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
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 4/15/2026. Claims 1, 17, 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are
pending examination.
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
therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are directed to abstract idea of monitoring system information, comparing the information to certain conditions and taking action based on the comparison. The steps of the claim amount to collecting data, analyzing the data and acting on the results, which is a mental process / information processing and similar to electric Power Group V. Alstom).
Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims recite generic computing elements such as agents, compute instances, processors, storage, tables and cloud environment. These elements
are used as generic tools to perform the abstract monitoring and comparison functions.
The claims do not recite any specific improvement to computer architecture, or unconventional data structure or any improvement to network operation. The abstract idea is simply applied in a generic distributed computing environment which is not sufficient to constitute practical application.
Step 2B, the additional elements and steps, such as maintaining timestamps, comparing time difference to thresholds, filtering lists of resources, restarting or reinstalling agents, and comparing software versions to acceptable versions are well understood, routine and conventional activities in system monitoring management.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller U.S. patent Pub. No. 2014/0025759, in view of Werme et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,181,743 (referred to hereinafter as Werme); and further in view of Fang U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0190771.
As to claim 1, Miller teaches a method for monitoring of a plurality agents
operating within a plurality compute instance of a tenancy of a cloud environment, the
method comprising:
receiving a plurality of messages from each of the plurality of agents operating
within the plurality of compute instances of the cloud environment (Miller paragraph
0015, server monitor receives communications from customer monitoring devices);
updating a table that identifies the plurality of agents and the corresponding
plurality of compute instances, wherein the updating is done when any of a plurality of
messages is received from any of the plurality of agents (see Miller paragraph 0015, an
alert is triggered if table has not been updated; i.e. table updates occur upon receipt of
communications);
reading a list of compute instances, wherein each compute instance on the list of
compute instances is enabled to have an agent installed there within (see Miller
paragraph 0021, servers which are eligible for monitoring correspond to enabled
compute instance).
comparing the plurality of compute instances within the table against the list of compute instances, to determine whether each compute instance within the list of compute instances is also included in the plurality of compute instances of the table (see Miller paragraphs 0020, 0021, 0025 and 0031, table entries are compared against expected servers);
determining that a compute instance within the list of compute instances is missing in the plurality of compute instances of the table (see Miller, at least paragraph 0021, determines if no alert received within specified time, missing updates indicate missing or non-operational agent); Miller teaches the invention as mentioned above, Miller does not but Werme teaches "transmitting a request to reinstall or install an agent within the compute instance (see Werme, abstract, col. 2 lines 20-34; col. 5 line 60- col. 6 line 59, Restarting and starting software).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Werme with those of Miller to make the system more robust by improving the reliability and timeliness of failure detection in a distributed management system.
Miller-Werme does Fang teaches not but initiating install or an agent withing the compute instance (see Fang at least paragraph 0031 and 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teaching of Fang with those of Miller-Werme to to enable instance level monitoring and control by installing agents on each node which improves the system by providing more complete visibility, faster detection, and automated execution of control actions. Thereby, resulting in a more scalable efficient distributed management system.
As to claim 2, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a report indicating that the compute instance is enabled to have the
agent installed, without the agent being installed within the compute instance or without
the agent being operational as intended (see Miller at least paragraph 0022, alert
notification sent when condition is detected).
As to claim 3, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of agents is configured to perform queries respectively on each of the compute instances, and to send query results to a data plane for determining whether the query results are associated with anomalous characteristics (see at least Werme col. 12 line 61- col. 13 line 27, instrumentation data are collected and forwarded for analysis).
As to claim 4, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the
compute instance is a first compute instance, and the agent is a first agent; the plurality
of messages includes a message received from a second agent operating within a
second compute instance; and the message includes security related information
associated with the second compute instance, which is generated based on the second
agent monitoring an operation of the second compute instance (see Miller at least
paragraphs 0015, 0016 and 0018, alerts include device status service issues and
supply condition).
As to claim 5, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of compute instances are managed by a cloud customer, and transmitting the request to reinstall or install the agent is performed by a security assurance administrator (see Miller at least paragraphs 0017-0019, customer devices are monitored by operator system).
As to claim 6, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the security assurance administrator is a provider of the cloud environment (see at least Werme col. 19 lines 30-54, Resource Manager issues control actions such as start/restart applications across hosts).
As to claim 7, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the list is a first list, and wherein the method further comprises: reading a second list that identifies a plurality of cloud resources of the cloud environment; filtering the plurality of cloud resources identified in the second list, to identify a subset of the plurality of cloud resources that are enabled to have the agent installed; and updating the first list of compute instances with the identified subset of the plurality of cloud resources (see
Werme at least col. 19, lines 55-65, system specification library identifying hosts that
are eligible for management and or monitoring).
As to claim 8, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving an identification of a compartment of the tenancy, wherein the compartment includes one or more of compute instances; determining that the compartment is enabled for agent installation; and updating the list of compute instances to include the one or more compute instances of the compartment (see Miller paragraph 0021 and fig.3, severs are obtained and processed based on customer subscription or grouping and functions as logical compartments of compute instances. And updating the monitored server list based on grouping corresponds to updating the list of compute instances for a compartment).
As to claim 9, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the compute instance is a first compute instance; a message of the plurality of messages is received from a second agent operating within a second compute instance; and the message of the plurality of messages includes one or more of (i) a type of the second agent, (ii) an identifier of the second agent, (iii) a version of the second agent, and (iv) an identifier of the second compute instance within which the second agent is operating (see Miller at least paragraphs 0017-0019 and 0023, storing identifying metadata associated with monitoring messages which corresponds to agent identifiers, instance identifiers and related attribute).
As to claim 10, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: maintaining a timestamp for each message of the plurality of received messages (see Miller at least paragraph 0021, MailServerAlertLog table stores the most recent alert time).
As to claim11, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the compute instance is a first compute instance, wherein the agent is a first agent, and wherein the method further comprises: reading a timestamp of a most recent message received from a second agent operating within a second compute instance of the plurality of compute instances; determining a time difference between (i) a current time and (ii) a time indicated by the timestamp; and in response to the time difference exceeding a threshold duration of time, generating a report indicating that no message has been received from the second agent operating within the second compute instance for at least the threshold duration of time (see at least Miller fig. 3 steps 108, 118-120, paragraphs 0021-0022, computes time differences and generates alerts when a threshold duration is exceeded).
As to claim12, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of Claim 11, further comprising: transmitting a request to reinstall or update the second agent within the second compute instance (see Werme col. 22, lines 34-49, restarting or starting software on a host obviously includes reinstall or start of applications on hosts).
As to claim13, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of Claim 11, wherein the timestamp is a first timestamp, the time difference is a first-time difference, the threshold duration of time is a first threshold duration of time, and wherein the method further comprises: reading a second timestamp of a most recent message received from a third agent operating within the second compute instance of the plurality of compute instances; determining a second time difference between (i) the current time and (ii) a time indicated by the second timestamp; and in response to the second time difference exceeding a second threshold duration of time, generating a report indicating that no message has been received from the third agent operating within the second compute instance for at least the second threshold duration of time, wherein the first threshold duration of time is different from the second threshold duration of time (see paragraphs 0015, 0021 and 0034, monitoring intervals and time frames are configurable per monitoring tool, , monitoring time frames correspond to different threshold duration for different agent).
As to claim 14, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of Claim 11, wherein: the second agent is configured to transmit a stream of messages, such that two consecutive messages from the second agent is configured to have a first time gap; the third agent is configured to transmit another stream of messages, such that two consecutive messages from the third agent is configured to have a second time gap; the first time gap is less than the second time gap; and the first threshold duration of time is less than the second threshold duration of time, responsive at least in part to the first time gap being less than the second time gap (see at Miller at least paragraph 0018 and claim 16, alerts are periodic and expected withing defined interval).
As to claim 15, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the compute instance is a first compute instance, and wherein the method further comprises:
reading a message of the plurality of messages that is from a second agent operating within a second compute instance; determining an installed version number of the second agent within a second compute instance, based at least in part on reading the message; comparing the installed version number of the second agent with one or more acceptable version numbers for the second agent; determining that the installed version number of the second agent is not within the one or more of acceptable version numbers for the second agent; generating a report indicating that the second agent operating within the second compute instance has to be updated; and transmitting a request to update the second agent operating within the second compute instance to one of the one or more of acceptable version numbers for the second agent (see Werme at least col. 7 line 27- col. 8 line 61, maintaining configuration specifications and redeploying software when version comparison is conducted).
As to claim 16, Miller -Werme-Fang teaches the method of Claim 15, wherein comparing the installed version number of the second agent with the one or more of acceptable version numbers for the second agent comprises:
reading an agent inventory information that identifies at least one acceptable version number of the second agent for each of a plurality of platform types; determining that the second compute instance has a first platform type, based at least in part oof reading the message, wherein the agent inventory information identifies the one or more acceptable version numbers for the first platform type of the second agent; identifying the one or more acceptable version numbers of the first platform type for the second agent from the agent inventory information; and using the identified one or more acceptable version numbers of the second platform type for the second agent for the comparison ( see at least Werme col. 10-37-49, col. 16 lines 45-55 and col. 23, lines 29- 41, platform specific configuration data is needed which includes platform appropriate software versions).
Claims 17-20 do not teach anything above and beyond the limitations of claims 1-16 and rejected for similar reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea because certain operations (e.g. transmitting a request to reinstall or install and agent, and initiating reinstall or install of the agent”) cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper, and therefore are not similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v Alstom S.A.
Response. Even if certain steps require a computer that does not remove the claim from the abstract idea category. The courts held that claims remain abstract when they are directed to collecting, analyzing and acting on information, even if performed using computer. The current claims still fundamentally recite: receiving data (messages), organizing data (table/list), comparing data, identifying a condition (missing agent) and taking a responsive action. These are information processing steps which fall within abstract ideas. The added step of” initiating reinstall or install of the agent within the compute instance”, is a post analysis, result oriented and do not change how the system works or provide any technical improvement. The claims just say detect a problem and fix it. The claim is still similar to Electric Power Group LLC V. Alstom S.A because the claim simply, collects data, analyze it and act on the result. Adding response steps do not make it different. There is also no practical application, there is no improvement to computer function, no new installation technique or architecture, only generic components such as agents and computer instances. furthermore, transmitting requests and installing agents are routine and nothing technically specific or unconventional is being claimed. The claims still cover an abstract idea implemented wit generic technology; therefore the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s argument regarding 103 rejection (Miller-Werme) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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'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 SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Applicant arguments y of A argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea because certain operations (e.g. transmitting a request to reinstall or install and agent, and initiating reinstall or install of the agent”) cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper, and therefore are not similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v Alstom S.A.
Response. Even if certain steps require a computer that does not remove the claim from the abstract idea category. The courts held that claims remain abstract when they are directed to collecting, analyzing and acting on information, even if performed using computer. The current claims still fundamentally recite: receiving data (messages), organizing data (table/list), comparing data, identifying a condition (missing agent) and taking a responsive action. These are information processing steps which fall within abstract ideas of the agent within the compute instance”, is a post analysis, result oriented and do not change how the system works or provide any technical improvement. The claims just say detect a problem and fix it. The claim is still similar to Electric Power Group LLC V. Alstom S.A because the claim simply, collects data, analyze it and act on the result. Adding response steps do not make it different. There is also no practical application, there is no improvement to computer function, no new installation technique or architecture, only generic components such as agents and computer instances. furthermore, transmitting requests and installing agents are routine and nothing technically specific or unconventional is being claimed. The claims still cover an abstract idea implemented wit generic technology; therefore
method comprising:
receiving a plurality of messages from each of the plurality of agents operating
within the plurality of compute instances of the cloud environment (Miller paragraph
0015, server monitor receives communications from customer monitoring devices);
updating a table that identifies the plurality of agents and the corresponding
plurality of compute instances, wherein the updating is done when any of
alert is triggered if table has not been updated; i.e. table updates occur upon receipt of
communications);
reading a list of compute instances, wherein each compute instance on the list of
compute
(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.0 are pending examination. 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 2Am, Prong One, the claims are directed to abstract idea of monitoring system information, comparing the information to certain conditions and taking action based on the comparison. The steps of the claim amount to collecting data, analyzing the data and acting on the results, which is a mental process / information processing and similar to electric Power Group V. Alstom).
Prosecution Insights