a group is a collection of similar or identical events …”). As to claim 20, Black further teaches an apparatus comprising: a processing device; and memory operatively coupled to the processing device, wherein the memory stores computer program instructions (paragraph [0025]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above. As to claims 21-24, the limitations of the claims are substantially similar to claims 2-5, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above. As to claim 25, Black further teaches a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium comprises computer program instructions (paragraph [0025]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 25 are substantially similar to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al. (Pub. No.: US 20030041264 A1) in view of Harutyunyan et al. (Pub. No.: US 20240028955 A1) and further in view of Mo et al. (Pub. No.: US 20220232032 A1) . As to claim 6, Black in view of Harutyunyan does not explicitly teach apply growth factor based on event group type. However, in the same field of endeavor (computing events monitoring) Mo teaches one or more attributes comprise an event type and wherein calculating the group confidence level comprises applying, to the event confidence level of the event, a growth factor based on a number of other events in the event group sharing the event type with the event (paragraph [0048], “…In some examples where multiple measures or data points are used to calculate event impact scores, the multiple data points are adjusted with weight factor values and combined as weighted values to form an event impact score (e.g., applying a first weight factor value to a probabilistic cardinality estimate, applying a second weight factor value to a counted alert quantity, and combining the weighted cardinality estimate and the weighted alert quantity to form the event impact score of the computing event)…”). Based on Black in view of Harutyunyan and further in view of Mo, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate apply growth factor based on event group type (taught by Mo) with increasing processing capacity for a resource based on detected anomaly (taught by Harutyunyan) with detecting anomaly (taught by Black) in order to improve system availability and prevent downtime, and in order to add more weights to events with significant impact on the system. As to claim 7, Black in view of Harutyunyan does not explicitly teach decreasing group confidence level. However, in the same field of endeavor (computing events monitoring) Mo decreasing the group confidence level in response to at least one of: an age of events in the event group or adding another event to the event group indicating that the event group is non-anomalous (paragraph [0050], “…the expired event impact score is divided by 30 as a weight factor and the result is subtracted from the associated aggregated impact score…”). Based on Black in view of Harutyunyan and further in view of Mo, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate decreasing group confidence level (taught by Mo) with increasing processing capacity for a resource based on detected anomaly (taught by Harutyunyan) with detecting anomaly (taught by Black) in order to improve system availability and prevent downtime, and in order to add less weights to events with insignificant impact on the system. As to claim 8, Black in view of Harutyunyan does not explicitly teach applying biasing vector. However, in the same field of endeavor (computing events monitoring) Mo teaches applying a biasing vector to a plurality of event confidence levels (paragraph [0048], “…In some examples where multiple measures or data points are used to calculate event impact scores, the multiple data points are adjusted with weight factor values and combined as weighted values to form an event impact score (e.g., applying a first weight factor value to a probabilistic cardinality estimate, applying a second weight factor value to a counted alert quantity, and combining the weighted cardinality estimate and the weighted alert quantity to form the event impact score of the computing event)…”). Based on Black in view of Harutyunyan and further in view of Mo, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate applying biasing vector (taught by Mo) with increasing processing capacity for a resource based on detected anomaly (taught by Harutyunyan) with detecting anomaly (taught by Black) in order to improve system availability and prevent downtime, and in order to add more weights to events with significant impact on the system. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, 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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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. /Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 5/28/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/430,339 Page 2 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/430,339 Page 3 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/430,339 Page 4 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/430,339 Page 5 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/430,339 Page 6 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/430,339 Page 7 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/430,339 Page 8 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/430,339 Page 9 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/430,339 Page 10 Art Unit: 2447
Prosecution Insights