DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Application filed on March 06, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presented to examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below 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 their 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated March 06, 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Drawings
The drawings filed on March 06, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one computing device having a hardware processor” in line 3. Please amend the claim language as suggested in bold. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 13-15 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claim and, therefore, are objected for the same reasons as the base claim.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 4, 11-12, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saini et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0073763 – hereinafter Saini).
With respect to claim 1, Saini teaches a computer-implemented method of facilitating processing within a computing environment, the computer-implemented method comprising: creating a copy of a system within a selected region, the selected region being different from a region that includes the system and wherein the selected region is obtained for the copy of the system based on one or more privileges of a support agent to be used to debug the system (See figures 5-7 (and related text) and paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0039], “IC UI 416 may act as a front-end user interface for allowing a user of production instance 415 to request a temporary copy (e.g., temporary instance 417) of production instance 415. For example, IC UI 416 may be a front-end of an automation in a service catalog application deployed on production instance 415 that a user may access to submit an order for temporary instance 417. The service catalog application may be deployed on a hosted client instance other than production instance 415, and may allow a user with appropriate privileges to create or request a temporary copy of production instance 415.”. Examiner notes: a copy creation of production, deployed in a client instance, user having appropriate privileges to perform the operation/manage the copy instance). obtaining at the copy of the system real-time data of the system, the real-time data migrated from the system to the copy of the system, the copy of the system and the real-time data migrated from the system to be used to debug the system (See figures 3-7 (and relate text), abstract and paragraphs [0007], [0035], [0038]-[0039], [0051], [0064], “The input information indicating a given time a live database from the production instance is to be restored to in a temporary copy of the production instance. Based at least on the input information, backup data associated with the live database from production instance is identified. Based on the backup data, it is determined whether resource capacity is available for restoring the backup data to the temporary copy of the production instance. In response to determining the resource capacity is available, the temporary copy of the production instance is generated. The backup data is restored to the temporary copy of the production instance to represent a state of the live database from the production instance at the given time.”. See paragraphs [0022]-[0023], “The temporary copy of the production instance may be an exact copy of the production instance, have the same software version as the production instance, may have the same database schema, same configuration items, reside in the same domain as the production instance, and have all the same security boundaries as the production instance. The live database from the production instance may be copied over (i.e., restored) to the temporary instance by using backup data. The live database may include proprietary data of the enterprise associated with the production instance. The backup data (including a backup file and/or a bin log file) may represent a snapshot of the live database from the production instance at a predetermined point in time and may be restored to the temporary instance. Alternately, an on-demand backup may be performed to copy over on to the temporary instance, a current state of the live database from the production instance. In one embodiment, the system may enable a user to specify a given time to which the live database from the production instance is to be restored to on the temporary copy. Based on the input given time, the system may restore backup data including a corresponding backup file to the temporary instance and further, roll forward individual transactions based on a corresponding bin log file to restore the database on the temporary instance to a specific transaction sequence number corresponding to the specified given time, thereby restoring the database to a restore point in the temporary instance that corresponds to the state of the live database from the production instance at the input given time.”.”. Examiner notes: utilizing live database backup in copy). performing debugging processing using the copy of the system and the real-time data migrated from the system to generate a debug solution for the system (See paragraph [0022], “This disclosure pertains to creating a temporary copy of a hosted client instance (i.e., production instance, or source instance) to address troubleshoot or perform an operation associated with the hosted client instance. The hosted client instance may encounter an issue while being live as a production instance or a predetermined operation (e.g., software upgrade) may need to be performed on the production instance. For example, a user associated with the hosted client instance (e.g., process owner, service manager, helpdesk manager, IT staff, analyst, development or project manager, management staff, external vendor, Saas or PaaS service provider, site reliability engineer, and the like) may wish to perform a debugging, investigating, or troubleshooting operation to fix an error on the production instance, a data recovery operation to recover lost data (e.g., recover one or more rows or records in one or more tables of a database represented by a database schema) of a live database from the production instance, a scripting operation of testing a new script, or a software update operation of upgrading a software version on the production instance.”. See paragraph [0039], “…This disclosure pertains to creating a temporary copy of a hosted client instance (i.e., production instance, or source instance) to address troubleshoot or perform an operation associated with the hosted client instance. The hosted client instance may encounter an issue while being live as a production instance or a predetermined operation (e.g., software upgrade) may need to be performed on the production instance. For example, a user associated with the hosted client instance (e.g., process owner, service manager, helpdesk manager, IT staff, analyst, development or project manager, management staff, external vendor, Saas or PaaS service provider, site reliability engineer, and the like) may wish to perform a debugging, investigating, or troubleshooting operation to fix an error on the production instance, a data recovery operation to recover lost data (e.g., recover one or more rows or records in one or more tables of a database represented by a database schema) of a live database from the production instance, a scripting operation of testing a new script, or a software update operation of upgrading a software version on the production instance.”. See paragraph [0064], “At block 710, a user may request a temporary copy of production instance 415 to perform predetermined operations (e.g., debug operation, software update operation, data recovery operation, scripting operation, or another troubleshooting operation).”. Examiner notes: debugging operation using the copy) and providing the debug solution to a selected entity (See paragraph [0041], “Once efficacy of the solution is validated, the same remediation action may be run on production instance 415.”). With respect to claim 4, Saini teaches wherein the creating the copy of the system is initiated based on detecting inaccessibility of the support agent to the system (See figures 5-6. Requesting a temporary copy of production. See paragraphs [0039], [0058], [0062]-[0064], “IC UI 416 may act as a front-end user interface for allowing a user of production instance 415 to request a temporary copy (e.g., temporary instance 417) of production instance 415. For example, IC UI 416 may be a front-end of an automation in a service catalog application deployed on production instance 415 that a user may access to submit an order for temporary instance 417. The service catalog application may be deployed on a hosted client instance other than production instance 415, and may allow a user with appropriate privileges to create or request a temporary copy of production instance 415.”. Examiner notes: requesting access for production copy). With respect to claim 11, Saini teaches wherein the system is a virtual machine and the copy of the system is another virtual machine created using digital twin orchestration (See figure 2 and paragraphs [0031]-[0032], [0067], cloud platforms and virtual machine technology). With respect to claims 12 and 14, the claims are directed to a system that corresponds to the method recited in claims 1 and 4, respectively (see the rejection of claims 1 and 4 above; wherein Saini also teaches such system in figures 1-4).
With respect to claims 16 and 18, the claims are directed to a computer program product that corresponds to the method recited in claims 1 and 4, respectively (see the rejection of claims 1 and 4 above; wherein Saini also teaches such program in figure 8 and paragraph [0069]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0073763 – hereinafter Saini) in view of Raviv et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0213355 – hereinafter Raviv). With respect to claim 2, Saini is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Raviv teaches further comprising obfuscating at least a portion of the real-time data to obscure confidential data in the real-time data to provide obfuscated data, and wherein the performing the debugging processing uses the obfuscated data (See paragraphs [0027], [0029], [0094], [0291], [0300], [0302], [0329], “The debugger provides several innovations including: (1) source code debugging that is able to predict future values of variables and expressions before code is executed by a user; (2) displaying useful information regarding future execution of the code in a heads up display (HUD) like manner; (3) providing a live coding experience whereby a user can modify the code on the fly and immediately see future predicted results of their changes; (4) providing a pivoting capability (i.e. creating pivot points) allowing a user to switch at any time the execution context of the code to any location in the code in any future or past context; (5) the creation and activation of point in time links that store the state of the debugging session, i.e. the time-space location that implies a specific state and context of the debugging session; (6) an asynchronous collaboration and messaging system enabling multiple participants to share a debugging session; and (7) a redaction capability for obscuring or replacing sensitive private information.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Saini’s teaching, which relates to a production instance, and more particularly, to creating a temporary copy of the production instance to perform predetermined operations (e.g., troubleshooting, debugging, data recovery, scripting, software update, and the like), by combining Raviv’s teaching, as Raviv would allow redacting sensitive information in a production debugging environment while preserving code execution flow (see paragraph [0002]). With respect to claim 3, Saini is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Raviv teaches wherein the obfuscating is based on the one or more privileges of the support agent (See paragraphs [0288]-[0289], [0291], [0297], “To provide security mechanisms, the debugger leverages either a role based or claim based security mechanism. In the role base security mechanism, the administrator assigns a developer to a group of users that have permission to share and participant in a debugging collaborative session for a specific project. The user identity and the groups that the user belongs to are passed in the security token when calling the cloud debugger, enabling the debugger to grant or prevent access.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Saini’s teaching, which relates to a production instance, and more particularly, to creating a temporary copy of the production instance to perform predetermined operations (e.g., troubleshooting, debugging, data recovery, scripting, software update, and the like), by combining Raviv’s teaching, as Raviv would allow redacting sensitive information in a production debugging environment while preserving code execution flow (see paragraph [0002]). With respect to claim 5, Saini is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Raviv teaches wherein the performing debugging processing includes generating one or more responses to one or more queries of the real-time data migrated from the system, the one or more responses being provided to the copy of the system (See figures 1-76 (and related text) and paragraphs [0026]-[0033], [0183], “The present invention is a time traveling source code debugger having several advanced capabilities that significantly improve the source code debugging process. Upon hitting a debug event such as breakpoint, exception or any other event that wakes the debugger, including opening a dump file, the debugger is able to travel to the future as well as the past. This allows developers to easily alter future execution results by modifying code on the fly and receiving immediate feedback in real time to validate potential bug fixes, i.e. live coding or live programming. The debugger also provides visual annotations of the code editing window in the form of a heads up display (HUD) that effectively flattens time and space to present the continuum of a method's execution through time.”. Examiner notes: collaboration and debugging steps (i.e., query the copy system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Saini’s teaching, which relates to a production instance, and more particularly, to creating a temporary copy of the production instance to perform predetermined operations (e.g., troubleshooting, debugging, data recovery, scripting, software update, and the like), by combining Raviv’s teaching, as Raviv would allow redacting sensitive information in a production debugging environment while preserving code execution flow (see paragraph [0002]). With respect to claim 6, Saini is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Raviv teaches further comprising performing clean-up based on providing the debug solution, wherein the performing clean-up includes terminating generation of responses (See paragraph [0060], “GUI 500 may continue as GUI 600 of FIG. 6. Field 605 in GUI 600 may allow a user to input a name for the temporary copy of production instance 415. In one embodiment, IC UI 416 may automatically create and populate the temporary instance name in field 605. In filed 610, a user may be allowed to specify when the temporary instance is to be retired or destroyed (i.e., release capacity and/or resources consumed by temporary instance 417 back to platform 410). For example, specifying ‘1 week’ in field 610 may cause IC module 430 to automatically place the temporary copy of production instance 415 in a queue to be retired after 1 week to release capacity back to platform 410. Field 615 may allow a user to specify a database option for what data is needed for troubleshooting in temporary instance 417. For example, the user may choose to create an ‘empty shell’ temporary instance 417, without restoring any backup data to temporary instance 417. The user may also choose to restore a specific backup file from among one or more backup files associated with the live database from production instance 415. In this case, the chosen backup file may be restored to temporary instance 417, and the restored backup data on temporary instance 417 may represent a state of the live database from production instance 415 as of the date and time the backup file was created. Alternately, the user may choose to create an ‘on demand’ backup of the live database from production instance 415 and restore the ‘on demand’ backup file to temporary instance 417.”. Examiner notes: retired instance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Saini’s teaching, which relates to a production instance, and more particularly, to creating a temporary copy of the production instance to perform predetermined operations (e.g., troubleshooting, debugging, data recovery, scripting, software update, and the like), by combining Raviv’s teaching, as Raviv would allow redacting sensitive information in a production debugging environment while preserving code execution flow (see paragraph [0002]). With respect to claim 13, the claim is directed to a system that corresponds to the method recited in claim 2, respectively (see the rejection of claim 2 above).
With respect to claims 17 and 19, the claims are directed to a computer program product that corresponds to the method recited in claims 2 and 5, respectively (see the rejection of claims 2 and 5 above).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0073763 – hereinafter Saini) in view of K et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0134277 – hereinafter K). With respect to claim 7, Saini is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, K teaches further comprising performing clean-up based on providing the debug solution (See paragraphs [0044], [0050], [0061], “At 240, the method 200 can run the host application associated with the tenant user in the application runtime environment. For example, as described further below, the support member can attach the debugging software to the host application, and log in as a dedicated tenant user granted certain access to the database of the tenant user and run the host application within a debugging session that has a prescribed duration (i.e., the access granted to the support member has a predefined duration).”. See paragraphs [0091]-[0092], “After finishing debugging, the support member can detach the debugging software from the host application at 540 and ends the debugging session at 510. Such detachment can be automatically recorded in the log file.”. Examiner notes: prescribed debug session/end of session). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Saini’s teaching, which relates to a production instance, and more particularly, to creating a temporary copy of the production instance to perform predetermined operations (e.g., troubleshooting, debugging, data recovery, scripting, software update, and the like), by combining K’s teaching, as K would enhance debugging steps in a multitenant environment. With respect to claim 8, Saini is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, K teaches wherein the performing clean-up includes deleting the copy of the system (See paragraphs [0044], [0050], [0061], [0079], “At 240, the method 200 can run the host application associated with the tenant user in the application runtime environment. For example, as described further below, the support member can attach the debugging software to the host application, and log in as a dedicated tenant user granted certain access to the database of the tenant user and run the host application within a debugging session that has a prescribed duration (i.e., the access granted to the support member has a predefined duration).”. See paragraphs [0091]-[0092], “After finishing debugging, the support member can detach the debugging software from the host application at 540 and ends the debugging session at 510. Such detachment can be automatically recorded in the log file.”. Examiner notes: detaching, i.e., deleting access to system). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Saini’s teaching, which relates to a production instance, and more particularly, to creating a temporary copy of the production instance to perform predetermined operations (e.g., troubleshooting, debugging, data recovery, scripting, software update, and the like), by combining K’s teaching, as K would enhance debugging steps in a multitenant environment. With respect to claim 9, Saini is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, K teaches wherein the performing clean-up includes terminating migrating the real-time data to the copy of the system (see paragraph [0018]-[0019] and rejection of claim 8, “As shown, the application server 130 can include a debugging software 150 (also referred to as “debugging application” or simply “debugger”) which can be shared by the tenant users 110. After receiving a request to debug an issue experienced by one specific tenant user, e.g., Tenant A, when executing the host application 140, a support member 160 can use the debugging software 150 to remotely debug the host application 140 associated with Tenant A and interacting with Tenant A database that is specific to Tenant A. For example, from the application server side, the support member 160 can log in as a dedicated tenant user granted certain access to the Tenant A database and run the host application 140. In other words, the support member 160 can only access data that Tenant A can access (e.g., the support member 160 cannot access Tenant B or other tenants' data). Thus, the support member 160 can provide across-tenant debugging support remotely while respecting data isolation between tenants.”. Examiner notes: host detachment, interpreted as no more replication of data from synchronized data from tenant to host). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Saini’s teaching, which relates to a production instance, and more particularly, to creating a temporary copy of the production instance to perform predetermined operations (e.g., troubleshooting, debugging, data recovery, scripting, software update, and the like), by combining K’s teaching, as K would enhance debugging steps in a multitenant environment.
Claims 10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0073763 – hereinafter Saini) in view of Carriere et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0067017 – hereinafter Carriere). With respect to claim 10, Saini is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Carriere teaches wherein a flow of information between the system and the copy of the system is unidirectional from the system to the copy of the system (See paragraph [0103], “Replication in deployed operations is unidirectional in that changes are dictated by a master, and do not flow from an operational site to a master. This disallows any changes in an operational site to affect the master site 110.”. See paragraph [0110], “There can be many operational sites 120 associated with a master site 110 and the specifics of that situation will be described where appropriate. The replication is unidirectional from the master site 110 toward the operational sites 120 and from the operational sites 120 to the various consolidated sites 130. Enforcing unidirectional replication greatly limits the places where conflicts can occur.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Saini’s teaching, which relates to a production instance, and more particularly, to creating a temporary copy of the production instance to perform predetermined operations (e.g., troubleshooting, debugging, data recovery, scripting, software update, and the like), by combining Carriere’s teaching, as K would improve methods for deployed operations. With respect to claim 15, the claim is directed to a system product that corresponds to the method recited in claim 10, respectively (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
With respect to claim 20, the claim is directed to a computer program product that corresponds to the method recited in claim 10, respectively (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (US Pat. No. 11,288,170) discloses that a computer receives a log file, where the log file comprises, records associated with the instructions in a source code. The computer loads, using a debugger, the log file and the source code. The computer receives a loading address from the log file. The computer updates a debugging data format (DWARF) with the one or more records of the log file, where the DWARF is accessed using the loading address and comprises one or more data structure entries. The computer identifies a calling address from the log file and identifies the one or more data structure entries associated with the calling address. (see abstract).
Makary (US Pub. No. 2021/0357239) discloses a method that obtains a state of a virtual machine instance operating in a first cloud environment at a point in time. Metadata associated with the instance is obtained (304) at the time. A metadata associated with the first cloud environment is obtained (306). The obtained state of the virtual machine instance is stored (308). The machine instance operating in the first cloud environment is terminated (310). The terminated virtual machine instance in the first cloud environment or a second cloud environment are restored (312) at a later point in time based on one or more of the stored states of the virtual machine instance at the point in time by the one or more processors, stored metadata associated with the virtual machine instance at the point in time, and/or stored metadata associated with the first cloud environment at the point in time. (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192