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
1. This action is in response to the application filed 10/4/2023.
2. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The following terms lack antecedent basis:
the request chain (line 2 of claim 5, line 2 of claim 8, line 2 of claim 15, line 2 of claim 18). 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim 1:
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a system configured to perform steps, and is therefore directed to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
…generating a first bit encoding indicative of the first node;
… generating, based on the first bit encoding, a second bit encoding indicative of the first node and the second node…
These limitations can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional elements recited in claim 1 include:
…one or more processors; and
one or more memory resources storing instructions …:
… receiving a first request to interact with a first node, wherein the first node is associated with a software application;
…transmitting, from the first node, a second request to a second node associated with the software application, wherein the second request is associated with the first request….
These limitations recited is mere instructions to implement the limitations which can be performed in the human mind, i.e., the judicial exception, on a computer, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Furthermore, these limitations recited amounts to insignificant extra solution activity of necessary data outputting, as it is merely outputting the result of the judicial exception, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, the combination of additional elements results in mere instructions to implement the exception on a computer and outputting the result of the exception, which is insignificant extra- solution activity. This combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Regarding the additional elements, they are reciting generic computing components perform the steps which can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities which amount to necessary data outputting.
Further, the additional element: determining, based on the second bit encoding, a sequence of requests, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The combination of these additional elements amounts to a system comprising steps which can be performed mentally implemented by generic computing components, and comprising a step of insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions and the claim is not eligible.
As to claim 2, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 2 recites: the first node is associated with a first microservice and the second node is associated with a second microservice, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 2 is not eligible.
As to claim 3, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 3 recites: generating, based on the sequence of requests, a request chain, the request chain indicative of a transmission of requests across a plurality of node, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 3 is not eligible.
As to claim 4, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 4 recites: updating the request chain, based on generating subsequent bit encodings, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 4 is not eligible.
As to claim 5, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 5 recites: generating, based on the request chain, log data, wherein the log data describes a relationship between one or more nodes, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Furthermore, claim 5 recites additional limitation: transmitting the log data to a storage system, the storage system storing a plurality of log data associated with one or more request chains, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The combination of these additional elements amounts to a system comprising steps which can be performed mentally implemented by generic computing components, and comprising a step of insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to add an inventive concept to the claim. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 5 is not eligible.
As to claim 6, it is a dependent claim of claims 1 and 5, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in those claims. Claim 6 recites: the log data comprises at least one of: (i) an error rate metric, (ii) a latency metric, or (iii) a request rate metric, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1 and 5, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 6 is not eligible.
As to claim 7, it is a dependent claim of claims 1 and 5, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in those claims. Claim 7 recites: outputting one or more command instructions to generate a user interface to display a caller mapping, the caller mapping indicative of the sequence of requests across a plurality of nodes, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1 and 5, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 7 is not eligible.
As to claim 8, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 8 recites: decoding the request chain, the request chain comprising the first bit encoding and the second bit encoding, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 8 is not eligible.
As to claim 9, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 9 recites: the first bit encoding and the second bit encoding are generated using an algorithm, the algorithm configured to generate fixed-size bit encodings, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 9 is not eligible.
As to claim 10 it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 10 recites: the fixed sized bit encodings are a hash value, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 10 is not eligible.
As to claims 11-19, they recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 1-9, respectively. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-9, claims 11-19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not eligible.
As to claim 20, it recites substantially the same limitations as those recited in claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li U.S Patent No. 11,921,618.
As to clam 1, Li teaches a computing system (information handling system 102, Fig. 1 and associated specifications) comprising:
one or more processors (processors 103 and 113, Fig. 1 and associated specifications); and
one or more memory resources (memory 104, Fig. 1 and associated specifications) storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a first request (API call, lines 12-13 column 6) to interact with a first node (microservice 202-1, Fig. 2 and associated specifications), wherein the first node is associated with a software application (implementation of an application, line 4 column 6; application 300, Fig. 3 and associated specifications);
generating a first bit encoding (span ID which is associated with a single API call, lines 12-13 column 6) indicative of the first node;
transmitting, from the first node, a second request (Then if a microservice receives a request that has a particular trace ID and needs to call out to another microservice to respond, the same trace ID may be used for that second call, lines 17-20 column 6) to a second node (microservice 202-2, Fig. 2 and associated specifications) associated with the software application, wherein the second request is associated with the first request (the span ID ties together all of the API transactions that take place to service a single external request, lines 24-26 column 6);
generating, based on the first bit encoding, a second bit encoding indicative of the first node and the second node (Whenever a request is sent from one microservice to another, it may include the relevant trace ID and span ID (e.g., as arguments in the API call) for the receiving microservice. Then whenever a microservice sends a request, receives a response, receives a request, or sends a response, it may create a log entry including the trace ID, the span ID, the caller's span ID, lines 27-33 column 6); and
determining, based on the second bit encoding, a sequence of requests (to derive a full call chain describing every microservice interaction, lines 43-44 column 6).
As to clam 2, Li further teaches the first node is associated with a first microservice and the second node is associated with a second microservice (microservices 202-1 and 202-2, Fig. 2 and associated specifications).
As to clam 3, Li further teaches generating, based on the sequence of requests, a request chain, the request chain indicative of a transmission of requests across a plurality of nodes (a full call chain describing every microservice interaction, lines 43-44 column 6).
As to clam 4, Li further teaches updating the request chain, based on generating subsequent bit encodings (individual logs (e.g., log files) may be stored by each microservice. In another embodiment, a logging microservice may store all of the logs, lines 35-38 column 6).
As to clam 5, Li further teaches generating, based on the request chain, log data, wherein the log data describes a relationship between one or more nodes; and transmitting the log data to a storage system, the storage system storing a plurality of log data associated with one or more request chains (individual logs (e.g., log files) may be stored by each microservice. In another embodiment, a logging microservice may store all of the logs, lines 35-38 column 6).
As to clam 6, Li further teaches the log data comprises at least one of: (i) an error rate metric, (ii) a latency metric, or (iii) a request rate metric (When a failure (e.g., an exception, a program crash, etc.) occurs, the information that has been logged may be analyzed, lines 41-43 column 6).
As to clam 7, Li further teaches outputting one or more command instructions to generate a user interface to display a caller mapping, the caller mapping indicative of the sequence of requests across a plurality of nodes (After such a call chain is generated, it may displayed graphically to allow easy determination of where the failure occurred in the complete logic across the microservices, lines 7-10 column 7).
As to clam 8, Li further teaches decoding the request chain, the request chain comprising the first bit encoding and the second bit encoding (a full call chain describing every microservice interaction, lines 43-44 column 6).
As to clam 9, Li further teaches the first bit encoding and the second bit encoding are generated using an algorithm, the algorithm configured to generate fixed-size bit encodings (The span ID and trace ID may be numerical or alphanumeric values, and they may be generated in any suitable manner to ensure that collisions are unlikely or impossible, lines 20-23 column 6).
As to clam 10, Li further teaches the fixed sized bit encodings are a hash value (The span ID and trace ID may be numerical or alphanumeric values, and they may be generated in any suitable manner to ensure that collisions are unlikely or impossible, lines 20-23 column 6).
As to claims 11-19, note the discussions of claims 1-9 above, respectively.
As to claim 20, note the discussion of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S Patent No. 11,966,323 discloses troubleshooting software services based on system calls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andy Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-3762. A voice mail service is also available for this number. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:30 am – 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or fax to:
AFTER-FINAL faxes must be signed and sent to (571) 273 - 8300.
OFFICAL faxes must be signed and sent to (571) 273 - 8300.
NON OFFICAL faxes should not be signed, please send to (571) 273 – 3762
/Andy Ho/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194