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 .
Response to Amendment
1. This action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 28 October 2025.
Claims 1-20 are presently pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2025, and 12/29/2025 have being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Applicant employs broad language, which includes the use of word, and phrases, which have broad meanings in the art. In addition, Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim language, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. As the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is forced to interpret the claim limitations as broadly as reasonably possible, in determining patentability of the disclosed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.1993).
Failure for Applicant to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims with scope parallel to the Applicant in the response, and reiterates the need for the Applicant to more clearly and distinctly defines the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmar et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0107518 in view of Yousouf et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0255821.
Regarding claim 1, Parmar discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: executing requests from a red button agent to a red button service to obtain red flag statuses that are relevant for outages of components defined for a cloud platform, wherein the red button agent is installed at a first cloud component instance running at a first zone of the cloud platform including multiple availability zones (see Parmar, ¶ [0034] and [0080]; status condition related to the monitored cloud zone components are obtained); in response to receiving a red flag status from the red button service for the first cloud component instance, determining that the first cloud component instance is associated with an outage (see Parmar, ¶ [0040]; failure events associated outage of component is determined); and executing a recovery procedure for the first cloud component instance, wherein executing the recovery procedure comprises: initiating a termination of a cloud component process running on the first cloud component instance (see Parmar, ¶ [0042] and [0044]; recovery and remediation service is initiated); and configuring to send requests directed to the first cloud component instance to a second cloud component instance that is running at a second zone, wherein the second zone is a healthy zone not associated with an outage (see Parmar, ¶ [0047] and [0050]; failed component is replaced and migrated to different zone).
Although Parmar discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose determining by the red button agent installed at the first cloud component instance, executing by the red button agent installed at the first cloud component instance, such that communication with the first cloud component instance is stopped, a load balancer of the cloud platform and based on detecting the communication with the first cloud component instance is stopped.
Yousouf teaches determining by the red button agent installed at the first cloud component instance (see Yousouf, ¶ [0004] and (0023]), executing by the red button agent installed at the first cloud component instance (see Yousouf, ¶ [0095]), such that communication with the first cloud component instance is stopped (see Yousouf, ¶ [0136] and [0170]), a load balancer of the cloud platform and based on detecting the communication with the first cloud component instance is stopped (see Yousouf, ¶ [0083], [0268] and [0271]). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yousouf with that of Parmar in order to efficiently detect communication disruptions and correctly address issue and resuming the stopped communication.
Regarding claim 2, Parmar-Yousouf teaches wherein the first cloud component instance and the second cloud component instance are instances of a same cloud component running at different zones of the cloud platform (see Parmar, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Parmar-Yousouf teaches the method comprising: in response to determining that the outage is over, initiating the first cloud component instance to start at the first zone to perform recovery operation (see Parmar, ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 4, Parmar-Yousouf teaches wherein the first cloud component instance is configured to execute the cloud component process as a process flow to provide services to other instances running on the cloud platform and/or outside the cloud platform (see Parmar, ¶ [0025]- [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Parmar-Yousouf teaches wherein initiating the termination includes executing a procedure to stop the cloud component process running on the first cloud component instance based on executing a script (see Parmar, ¶ [0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Parmar-Yousouf teaches wherein initiating the termination comprises: sending an instruction to the cloud components process to stop, wherein the instruction is sent to a predefined endpoint of the first cloud component instance (see Parmar, ¶ [0047] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Parmar-Yousouf teaches the method comprising: configuring the red button agent to track health indicators of the first cloud component instance to external monitoring tools (see Parmar, ¶ [0067]).
Regarding claim 8, Parmar-Yousouf teaches wherein executing the recovery procedure for the first cloud component instance comprises: reading a file including instructions for execution as part of the recovery procedure for the first cloud component instance (see Parmar, ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Parmar-Yousouf teaches the method comprising: terminating, by the red button agent, the execution of the first cloud component instance at the first zone (see Parmar, ¶ [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, Parmar-Yousouf teaches the method comprising: in response to determining that the first cloud component instance is associated with the outage by a node monitor running at a load balancer, the node monitor being configured for the first cloud component instance for the cloud platform to: reconfigure previously defined communication flows towards the first cloud component instance so that the second cloud component instance at the second zone of the cloud platform processes requests directed to the first cloud component instance (see Parmar, ¶ [0055].
Regarding claim 11, Parmar-Yousouf teaches wherein when the first cloud component instance is running in an active-passive state of running instances for a first cloud component, the reconfiguring of the previously defined communication flows comprises redirecting requests directed towards the first cloud component instance to the second cloud component instances, wherein the method comprises: activating the execution of the second cloud component instance at the second zone of the cloud platform based on determining that the first cloud component instance is terminated (see Parmar, ¶ [0042] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, Parmar-Yousouf teaches wherein the red button agent registers the first cloud component instance at the node monitor, and wherein the node monitor is configured for monitoring the first cloud component instance at the cloud platform (see Parmar, ¶ [0053]).
Regarding claim 13, Parmar-Yousouf teaches wherein the red button agent is running in a same runtime infrastructure as the first cloud component instance (see Parmar, ¶ [0034]).
Regarding claim 14, Parmar discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable memories coupled to the one or more processors and having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: executing requests from a red button agent to a red button service to obtain red flag statuses that are relevant for outages of components defined for a cloud platform, wherein the red button agent is installed at a first cloud component instance running at a first zone of the cloud platform including multiple availability zones (see Parmar, ¶ [0034] and [0080]; status condition related to the monitored cloud zone components are obtained); in response to receiving a red flag status from the red button service for the first cloud component instance, determining that the first cloud component instance is associated with an outage (see Parmar, ¶ [0040]; failure events associated outage of component is determined); and executing a recovery procedure for the first cloud component instance, wherein executing the recovery procedure comprises: initiating a termination of a cloud component process running on the first cloud component instance (see Parmar, ¶ [0042] and [0044]; recovery and remediation service is initiated); and configuring to send requests directed to the first cloud component instance to a second cloud component instance that is running at a second zone, wherein the second zone is a healthy zone not associated with an outage (see Parmar, ¶ [0047] and [0050]; failed component is replaced and migrated to different zone).
Although Parmar discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose determining by the red button agent installed at the first cloud component instance, executing by the red button agent installed at the first cloud component instance, such that communication with the first cloud component instance is stopped, a load balancer of the cloud platform and based on detecting the communication with the first cloud component instance is stopped.
Yousouf teaches determining by the red button agent installed at the first cloud component instance (see Yousouf, ¶ [0004] and (0023]), executing by the red button agent installed at the first cloud component instance (see Yousouf, ¶ [0095]), such that communication with the first cloud component instance is stopped (see Yousouf, ¶ [0136] and [0170]), a load balancer of the cloud platform and based on detecting the communication with the first cloud component instance is stopped (see Yousouf, ¶ [0083], [0268] and [0271]). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yousouf with that of Parmar in order to efficiently detect communication disruptions and correctly address issue and resuming the stopped communication.
Regarding claim 15, Parmar-Yousouf teaches wherein the first cloud component instance and the second cloud component instance are instances of a same cloud component running at different zones of the cloud platform (see Parmar, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 16, Parmar-Yousouf teaches wherein the one or more computer-readable memories further store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: in response to determining that the outage is over, initiating the first cloud component instance to start at the first zone to perform recovery operation (see Parmar, ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 17, Parmar-Yousouf teaches wherein the first cloud component instance is configured to execute the cloud component process as a process flow to provide services to other instances running on the cloud platform and/or outside the cloud platform (see Parmar, ¶ [0025]- [0026]).
Regarding claim 18, Parmar discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium coupled to one or more processors and having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: executing requests from a red button agent to a red button service to obtain red flag statuses that are relevant for outages of components defined for a cloud platform, wherein the red button agent is installed at a first cloud component instance running at a first zone of the cloud platform including multiple availability zones (see Parmar, ¶ [0034] and [0080]; status condition related to the monitored cloud zone components are obtained); in response to receiving a red flag status from the red button service for the first cloud component instance, determining that the first cloud component instance is associated with an outage (see Parmar, ¶ [0040]; failure events associated outage of component is determined); and executing a recovery procedure for the first cloud component instance, wherein executing the recovery procedure comprises: initiating a termination of a cloud component process running on the first cloud component instance (see Parmar, ¶ [0042] and [0044]; recovery and remediation service is initiated); and configuring to send requests directed to the first cloud component instance to a second cloud component instance that is running at a second zone, wherein the second zone is a healthy zone not associated with an outage (see Parmar, ¶ [0047] and [0050]; failed component is replaced and migrated to different zone).
Although Parmar discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose determining by the red button agent installed at the first cloud component instance, executing by the red button agent installed at the first cloud component instance, such that communication with the first cloud component instance is stopped, a load balancer of the cloud platform and based on detecting the communication with the first cloud component instance is stopped.
Yousouf teaches determining by the red button agent installed at the first cloud component instance (see Yousouf, ¶ [0004] and (0023]), executing by the red button agent installed at the first cloud component instance (see Yousouf, ¶ [0095]), such that communication with the first cloud component instance is stopped (see Yousouf, ¶ [0136] and [0170]), a load balancer of the cloud platform and based on detecting the communication with the first cloud component instance is stopped (see Yousouf, ¶ [0083], [0268] and [0271]). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yousouf with that of Parmar in order to efficiently detect communication disruptions and correctly address issue and resuming the stopped communication.
Regarding claim 19, Parmar-Yousouf teaches wherein the first cloud component instance and the second cloud component instance are instances of a same cloud component running at different zones of the cloud platform (see Parmar, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 20, Parmar-Yousouf teaches further storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: in response to determining that the outage is over, initiating the first cloud component instance to start at the first zone to perform recovery operation (see Parmar, ¶ [0070]).
Prior Art of Record
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Conclusion
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 MOHAMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:30AM to 6:00PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/MOHAMED IBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444