DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s remarks filed on February 27 the filed application 18/586,763.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19, 21-26 are presented for examination. Claims 1-2, 6, 9, 11-12, 16, 19 are amended. Claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 17 and 20 are cancelled. Claims 21-26 are newly added.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated that the prior art Gudka et al. does not teach amended limitation instead Gudka et al. is directed to performing system auto-recovery and optimization based on detected system breaks. Applicant emphasis that Gudka et al. does not teach interface component sequences where each interface component sequence has one or more display criteria as a requirement for presenting the interface component sequence via a user interface in a display environment and furthermore, Gudka et al. does not teach modifying set of interface component sequences are included in the dynamic runbook and output via the user interface.
Examiner disagreed. Gudka et al. teach of the auto recovery and optimality engine utilizes a rules engine that may be configured to account for interdependencies between large number of computer application in an enterprise and an even larger number of application programming interfaces (API) that operate throughout an enterprise network environment. Gudka et al. teach of a risk matrix runbook 129 that may be an aggregation of all the runbooks in the runbook library and may be considered a dynamic runbook wherein it include an optimal corrective action or fix for any break event indication output by the monitoring component (para. 36). The process of Gudka et al. is equated to the claimed sequences while the computer systems, computer applications, programing interfaces (API) and even runbook associated with those systems are equated to the claimed components.
For these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gudka et al. (US 2020/0167225).
In regard to claim 1, Gudka et al. teach a method comprising:
parsing an input configuration that specifies a plurality of interface component sequences, wherein each interface component sequence has one or more display criteria as a requirement for presenting the interface component sequence via a user interface in a display environment (a risk matrix runbook may be an aggregation of all the runbooks in the runbook library 127 and may be considered a dynamic runbook and may include an optimal corrective action or fix … the risk matrix used to generate the risk matrix runbook may be an evolution of the rules and continues indefinitely to self-optimized and automated, para. 36);
initializing a context comprising a plurality of context variables and corresponding context variable values (a risk matrix may include elements and input from all the systems in the network environment and is evaluated based on interdependencies of the systems’ responses, para. 44)
generating a dynamic runbook based at least in part on the input configuration and the context (generate a dynamic runbook containing fixes known to correct known possible causes of process faults based on the indicated process fault, fig. 2a, 210);
modifying a context variable value of a particular context variable from the context to comprise an updated value (a respective risk, for each identified known fix, of each identified known fix adversely affecting other computer process in the system environment may be determined, para. 15); and
in response to modifying the context variable value of the particular context variable to the updated value, modifying which set of interface component sequence, of the plurality of interface component sequences, are included in the dynamic runbook and output via the user interface of the display environment (the triage processing component 129 may access a runbook, and using a set of rules in the rules that are applied to the risk matrix, may modify the list of procedures in the runbook, para. 45), wherein the modifying comprises:
including, in the set of interface component sequences, one or more first interface components corresponding to one or more first interface component sequences (the dynamic runbook is developed based on risk matrix or another runbook, para. 62), of the plurality of interface component sequences, whose corresponding one or more display criteria are satisfied by the updated value (fix event risk assessment value may indicate a probability that a computer for which a break event has issued will be fixed or corrected by an identified corrective action or fix … a value with a high likelihood of being fixed may be greater than 50 percent, para. 43); and
exclude, from the set of interface component sequences, one or more second interface components corresponding to one or more second interface component sequences (the dynamic runbook is developed based on risk matrix or another runbook, para. 62, it is noted that the items on the risk matrix or another runbook not being considered in the dynamic runbook is interpreted to be excluded), of the plurality of interface component sequences, whose corresponding one or more display criteria are not satisfied by the updated value, wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices (fix event risk assessment value may indicate a probability that a computer for which a break event has issued will be fixed or corrected by an identified corrective action or fix … a value with a low likelihood of being fixed may be less than 50 percent, para. 43).
In regard to claim 2, Gudka et al. teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the context variable value of the particular context variable is modified in response to: the dynamic runbook being updated to comprise a particular interface component; receiving user input via the one or more interface components; an interaction with an external service; or an elapsing of a predetermined period of time (fix event risk assessment value may indicate a probability that a computer for which a break event has issued will be fixed or corrected by an identified corrective action or fix … a value with a high likelihood of being fixed may be greater than 50 percent, para. 43, the triage processing component may access a runbook and using a set of rules in the rules that are applied to the risk matrix, may modify the list of procedures in the runbook, para. 45).
In regard to claim 4, Gudka et al. teach the method of Claim 1, wherein generating the dynamic runbook based at least in part on the input configuration and the context comprises including, in the dynamic runbook, one or more initial interface components corresponding to an initial interface component sequence of the plurality of interface components sequences (generate a dynamic runbook containing fixes known to correct known possible causes of process faults based on the indicated process fault, fig. 2a, 210).
In regard to claim 5, Gudka et al. teach the method of Claim 1, further comprising interacting with an external service in response to receiving user input via the one or more interface components (human intervention may take place to decide how to proceed with remediating a process fault, para. 28).
In regard to claim 6, Gudka et al. teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more first interface components corresponding to one or more first interface component sequences, of the plurality of interface component sequences are associated with a display condition that specifies the updated value (configured to account for interdependencies between thousands of computer applications in an enterprise and tens of thousands of application programming interfaces (API) that operate throughout an enterprise network environment … rules engine can run on its own and learn from itself, para. 30).
In regard to claim 8, Gudka et al. teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the context comprises a key-value store, and individual context variables of the plurality of context variables comprise a key-value pair (a respective fix event risk assessment value assigned to each of the identified possible corrective actions, para. 43).
In regard to claim 9, Gudka et al. teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more first interface components comprise at least one of: a text field configured to receive user input, or a container configured to display data obtained from an external service (optimality apparatus may receive, from the monitoring component a first process break event indicating a symptom of a potential operational breakdown, para. 45-49).
In regard to claim 11, Gudka et al. teach one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause:
parsing an input configuration that specifies a plurality of interface component sequences, wherein each interface component sequence has one or more display criteria as a requirement for presenting the interface component sequence via a user interface in a display environment (a risk matrix runbook may be an aggregation of all the runbooks in the runbook library 127 and may be considered a dynamic runbook and may include an optimal corrective action or fix … the risk matrix used to generate the risk matrix runbook may be an evolution of the rules and continues indefinitely to self-optimized and automated, para. 36);
initializing a context comprising a plurality of context variables and corresponding context variable values (a risk matrix may include elements and input from all the systems in the network environment and is evaluated based on interdependencies of the systems’ responses, para. 44)
generating a dynamic runbook based at least in part on the input configuration and the context (generate a dynamic runbook containing fixes known to correct known possible causes of process faults based on the indicated process fault, fig. 2a, 210);
modifying a context variable value of a particular context variable from the context to comprise an updated value (a respective risk, for each identified known fix, of each identified known fix adversely affecting other computer process in the system environment may be determined, para. 15); and
in response to modifying the context variable value of the particular context variable to the updated value, modifying which set of interface component sequence, of the plurality of interface component sequences, are included in the dynamic runbook and output via the user interface of the display environment (the triage processing component 129 may access a runbook, and using a set of rules in the rules that are applied to the risk matrix, may modify the list of procedures in the runbook, para. 45), wherein the modifying comprises:
including, in the set of interface component sequences, one or more first interface components corresponding to one or more first interface component sequences (the dynamic runbook is developed based on risk matrix or another runbook, para. 62), of the plurality of interface component sequences, whose corresponding one or more display criteria are satisfied by the updated value (fix event risk assessment value may indicate a probability that a computer for which a break event has issued will be fixed or corrected by an identified corrective action or fix … a value with a high likelihood of being fixed may be greater than 50 percent, para. 43); and
exclude, from the set of interface component sequences, one or more second interface components corresponding to one or more second interface component sequences (the dynamic runbook is developed based on risk matrix or another runbook, para. 62, it is noted that the items on the risk matrix or another runbook not being considered in the dynamic runbook is interpreted to be excluded), of the plurality of interface component sequences, whose corresponding one or more display criteria are not satisfied by the updated value, wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices (fix event risk assessment value may indicate a probability that a computer for which a break event has issued will be fixed or corrected by an identified corrective action or fix … a value with a low likelihood of being fixed may be less than 50 percent, para. 43).
In regard to claim 12, Gudka et al. teach the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of Claim 11, wherein the context variable value of the particular context variable is modified in response to: the dynamic runbook being updated to comprise a particular interface component; receiving user input via the one or more interface components; an interaction with an external service; or an elapsing of a predetermined period of time (fix event risk assessment value may indicate a probability that a computer for which a break event has issued will be fixed or corrected by an identified corrective action or fix … a value with a high likelihood of being fixed may be greater than 50 percent, para. 43, the triage processing component may access a runbook and using a set of rules in the rules that are applied to the risk matrix, may modify the list of procedures in the runbook, para. 45).
In regard to claim 14, Gudka et al. teach the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of Claim 11, wherein generating the dynamic runbook based at least in part on the input configuration and the context comprises including, in the dynamic runbook, one or more initial interface components corresponding to an initial interface component sequence of the plurality of interface components sequences (generate a dynamic runbook containing fixes known to correct known possible causes of process faults based on the indicated process fault, fig. 2a, 210).
In regard to claim 15, Gudka et al. teach the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of Claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause interacting with an external service in response to receiving user input via the one or more interface components (human intervention may take place to decide how to proceed with remediating a process fault, para. 28).
In regard to claim 16, Gudka et al. teach the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of Claim 11, wherein the one or more first interface components corresponding to one or more first interface component sequences, of the plurality of interface component sequences are associated with a display condition that specifies the updated value (configured to account for interdependencies between thousands of computer applications in an enterprise and tens of thousands of application programming interfaces (API) that operate throughout an enterprise network environment … rules engine can run on its own and learn from itself, para. 30).
In regard to claim 18, Gudka et al. teach the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of Claim 11, wherein the context comprises a key-value store, and individual context variables of the plurality of context variables comprise a key-value pair (a respective fix event risk assessment value assigned to each of the identified possible corrective actions, para. 43).
In regard to claim 19, Gudka et al. teach the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of Claim 11, wherein the one or more first interface components comprise at least one of: a text field configured to receive user input, or a container configured to display data obtained from an external service (optimality apparatus may receive, from the monitoring component a first process break event indicating a symptom of a potential operational breakdown, para. 45-49).
In regard to claim 21, Gudka et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein interface components are applets or components of a computing system responsible for performing a particular task within the dynamic runbook (runbooks are specific to each of the network systems, the cloud-based apps and services and the enterprise network systems has a runbook for the respective computer processes within each respective system, para. 35, para. 25), and wherein an interface component sequence in the plurality of interface component sequences comprises a group of related interface components displayed in a sequence (a runbook for the respective computer processes within each respective system, para. 35).
In regard to claim 22, Gudka et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein modifying the context variable value is performed by receiving an input from an external service that is external to the one or more computing devices and a monitored computing system (the monitor may be internal or external to the computer, para. 93, where the risk matrix runbook may be dynamically updated by analyzing the output by the monitoring component, para. 36).
In regard to claim 23, Gudka et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the particular context variable is a current status variable indicating a current status of an incident in a monitored computing system, and wherein the updated value represents a change in the current status of the incident (the network system or cloud-based app and service that generated the break event indication, para. 36).
In regard to claim 24, Gudka et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of context variables comprise at least one of a username, an input from a user, an input from an external service, a status associated with an entity or process in a monitored computing system, or information used to access an external service (human intervention may take place to decide how to proceed with remediating a process fault, para. 28).
In regard to claim 25, Gudka et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein one or more first interface components are dynamically rendered, self-contained, and parameterized elements of the dynamic runbook that perform at least one of displaying information, receiving input from a user, or interacting with an external service (a network system may have hundreds of computer processes executing, and each computer process may have a runbook with a list of procedures, para. 35, the risk matrix runbook may be a runbook that is dynamically updated and may be an aggregation of all the runbooks, para. 36).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gudka et al. (US 2020/0167225) in further view of Gao et al. (US 2022/0360509).
In regard to claim 26, Gudka et al. does not explicitly teach but Gao et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the particular context variable is a support ticket status of a support ticket corresponding to an incident in a monitored computing system, and wherein the modification of the context variable value is performed by an external service responsible for managing support tickets of the monitored computing system (enables contextual dymanic map of the problem area at the time of ticket creation, and enriches the trouble ticket with diagnostic data obtained from executable runbooks at the time of the event, para. 129).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Gudka et al. by adding Gao et al. network adaptive monitoring. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would provide an incident framework with automation for each stage (para. 129, fig. 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Surdin et al. (US 2024/0414130) runbook and disaster recovery
Burnett et al. (US 2020/0104402) playbook or runbook
Huang et al. (US 2021/0279160) runbook builder
Chhabra et al. (US 11,593,669) detecting and creating operation incidents
***************
Patti et al. (US 12,271,287) recommending runbooks
Eschinger et al. (US 11,550,628) runbook operations
Das et al. (US 10,922,493) playbooks and/or runbooks
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOAN TRUONG whose telephone number is 408-918-7552. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM PST M-F.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached on 571-272-0631. 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.
/Loan L.T. Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114 Loan.truong@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights