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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims 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 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A system, comprising: one or more processing units coupled with memory to perform operations comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
identifying one or more states between an initial state and a final state of an application executed by a service (abstract idea mental process);
identifying one or more parameters corresponding to timing of one or more implementations of the one or more states (abstract idea mental process); and
providing a model configured to manage progress corresponding to the one or more states of the application to:
determine, using a first matrix, a current state of the one or more states of the application (abstract idea mental process);
determine, using a second matrix, a parameter of the one or more parameters corresponding to a timing of implementation of the current state (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
Claim 1. A system, comprising: one or more processing units coupled with memory to perform operations comprising (generic computing components).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
provide to the service an indication of the progress of the application (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the service comprises a self-contained environment comprising a portion of code and one or more resources to execute the application, wherein the one or more resources comprises one or more of a cloud, a server, or a virtual machine (generic computing components).
Claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the model is configured to:
determine, using a third matrix, a probability of an implementation of the current state (abstract idea mental process); and
provide, to the service, the indication of the probability of the progress of the application with respect to the current state (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the model is configured to:
receive the one or more states via the first matrix (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information); and
receive the one or more parameters via the second matrix (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the model is configured to identify the current state of the application from a plurality of states between the initial state and the final state based at least on the first matrix indicating the plurality of states (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the model is configured to identify a remaining amount of time for an implementation of the current state based at least on the one or more parameters of the second matrix (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the parameter corresponding to the timing of an implementation of at least one state of the one or more states is provided by a machine learning (ML) model updated using data of a plurality of time intervals to complete a plurality of states of a plurality of applications executed by a plurality of services (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
Claim 8. The system of claim 7, wherein the second matrix identifies the parameter indicative of a timing for implementation of the current state (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 9. The system of claim 1, comprising a third matrix indicating a probability of implementation of a state of the one or more states, the probability determined based on a machine learning (ML) model trained using data of a plurality of states of a plurality of applications executed by a plurality of services (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 10. The system of claim 1, wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational Al operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (generic computing components).
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 17. The method of claim 1, comprising:
identifying, using the one or more processors and the first matrix, a current transition between two states out of the one or more states of the application between the initial state and the final state (abstract idea mental process); and
identifying, using the one or more processors and the second matrix, the parameter indicative of a timing for implementation of the current transition (abstract idea mental process).
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 10 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As per claim 3, ll. 3-4 recite “the indication of the probability of the progress”. However, ll. 2 recites “a probability of an implementation” while claim 1 recites “an indication of the progress”. Therefore, it is unclear as to what ll. 3-4 refers. It appears that ll. 3-4 should recite “the indication of the progress”. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-11, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Henry et al. (US 2022/0214865) (hereinafter Henry) in view of
Francis et al. (US 2010/0228851) (hereinafter Francis) in view of
Seto (US 2015/0205691) in view of
Stefanko et al. (US 2020/0322444) (hereinafter Stefanko).
As per claim 1, Henry primarily teaches the invention as claimed including:
a system, comprising:
one or more processing units coupled with memory ([0114]) to perform operations comprising:
identifying one or more states between an initial state and a final state of an application ([0037] managing the choreography of multiple transitions through use of a single timing function applied across multiple transitions in a particular application, multiple applications, or within a broader computing environment. The common timing function relates the progress of a transition to time, such that the timing function provides, for each time during a transition, the degree of progress that each element has reached in its transition at that time and [0038] values of the various appearance characteristics of each shared element are interpolated between the initial state and final state according to the timing function);
identifying one or more parameters corresponding to timing of one or more implementations of the one or more states ([0078] as an element transforms, it transforms along a line called a path which defines the value of any parameter of the UI element as a function of time and [0105] the timing of the transitions of various elements can be altered through use of a set of parameters that is specified for a transition. Such parameters may also be described as a parameter wrapper. The parameters may indicate that the start, end, or rate of progress of certain element transitions is to be varied e.g., staggered in timing. Moreover, the parameters may alter the master timing function for different applications to add further detail and/or nuance to some transitions. For example, the parameters may include coefficients of the master timing function, to provide additional degrees of customization for a transition); and
providing a model configured to manage progress corresponding to the one or more states of the application to ([0073] graphed first time derivative of the timing function, with velocity being the rate of change in progress over time and [0074] particular timing functions can be applied to a UI transition. The functions are cubic Bezier functions, which model smooth curves and create the effect of a seamless transition that is not jarring to a viewer):
provide to the service an indication of the progress of the application ([0060]-[0061] timing function is a function of time, p=F(t), where p indicates the degree of progress of elements in their transition from an initial state to a final state, and the timing function may indicate that the progress of the elements is to start gradually at the beginning of the transition and [0063] the timing function indicates that the element has made p progress e.g., on a scale from 0 to 1 at time t during the transition, and a degree of progress p has been achieved at time t).
Henry does not explicitly teach:
the application executed by a service;
determine, using a first matrix, a current state of the one or more states of the application;
determine, using a second matrix, a parameter of the one or more parameters corresponding to a timing of implementation of the current state.
However, Francis teaches:
determine, using a first matrix, a current state of the one or more states of the application ([0057] considered together, the rows and the columns may form a matrix configuration suitable for implementing the dashboard display. The intersections between the rows and the columns may provide status fields, which may be activated or deactivated as appropriate to indicate the current conditions of different networks and/or applications running thereon).
Francis and Henry are both concerned with computer application management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henry in view of Francis because it would provide for network aggregation tools which may facilitate and expedite the recognition of such linkages or patterns between anomalies, particularly those anomalies occurring across different physical networks. These performance anomalies may affect network components and/or applications running on those components.
Henry in view of Francis do not explicitly teach:
the application executed by a service;
determine, using a second matrix, a parameter of the one or more parameters corresponding to a timing of implementation of the current state.
However, Seto teaches:
determine, using a second matrix, a parameter of the one or more parameters corresponding to a timing of implementation of the current state ([0082] the vector of information at each time series interval may contain 20, 50, 100, 500, or more parameters. As such, the multi-parameter vectors may represent the performance, state, or other information about an application for the time series interval. Such a time series dataset may be represented as a sparsely or fully populated matrix of observations).
Seto and Henry are both concerned with computer application management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto because it would provide for predictions based on other computer's behavior with other applications which may be useful to predict behavior with new applications, newly changed applications, new hardware platforms, or other situations where historical data for the identical configuration may not be available. Such a system may leverage the knowledge gained from many different computer systems to help predict various behavior or events. Predicted events may be useful, for example, to alert a user of an impending problem or issue. Such a prediction may help a computer administrator when deploying line-of-business applications or other systems where downtime or service degradation may be unwanted or harmful.
Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto do not explicitly teach:
the application executed by a service.
However, Stefanko teaches:
the application executed by a service ([0024] completion notification message indicates that a portion of an application executed by a service has been completed).
Stefanko and Henry are both concerned with computer application management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko because it would provide a proxy for a non-pattern-aware service so that the non-pattern-aware service may be used in a processing pattern. More varied services can be made available for use, improving flexibility. Additionally, changes can be made to settings for the pattern without taking applications offline. Since the applications can continue to operate while changes are made, delays in processing can be avoided.
As per claim 4, the combination of references above teaches wherein the model is configured to:
receive the one or more states via the first matrix (Francis [0057] considered together, the rows and the columns may form a matrix configuration suitable for implementing the dashboard display. The intersections between the rows and the columns may provide status fields, which may be activated or deactivated as appropriate to indicate the current conditions of different networks and/or applications running thereon); and
receive the one or more parameters via the second matrix (Seto [0082] the vector of information at each time series interval may contain 20, 50, 100, 500, or more parameters. As such, the multi-parameter vectors may represent the performance, state, or other information about an application for the time series interval. Such a time series dataset may be represented as a sparsely or fully populated matrix of observations).
As per claim 5, Francis teaches wherein the model is configured to identify the current state of the application from a plurality of states between the initial state and the final state based at least on the first matrix indicating the plurality of states ([0057] considered together, the rows and the columns may form a matrix configuration suitable for implementing the dashboard display. The intersections between the rows and the columns may provide status fields, which may be activated or deactivated as appropriate to indicate the current conditions of different networks and/or applications running thereon).
As per claim 8, Seto teaches wherein the second matrix identifies the parameter indicative of a timing for implementation of the current state ([0082] the vector of information at each time series interval may contain 20, 50, 100, 500, or more parameters. As such, the multi-parameter vectors may represent the performance, state, or other information about an application for the time series interval. Such a time series dataset may be represented as a sparsely or fully populated matrix of observations).
As per claim 10, Seto teaches wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational Al operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs) ([0066] VM environments); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources ([0097] cloud based storage).
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 10 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko in view of Williams et al. (US 2012/0089971) (hereinafter Williams).
As per claim 2, Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko do not explicitly teach wherein the service comprises a self-contained environment comprising a portion of code and one or more resources to execute the application, wherein the one or more resources comprises one or more of a cloud, a server, or a virtual machine.
However, Williams teaches wherein the service comprises a self-contained environment comprising a portion of code ([0072] application binary i.e. code is executed in a self-contained environment) and one or more resources to execute the application, wherein the one or more resources comprises one or more of a cloud, a server, or a virtual machine ([0057]-[0058] cloud environment).
Williams and Henry are both concerned with computer application management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko in view of Williams because it would provide for execution of an instant-on application binary, so that the virtualized local file system supports creation of local objects, data structure, files, and any other items that the application expects i.e., the virtualized execution environment is preconceived. This serves as a local sandbox for the instant-on application to write local data, including for instance configuration information. In this manner, the instant-on application is executed in a self-contained environment so that its impact on the user's computer can be minimized.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko in view of Porter et al. (US 2016/0344599) (hereinafter Porter).
As per claim 3, Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko do not explicitly teach wherein the model is configured to:
determine, using a third matrix, a probability of an implementation of the current state; and
provide, to the service, the indication of the probability of the progress of the application with respect to the current state.
However, Porter teaches wherein the model is configured to:
determine, using a third matrix, a probability of an implementation of the current state ([0048] resultant matrix represents the probability that future samples will be in a bad state and [0051] resultant matrix represents the probability that future samples will be in a particular state); and
provide, to the service, the indication of the probability of the progress of the application with respect to the current state ([0083] the connection service identifies a plurality of past state transitions represented in samples of past performance of the connection between an application and an application resource; predicts a plurality of future state transitions based at least in part on the plurality of past state transitions represented in the samples; and identifies a probability that the connection will become degraded based at least in part on the plurality of future state transitions; wherein the information indicates that the connection has become degraded when warranted by the probability).
Porter and Henry are both concerned with computer application management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko in view of Porter because it would provide a way of determining probabilistically whether or not a connection has become degraded means evaluating the likelihood that a connection will become degraded and, if more likely than not, then categorizing the connection as degraded, even if the connection has not yet actually become degraded. In this manner, an application can move away from a connection-resource pair that is likely to become degraded in the future. Such pro-active connection management has the technical effect of mitigating traffic delay associated with degraded connections. As back-end connections between applications and services resources can account for much of the delay experienced between applications and clients, reducing the back-end delay may also improve the user experience.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko in view of Mao et al. (US 2023/0275819) (hereinafter Mao).
As per claim 6, Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko do not explicitly teach wherein the model is configured to identify a remaining amount of time for an implementation of the current state based at least on the one or more parameters of the second matrix.
However, Mao teaches wherein the model is configured to identify a remaining amount of time for an implementation of the current state based at least on the one or more parameters of the second matrix ([0106] a ratio of remaining time of a buffered video of the application to total video time. The dynamic information may alternatively be a status indication corresponding to the remaining time of the buffered video of the application is in a normal state, an alarm state, or another state. The dynamic information representing the related status of the application may include but is not limited to: a related parameter of a device related to the application or a status indication corresponding to the related parameter).
Mao and Henry are both concerned with computer application management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko in view of Mao because whether an enhanced or backup network resource used in the network domain is proper can be accurately determined based on the dynamic information of the application and the detection result of in-band flow measurement in the network domain, to adaptively and properly plan a network resource used in the network domain, so that the network resource can be properly and effectively provided for the application in the network domain, to ensure that the application brings good QoE to the user.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 7, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko in view of Neves (US 2021/0141684).
As per claim 7, Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko do not explicitly teach wherein the parameter corresponding to the timing of an implementation of at least one state of the one or more states is provided by a machine learning (ML) model updated using data of a plurality of time intervals to complete a plurality of states of a plurality of applications executed by a plurality of services.
However, Neves teaches wherein the parameter corresponding to the timing of an implementation of at least one state of the one or more states is provided by a machine learning (ML) model updated using data of a plurality of time intervals to complete a plurality of states of a plurality of applications executed by a plurality of services ([0038] evaluate the application state based on application parameters and an amount of time a given state is detected, and the training data database includes training data used to train any machine learning model).
Neves and Henry are both concerned with computer application management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko in view of Neves because it would provide for an application that may include one or more classifiers that are used to output information that a debug tool may use to determine a state of an application. Details of the output information may include a probability that the application is in each given state. Classifiers may be machine learning models that are trained to output the information. The classifiers may be generic in the sense that the classifiers are trained to detect states across different applications. The advantage of using application-specific classifiers is that their output will be more accurate, in that the training data is specific to an application.
As per claim 9, Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko do not explicitly teach a third matrix indicating a probability of implementation of a state of the one or more states, the probability determined based on a machine learning (ML) model trained using data of a plurality of states of a plurality of applications executed by a plurality of services.
However, Neves teaches a third matrix indicating a probability of implementation of a state of the one or more states, the probability determined based on a machine learning (ML) model trained using data of a plurality of states of a plurality of applications executed by a plurality of services ([0019] an application that may include one or more classifiers that are used to output information that a debug tool may use to determine a state of an application. Details of the output information may include a probability that the application is in each given state. Classifiers may be machine learning models that are trained to output the information. The classifiers may be generic in the sense that the classifiers are trained to detect states across different applications).
Neves and Henry are both concerned with computer application management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko in view of Neves because it would provide for a debug tool which can provide an administrator with a link to one or more source code changes corresponding to that time. The administrator may thus easily review source code changes that potentially resulted in a bug, and analyze those isolated source code change without having to review a myriad of changes.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko in view of Bloching et al. (US 7,930,251) (hereinafter Bloching).
As per claim 17, Seto teaches:
identifying, using the one or more processors and the second matrix, the parameter indicative of a timing for implementation of the current transition ([0082] the vector of information at each time series interval may contain 20, 50, 100, 500, or more parameters. As such, the multi-parameter vectors may represent the performance, state, or other information about an application for the time series interval. Such a time series dataset may be represented as a sparsely or fully populated matrix of observations).
Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko do not explicitly teach:
identifying, using the one or more processors and the first matrix, a current transition between two states out of the one or more states of the application between the initial state and the final state.
However, Bloching teaches:
identifying, using the one or more processors and the first matrix, a current transition between two states out of the one or more states of the application between the initial state and the final state (col. 4, ll. 24-67 a switch between application states can be determined using a transition rule represented as a matrix).
Bloching and Henry are both concerned with computer application management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henry in view of Francis in view of Seto in view of Stefanko in view of Bloching because it would provide for models which may improve the quality of application development by providing a model-based framework for defining application states and their transitions. Moreover, the model-based approach described herein may provide a formalism to assist in the description of application states. At runtime, the models defined may make it possible to do automatic checks of transitions.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Kostello (US 9,946,514) discloses generating functional application designs.
Elkin (US 2022/0004937) discloses determining an application path for execution by a bot.
Balasubramanian et al. (US 2020/0409825) disclose a discovery crawler for application dependency discovery and reporting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights