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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on April 12, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application have been examined below, of which, claims 1, 10, and 16 are presented in independent form.
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 of this title, 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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0206359 (hereinafter "Harper”) in view of US 11,695,655 (hereinafter “Behl”).
In the following claim analysis, Applicant’s claim limitations are presented in bold text, the Examiner’s explanations, notes, and remarks are enclosed in square brackets; and emphasized portions are underlined.
As to claim 1, Harper discloses A method (Harper, Abstract, methods, and computer system, and computer program products for assessing and remediating online servers with minimal impact), comprising:
evaluating one or more data sources of an organization to identify a first set of the organization (Harper, ¶ 23, system memory 114 and mass storage 104; ¶ 24, the computer system 100 may be connected to a first server having a first storage and at least one first processor; ¶ 25, the computer system 100 may perform: duplicating, in real-time at time T0, a first instance of computer resources of the first server into a second instance of computer resources of the second server, each of the first instance of computer resources and the second instance of computer resources including operating systems, applications and data, running assessment and remediation; ¶ 32, the aspects of the present invention may be extended to assessment and remediation of a collection of servers (e.g., a cluster, or client workload group) all at once), wherein the one or more data sources store information characterizing one or more deployed servers of the organization Harper, Fig. 1, ¶ 23, storage capability including system memory 114 and mass storage 104, ¶ 26, The duplicating may include duplicating the software, and application programs, and data from the first server to the second server [as a storage for first server]);
identifying a second set of servers processed during one or more executions (Harper, Fig. 1, ¶ 24, The second server may be a server that is substantially similar to the first server in hardware and software configuration; ¶ 6, a second instance of computer resources of a second server, each of the first instance of computer resources and the second instance of computer resources including operating systems, applications and data, running assessment and remediation; ¶ 32, the aspects of the present invention may be extended to assessment and remediation of a collection of servers (e.g., a cluster, or client workload group) all at once), prior to the evaluating, of a patching orchestration management process, wherein the patching orchestration management process is executed by at least one processing device (Harper, Fig. 1, ¶ 25, each of the first instance of computer resources and the second instance of computer resources including operating systems, applications and data, running assessment and remediation on the second instance of operating systems and applications of the second server, merging the second instance of data of the second server with the first instance of data of the first server; ¶ 26, At this point, after the software and application programs have been duplicated onto the second server, the first server may operate as normal, … any updates, upgrades, or patches will not be applied to the first server [Examiner’s remarks: Harper’s remediation system performs assessment and patching on servers during execution cycles, the servers previously subjected to those execution would necessarily constitutes a group of servers processed during one or more execution of the patch process]);
verifying one or more servers in the updated set of servers using one or more designated server verification criteria (Harper, ¶ 28, computer system 100 may instruct the second server to run assessment and remediation on the second server. The assessment and remediation may include assessments and remediation in the areas of performance, security, and patch. In certain embodiments, the computer system 100 may run wide-sense assessment and remediation on the second server, including: performing virus scans, IBM Watson Security Tool (WST) style security assessments which assess a wide range of potential security hazards, applying patches); and
initiating at least one automated action based at least in part on a result of the verifying (Harper, ¶ 28, computer system 100 may instruct the second server to run assessment and remediation on the second server. The assessment and remediation … including: … applying patches [an automated action]); wherein the at least one processing device comprises a processor coupled to a memory (Harper, Fig. 1, ¶ 20, the computer system 100 has one or more central processing units (processors) 101a, 101b, 101c, etc. … Processors 101 are coupled to system memory 114 and various other components via a system bus 113. Read only memory (ROM) 102 is coupled to the system bus 113).
Harper does not appear to explicitly disclose comparing, by the at least one processing device, the first set of servers and the second set of servers to generate an updated set of servers, wherein the first set of servers and the second set of servers are distinct from one another. However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in the field of software update, Behl teaches comparing, by the at least one processing device, the first set of servers and the second set of servers to generate an updated set of servers, wherein the first set of servers and the second set of servers are distinct from one another (Behl, col. 4, ln. 44-65, for each of the plurality of groups of servers, a respective status indicator identifying whether the patch has been installed on a corresponding group of servers, … a schedule for executing the patch management process of the at least one group of servers … the computing system may identify a first stack in the first group of servers corresponding to a second stack in the second group of servers configured to host the application [Examiner’s remarks: Behl’s system compares server groups and their respective patch status to determine which groups require patch insulation. This comparison necessarily results in an updated set of servers requiring further action (i.e., those lacking the patch), while other server groups are excluded] ) wherein the first set of servers and the second set of servers are distinct from one another (Behl, col. 4, ln. 44-65, for each of the plurality of groups of servers, a respective status indicator identifying whether the patch has been installed on a corresponding group of servers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harper’s server assessment and remediation system to incorporate Behl’s server group comparison and patch status management techniques. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement an one-touch patch management that provides for automated process of patch installation for an application hosted on servers with a single interaction with a user interface element of the dashboard. This feature may eliminate manual steps and system administration resources doing repeatable work from patch scheduling phase to patch execution via orchestration (Behl, col. 2, ln. 25-36).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Harper as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more designated server verification criteria comprise one or more of identifying an operating system of one or more servers in the updated set of servers (Harpers, ¶ 29, the computer system 100 may further instruct the second server to verify and validate integrity of the remediation by running a variety of application tests to ascertain the second server is in a good operation condition to take over the operation of the first server; claim 1, running assessment and remediation on the second instance of operating systems) and evaluating one or more storage resources of one or more servers in the updated set of servers (Behl. Col. 16, ln. 9-12, the historical data 1040 may identify or include, for example: consumption of computing resources (e.g., processor or memory)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harper’s server assessment and remediation system to incorporate Behl’s server group comparison and patch status management techniques. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement an analytics evaluator 1018 executing on the automated management service 1002 to calculate, determine, or otherwise generate a set of performance indicators for the corresponding set of functions 1038 of the application 1036 (Behl, col. 15, ln. 64-67).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Harper as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying one or more applications executed by respective ones of the servers in the updated set of servers and classifying, based on the identified one or more applications (Behl, col. 2, ln. 16-24, The user interface may provide a set of options to retrieve performance data of applications and servers in the environment as well as to carry out various actions to manage the applications and servers in the network. The options provided by the user interface may include, for example, a one-touch patch management, a one-touch continuity of traffic fail over, predictive analytics, site reliability, and a services assistant), one or more of the servers in the updated set of servers into one or more of: (i) a first group of servers used to schedule a patching of one or more of the servers in the first group of servers (Behl, col. 4, ln. 53-58, the user interface may include a fourth element configured to set, upon interaction, a schedule for executing the patch management process of the at least one group of servers. The computing system may execute the patch management process in accordance with the schedule set using the fourth element) and (ii) a second group of servers comprising one or more servers requiring a temporary suspension of service during an execution of a patching process directed to one or more of the servers in the second group of servers (Behl, col. 11, ln. 7-15, the patch manager 314 may perform the stages of the patch management process (e.g., the shutdown [a temporary suspension], setup, and validation) in accordance with the defined parameters. For example, the patch manager 314 may carry out individual sub-processes in accordance with the times identified by the schedule defined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harper’s server assessment and remediation system to incorporate Behl’s server group comparison and patch status management techniques. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would collect parameters including an application identifier referencing the application 336; a version identifier corresponding to the patch 338 for the application 336 to be installed; an identification of a selected server 304 or server group 306 on which to carry out installation of the patch 338; and a schedule for the installation of the patch 338 for the application 336, among others. The patch manager 314 may carry out the patch management process in accordance with the defined parameters upon invocation from interaction with the patch installer UI element 326, with minimal or no subsequent user interaction. In this manner, the patch manager 314 may automate the various stages of installation of the patch 338 to reduce manual human involvement (Behl, col. 9-10, ln. 66-36).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Harper as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising automatically installing one or more monitoring software programs in one or more of the servers in the updated set of servers (Harper, ¶ 32, further enhancing assessment and remediation for clusters, by assessing and remediating one node of the cluster at a time), wherein, in response to a rebooting of a given server (Harper, ¶ 38, once the first server is duplicated onto the second sever, at block 220, the computer system 100 may instruct the second server to reboot), following a patching of the given server, at least one of the one or more monitoring software programs installed in the given server provides data from an operation of the given server (Harper, ¶ 39, the computer system 100 may perform assessment and remediation on the second server. The assessment and remediation may include assessments and remediation in the areas of performance, security, and patch. In certain embodiments, the computer system 100 may run wide-sense assessment and remediation on the second server, including: performing Watson Security Tool (WST) style security assessments, applying patches, performing data compaction, and optimizing performance of the second server).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Harper as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising (i) automatically evaluating one or more of the servers in the updated set of servers with respect to one or more designated server error conditions (Behl, col. 13, ln. 42-60, the failover manager 616 may calculate, determine, or otherwise generate at least one network statistic for each server group 606 … an error rate identifying a rate of alterations of the data communicated between the end-user consumer devices with the servers 604) and (ii) automatically mitigating one or more server error conditions identified by the automatic evaluation of the one or more designated server error conditions using one or more designated error resolutions (Behl, col. 9, ln. 25-32, The patch installer UI element 326 may identify or select at least one server group 306 from a set of groups of servers on which to set up install at least one patch 338 for the application 336 hosted at least one of the servers 304 in the server group 306. In response to detecting an interaction with the patch installer UI element 326, the dashboard handler 312 may call, invoke, or otherwise execute the patch manager 314).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harper’s server assessment and remediation system to incorporate Behl’s server group comparison and patch status management techniques. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would implement an assessment and remediation process to identify remediation targets and apply corresponding patch to ascertain the second server is in a good operation condition to take over the operation of the first server (Harper, ¶ ¶ 39-40).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Harper as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising (i) automatically performing one or more designated patch tasks for one or more of the servers in the updated set of servers (Harper, ¶ 39, the computer system 100 may run wide-sense assessment and remediation on the second server, including: performing Watson Security Tool (WST) style security assessments, applying patches, performing data compaction, and optimizing performance of the second server) and (ii) automatically mitigating one or more issues identified by the one or more designated patch tasks using one or more designated patch task resolutions (Harper, ¶ 3, When certain computer servers are infected by certain virus, or upon suspicion of compromised computer servers, software installed and/or running on the computer servers is out of date, when the software needs to be upgraded and/or patched, these computer servers are known as not in compliance. … a planned maintenance is usually scheduled to disinfect the computer servers, eliminate the security breaches, and/or install patches).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Harper as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising automatically visualizing data characterizing one or more of: (i) one or more changes to one or more attributes of one or more of the servers in the updated set of servers (Behl, col. 8, ln. 25-32, The user interface 124 may be a graphical user interface (GUI), with one or more elements to invoke various functions of the automated management system 102. Upon interaction, the patch installer UI element 126 may invoke the patch manager 114 to execute the patch installation process. The failover execution UI element 128 may invoke the failover manager 116 to perform a traffic failover process from one server group 106 to another server group 106) and (ii) one or more events occurring with respect to one or more of the servers in the updated set of servers (Behl, col. 8, ln. 33-41, The failover execution UI element 128 may invoke the failover manager 116 to perform a traffic failover process from one server group 106 to another server group 106. The analytics retrieval UI element 130 may invoke the analytics evaluator 118 to provide performance indicators for various functions of the application 136. The reliability retrieval UI element 132 may invoke the reliability evaluator 120 to provide reliability indicators).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Harper as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one automated action comprises processing one or more of the servers in the updated set of servers as part of an execution of the patching orchestration management process (Harper, ¶ 28, computer system 100 may instruct the second server to run assessment and remediation on the second server. The assessment and remediation … including: … applying patches [an automated action]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0206359 (hereinafter "Harper”), in view of US 11,695,655 (hereinafter “Behl”), and further in view of US 10,666,719 B2 (hereinafter “Reynolds”)
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Harper as modified does not appear to explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the comparing the first set of servers and the second set of servers comprises removing one or more servers identified in the first set of servers from the second set of servers to generate the updated set of servers. However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in the field of software update, Reynolds teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the comparing the first set of servers and the second set of servers comprises removing one or more servers identified in the first set of servers from the second set of servers to generate the updated set of servers (Reynolds, col. 8-9, ln. 66-12, a list of servers and associated weights is determined by adding each server and its associated weight from a weight table to the list. In 902, the server initially determined to receive the request [identified servers in the first set] is removed from the list of servers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harper’s server assessment and remediation system to incorporate Behl’s server group comparison and patch status management techniques. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would implement an assessment and remediation process to identify remediation targets and apply corresponding patch to ascertain the second server is in a good operation condition to take over the operation of the first server (Harper, ¶ ¶ 39-40).
As to claims 10-15, the claims are essentially the same as claims 1-6, except are set forth the claimed invention as an apparatus and are rejected with the same reasoning as applied in claims 1-6.
As to claims 16-20, the claims are essentially the same as claims 1 and 3-6, except are set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium and are rejected with the same reasoning as applied in claims 1 and 3-6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9692648 B2 teaches dynamically removing, replacing or upgrading servers in a system of servers; and
US 8606894 B1 teaches collecting performance data of a plurality of source servers in a desired environment, selecting a group of one or more source servers from the plurality of source servers for consolidation; and
US 10956143 B2 teaches updating large sets of servers and deploying firmware updates simultaneously to the large number of servers.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAXIN WU whose telephone number is (571) 270-7721. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (7 am - 11:30 am; 1:30- 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Wei Mui can be reached at (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/DAXIN WU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191