DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to application 18/605504, filed on 3/14/2024. Claims 1-12 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 (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 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 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 2019/0102213, hereinafter “Yousaf,” and USPGPUB 2014/0101420, hereinafter “Wu,” and USPAT 11,929,963, hereinafter “Zheng.”
Regarding claim 1, Yousaf discloses “A method for monitoring operation of an application, (see, e.g., para. 12) the method comprising:
acquiring data, said data comprising a plurality of key performance indicators related to a current operation of the application; (see, e.g., para. 12, 26)
determining, based on the data that is acquired, forecasted data comprising a plurality of key performance indicators related to a future operation of the application; (see, e.g., para. 12, 27)
automatically scheduling a monitoring session targeting at least one component of the application corresponding to a group of key performance indicators, the group of key performance indicators comprising each key performance indicator of the plurality of key performance indicators related to the future operation of the application of the forecasted data having a value moving away from a corresponding predefined value range being associated with a normal operation of the application; (see, e.g., para. 27, 37, 47)
Yousaf does not appear to disclose the further limitations:
obtaining, from a user, information related to an anomalous behavior of the application;
modifying said monitoring session that is scheduled based on the information that is obtained from said user.
However, Wu discloses (at para. 61) adjusting the monitoring of a software application based on user-provided information regarding anomalous behavior. Wu and Yousaf are directed toward performance monitoring and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the are would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the performance monitoring of Yousaf with the user provided anomaly information of Wu. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to more precisely target monitoring resources.
The combination of Yousaf and Wu does not appear to disclose the underlined portion of the following limitation:
obtaining, from a user, using a conversational agent, information related to an anomalous behavior of the application;
However, Zheng discloses (at fig. 1 & associated text) that a “chatbot facilitates conversation with a user . . . to diagnose performance issues associated with the application.” Wu, Yousaf, and Zheng are directed toward performance monitoring and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the performance monitoring of Yousaf and Wu with the chatbot (i.e., conversational agent) of Zheng, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to improve the diagnosis of performance issues (Zheng, Abstract). Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Yousaf, Wu, and Zheng.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yousaf, Wu, and Zheng renders obvious “The method according to claim 1, wherein the monitoring session that is scheduled is associated with one or more of a scheduled monitoring date, by which the monitoring session has to be completed; each component of said at least one component of the application that is targeted by the monitoring session that is scheduled; (see, e.g., Yousaf, para. 12, 26, 29; fig. 4 & associated text)
wherein the modifying the monitoring session comprises modifying one or more of the scheduled monitoring date, at least one of said each component associated with the monitoring session.” (see, e.g., Yousaf, para. 12, 26, 29; fig. 4 & associated text).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yousaf, Wu, and Zheng renders obvious “The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining the information comprises asking by the conversational agent, at least one question to the user and receiving by the conversational agent, at least one answer from the user to each question of said at least one question that is asked, the information being extracted from each answer of said at least one answer that is received from the user.” (see, e.g., Zheng, fig. 1 & associated text).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yousaf, Wu, and Zheng renders obvious “The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining the information comprises detecting, using the conversational agent, a mood of the user, and the modifying the monitoring session is further based on the mood that is detected.” (see, e.g., Zheng, fig. 1 & associated text).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yousaf, Wu, and Zheng renders obvious “The method according to claim 1, wherein each scheduled monitoring session of the monitoring session that is scheduled targeting said at least one component of the application is associated with a list of keywords linked to a corresponding targeted component of the at least one component.” (see, e.g., Yousaf, para. 27, 37, 47).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yousaf, Wu, and Zheng renders obvious “The method according to claim 1, wherein the forecasted data is determined over a predetermined period of time.” (see, e.g., Yousaf, para. 27, 37, 47).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yousaf, Wu, and Zheng renders obvious “The method according to claim 1, wherein the forecasted data is determined by a machine learning algorithm trained to predict data related to the operation of the application at a given instant from data related to the operation of the application at an instant preceding the given instant.” (see, e.g., Yousaf, para. 27, 25-38).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yousaf, Wu, and Zheng renders obvious “The method according to claim 8, wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained in a supervised way using a training database, the training database comprising a history of data related to the operation of the application.” (see, e.g., Yousaf, para. 27, 25-38).
Regarding claims 10-12, the instant claims are equivalents of claim 1, differing only by statutory class. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to each of claims 10, 11, and 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D COYER whose telephone number is (571) 270-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-10pm Eastern Time. 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, Wei Mui, can be reached on 571-272-3708. 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.
/Ryan D. Coyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191