DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 41-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 12,001,307. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious and parallel in nature.
Current claims 18/635,406
Patented claims 12,001,307
41. A method for monitoring at least one software service from a monitor template, the method comprising:
determining one or more endpoints for a first software service of the at least one software service;
generating a first monitor for the first software service code using the monitor template based at least upon a first endpoint of the one or more endpoints included in the first software service code;
monitoring the first software service using the first monitor generated by the monitor template;
detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred; and
performing a first event corresponding to the first aberration, wherein the method is performed via one or more processors.
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a monitor for at least one software service from a monitor template, the method comprising: providing the monitor template; determining one or more endpoints included in code for a first software service of the at least one software service; generating a first monitor for the first software service code using the monitor template based at least upon a first endpoint of the one or more endpoints included in the first software service code; monitoring the first software service using the first monitor generated by the monitor template; detecting, by the first monitor, whether a first aberration of the first software service has occurred; determining a first event corresponding to the first aberration; and performing the first event in response to the occurrence of the first aberration.
48. A system for monitoring at least one software service from a monitor template, the system comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
determining one or more endpoints for a first software service of the at least one software service;
generating a first monitor for the first software service code using the monitor template based at least upon a first endpoint of the one or more endpoints included in the first software service code;
monitoring the first software service using the first monitor generated by the monitor template;
detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred; and
performing a first event corresponding to the first aberration.
13. A computing system for generating a monitor for at least one software service from a monitor template, the computing system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising: providing the monitor template; determining one or more endpoints included in code for a first software service; generating a first monitor for the first software service code using the monitor template based at least upon a first endpoint of the one or more endpoints included in the first software service code; monitoring the first software service using the first monitor generated by the monitor template; detecting, by the first monitor, whether a first aberration of the first software service has occurred; determining a first event corresponding to the first aberration; and performing the first event in response to the occurrence of the first aberration.
55. A method for monitoring at least one software service using a monitor template, the method comprising:
monitoring a first software service of the at least one software service using a first monitor generated by the monitor template;
detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred;
determining a first event corresponding to the first aberration;
monitoring a second software service using a second monitor generated by the monitor template;
detecting, by the second monitor, that a second aberration of the second software service has occurred;
determining a second event corresponding to the second aberration; and performing the second event in response to the occurrence of the second aberration.
36. A computing system for monitoring at least one software service using a monitor template, comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising: monitoring a first software service of the at least one software service using a first monitor generated by the monitor template, wherein monitoring the first software service using the first monitor comprises using a first resolved tag parameter and a first realized index parameter of the first monitor; detecting, by the first monitor, whether a first aberration of the first software service has occurred; determining a first event corresponding to the first aberration; changing the first event to a different event in response to user provided code; and performing the different event in response to the occurrence of the first aberration.
Dependent claims 42-47, 49-54 and 56-60 are also obvious and parallel in nature to patented dependent claims. Further patented independent claims 18 and 25 are also parallel and obvious to current independent claims 41,48 and 55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 41-54 recites the limitation a first software service of the… the first software service code and a first endpoint of the one or more endpoints included in the first software service code in lines 3-6 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims also inherit the same deficiency as per claims 42 the monitor…, claim 43 the monitor template…, further deficiency in claims 49, 50, 53 the detecting…, claim 54 the determining…
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 41-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
As per claim 41
under Step 2A, Prong 1,
Claim 41
A method for monitoring at least one software service from a monitor template, the method comprising:
determining one or more endpoints for a first software service of the at least one software service and monitoring the first software service using the first monitor generated by the monitor template can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Step 2 A-prong 2
The additional element detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred and performing a first event corresponding to the first aberration, wherein the method is performed via one or more processors merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as data gathering which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2 B
The additional element generating a first monitor for the first software service code using the monitor template based at least upon a first endpoint of the one or more endpoints included in the first software service code at least one processor, at least one memory storing instructions and detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred and performing a first event corresponding to the first aberration, wherein the method is performed via one or more processors merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as data gathering which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is merely data gathering which the courts have identified as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred and performing a first event corresponding to the first aberration, wherein the method is performed via one or more processors merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as data gathering which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As per claim 48
A system for monitoring at least one software service from a monitor template, the system comprising:
determining one or more endpoints for a first software service of the at least one software service and monitoring the first software service using the first monitor generated by the monitor template can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Step 2 A-prong 2
At least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the system to perform a set of operation the set of operations merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred and performing a first event corresponding to the first aberration, wherein the method is performed via one or more processors merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as data gathering which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2 B
The additional element generating a first monitor for the first software service code using the monitor template based at least upon a first endpoint of the one or more endpoints included in the first software service code at least one processor, at least one memory storing instructions and detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred and performing a first event corresponding to the first aberration, wherein the method is performed via one or more processors merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as data gathering which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is merely data gathering which the courts have identified as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred and performing a first event corresponding to the first aberration, wherein the method is performed via one or more processors merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as data gathering which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As per claim 55
A method for monitoring at least one software service using a monito template the method comprising
monitoring a first software service of the at least one software service using a first monitor generated by the monitor template, detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred, determining a first event corresponding to the first aberration monitoring a second software service using a second monitor generated by the monitor template and can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Step 2 A-prong 2
The additional element detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred, performing the in response to the occurrence of the second aberration, second event corresponding to the first aberration, and detecting, by the second monitor, that a second aberration of the second software service has occurred, determining a second event corresponding to the second aberration; and performing the second event in response to the occurrence of the second aberration merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as data gathering which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2 B
The additional element detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred, performing the in response to the occurrence of the second aberration, second event corresponding to the first aberration, merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as data gathering which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).is merely data gathering which the courts have identified as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred and performing a first event corresponding to the first aberration, wherein the method is performed via one or more processors merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as data gathering which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 41-43,47-50,54-55 and 59-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shmulevich et al US 2016/0170743 A1 in view of Smith et al US 2014/0280398 A1.
Regarding claim 41
Shmulevich et al teaches
determining one or more endpoints for a first software service of the at least one software service [0067] in operation 140B, the xml in the selected template identifies software component names, versions, and dependencies for the new product feature. The selected template may provide a container or shell for the new product feature that includes integration points, build, and tests. As mentioned above, the container also may include support services used by the product feature for operating with a larger enterprise software system. In operation 140C, the template selected by the developer may require additional software services. If so, the developer in operation 140D may select additional templates providing the additional services. For example, the software developer in FIG. 2 selected template 108D for additional UI service 106C];
generating a first monitor for the first software service code using the monitor template based at least upon a first endpoint of the one or more endpoints included in the first software service code [see figs 2, 4, [0051] in this example, template 108A identifies software components for a logging service 105A, error reporting services 105B, component service 105C, rendering service 105D, configuration service 105E, and monitoring service 105F. Template 108A may include any other service or module needed for building, launching, and/or running application 100];
monitoring the first software service using the first monitor generated by the monitor template [0055] the following shows one example portion of template 108A that includes lower tier templates for logging service 105A and monitoring service 105F]. Shmulevich et al teaches wherein the method is performed via one or more processors (see fig 1) but doesn’t teach explicitly, performing a first event corresponding to the first aberration however Smith et al teaches, [0048] As shown in FIG. 6, a user application 120 may subscribe 121 any of its open service handles 122 to an event stream 126 of any other service handle 124, even one that has never been opened. We name the former service handle as the subscriber 122 and the latter as the publisher 124. When an interesting event 130 occurs in the lifecycle of the publisher, such as its opening or closing, it publishes a notification 132 of this event to all subscribers. Event notifications from a given publisher are reliably delivered 134 in occurrence order to all of its subscribers. Event notifications are guaranteed to be unique; a network layer software instance sends only a single notification of an event, and no subscriber ever receives a duplicate notification, even in the presence of a chaotic or unstable network]. Smith et al further teaches detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred [0150] In some implementations, each conduit, agent, and coordinator is outfitted with a reentrant lock that controls access to its data structures. Use of conduits can drive lock acquisition. For example, a thread that wishes to acquire the locks for a particular trio of <conduit, coordinator, agent> acquires the locks in the order specified in the tuple to avoid the possibility of deadlock. The network transport software implements, e.g., strictly implements, the locking order, e.g., using techniques to ensure the correctness of the implementation and to detect aberration from the correct locking order as early as possible. In some implementations, the acquired locks are owned by the conduits for short periods of time, e.g., less than 1 ms, allowing for high throughput]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate detecting monitoring process in software service. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine teaching helps in reducing in manual inspection and ensuring they are functioning as they are intending for alter management for any issues.
Regarding 42 and 49
Smith et al teaches
the monitor template comprises a plurality of schema, and wherein each schema includes a tag parameter and an index parameter [0151] with respect to starting, stopping, and restarting, the network transport software has been designed to be highly configurable and provides mechanisms for setting configurable parameters. For example, to support various deployment scenarios, these parameters may be specified using 1) the platform-specific command line, 2) an XML configuration document whose outermost element is <configuration>, or 3) Java system properties, or some combination of two or more of those. If a particular parameter is multiply specified through these mechanisms, the network transport software will not start until all values given for the parameters match semantically. Otherwise, the network transport software issues an error message that describes the detected incoherence to allow an end user to review the settings of the running network transport software in a straightforward fashion. The end user does not have to memorize rules of precedence of configuration sources and can use information obtained from the error message to determine the actual runtime values of parameters whose sources disagree]. The feature of providing parameter…would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 43, 50 and 58
Shmulevich et al teaches
wherein the generating a first monitor using the monitor template is performed automatically at a deployment of the first software service [see fig 2, 0045 the upper tier templates may include other lower-tier templates identifying sub-groups of software components associated with lower tier software services that may operate within the container. The template framework relieves software developers from the time-consuming task of manually locating and testing all of the different software components needed for creating new software applications]. The feature of providing deployment… would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 47 and 54
Smith et al teaches
the determining one or more endpoints includes querying code of the first software service [0295] the online environment 1300 also includes user devices 1370 that may transmit queries (e.g., data query 1372) to the fDBMS in order to access data in the distributed data store. The cDBMSs of the distributed data store may cooperate using inter-process communications through the mesh to process the data query and transmit a result 1374 in response to the data query 1372]. The feature of providing query… would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 48
Shmulevich et al teaches
at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the system to perform a set of operations the set of operations [0032] the system 16 includes tangible computer-readable media having non-transitory instructions stored thereon/in that are executable by or used to program a server or other computing system (or collection of such servers or computing systems) to perform some of the implementation of processes described herein. For example, computer program code 26 can implement instructions for operating and configuring the system 16 to intercommunicate and to process web pages, applications and other data and media content as described herein.
determining one or more endpoints for a first software service of the at least one software service [0067] in operation 140B, the xml in the selected template identifies software component names, versions, and dependencies for the new product feature. The selected template may provide a container or shell for the new product feature that includes integration points, build, and tests. As mentioned above, the container also may include support services used by the product feature for operating with a larger enterprise software system. In operation 140C, the template selected by the developer may require additional software services. If so, the developer in operation 140D may select additional templates providing the additional services. For example, the software developer in FIG. 2 selected template 108D for additional UI service 106C];
generating a first monitor for the first software service code using the monitor template based at least upon a first endpoint of the one or more endpoints included in the first software service code [see figs 2, 4, [0051] in this example, template 108A identifies software components for a logging service 105A, error reporting services 105B, component service 105C, rendering service 105D, configuration service 105E, and monitoring service 105F. Template 108A may include any other service or module needed for building, launching, and/or running application 100];
monitoring the first software service using the first monitor generated by the monitor template [0055] the following shows one example portion of template 108A that includes lower tier templates for logging service 105A and monitoring service 105F]. Shmulevich et al teaches wherein the method is performed via one or more processors (see fig 1) but doesn’t teach explicitly, performing a first event corresponding to the first aberration however Smith et al teaches, [0048] As shown in FIG. 6, a user application 120 may subscribe 121 any of its open service handles 122 to an event stream 126 of any other service handle 124, even one that has never been opened. We name the former service handle as the subscriber 122 and the latter as the publisher 124. When an interesting event 130 occurs in the lifecycle of the publisher, such as its opening or closing, it publishes a notification 132 of this event to all subscribers. Event notifications from a given publisher are reliably delivered 134 in occurrence order to all of its subscribers. Event notifications are guaranteed to be unique; a network layer software instance sends only a single notification of an event, and no subscriber ever receives a duplicate notification, even in the presence of a chaotic or unstable network]. Smith et al further teaches detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred [0150] In some implementations, each conduit, agent, and coordinator is outfitted with a reentrant lock that controls access to its data structures. Use of conduits can drive lock acquisition. For example, a thread that wishes to acquire the locks for a particular trio of <conduit, coordinator, agent> acquires the locks in the order specified in the tuple to avoid the possibility of deadlock. The network transport software implements, e.g., strictly implements, the locking order, e.g., using techniques to ensure the correctness of the implementation and to detect aberration from the correct locking order as early as possible. In some implementations, the acquired locks are owned by the conduits for short periods of time, e.g., less than 1 ms, allowing for high throughput]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate detecting monitoring process in software service. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine teaching helps in reducing in manual inspection and ensuring they are functioning as they are intending for alter management for any issues.
Regarding claim 55
Shmulevich et al teaches,
monitoring a first software service of the at least one software service using a first monitor generated by the monitor template [0055] the following shows one example portion of template 108A that includes lower tier templates for logging service 105A and monitoring service 105F].
monitoring a second software service using a second monitor generated by the monitor template [0051] In this example, template 108A identifies software components for a logging service 105A, error reporting services 105B, component service 105C, rendering service 105D, configuration service 105E, and monitoring service 105F. Template 108A may include any other service or module needed for building, launching, and/or running application 100]. Shmulevich et al teaches, monitoring software service but doesn’t teach explicitly detecting, by the first monitor, that a first aberration of the first software service has occurred however Smith et al teaches [0150] In some implementations, each conduit, agent, and coordinator is outfitted with a reentrant lock that controls access to its data structures. Use of conduits can drive lock acquisition. For example, a thread that wishes to acquire the locks for a particular trio of <conduit, coordinator, agent> acquires the locks in the order specified in the tuple to avoid the possibility of deadlock. The network transport software implements, e.g., strictly implements, the locking order, e.g., using techniques to ensure the correctness of the implementation and to detect aberration from the correct locking order as early as possible. In some implementations, the acquired locks are owned by the conduits for short periods of time, e.g., less than 1 ms, allowing for high throughput];
Smith et al further teaches determining a first event corresponding to the first aberration [0051] Though this combination of unreliable user datagrams 139 and reliable event notifications 134 is sufficiently useful for many user applications, a transport layer can also provide reliable in-order delivery of user data. A user of the network layer software can engineer transport layers above the platform-neutral network transport layer provided by the network layer software. In some implementations, a higher-level transport layer 29 (FIG. 2) can be bundled and deployed with the network transport software. This higher-level transport layer may contain production-quality client libraries 31 that implement a powerful and robust connection-oriented reliable streaming protocol that leverages a broad spectrum of the network transport software's capabilities; Smith et al further teaches detecting, that a second aberration of the second software service has occurred Smith et al teaches [0150] In some implementations, each conduit, agent, and coordinator is outfitted with a reentrant lock that controls access to its data structures. Use of conduits can drive lock acquisition. For example, a thread that wishes to acquire the locks for a particular trio of <conduit, coordinator, agent> acquires the locks in the order specified in the tuple to avoid the possibility of deadlock. The network transport software implements, e.g., strictly implements, the locking order, e.g., using techniques to ensure the correctness of the implementation and to detect aberration from the correct locking order as early as possible. In some implementations, the acquired locks are owned by the conduits for short periods of time, e.g., less than 1 ms, allowing for high throughput]; smieth et al further teaches determining a second event corresponding to the second aberration and performing the second event in response to the occurrence of the second aberration [0150] In some implementations, each conduit, agent, and coordinator is outfitted with a reentrant lock that controls access to its data structures. Use of conduits can drive lock acquisition. For example, a thread that wishes to acquire the locks for a particular trio of <conduit, coordinator, agent> acquires the locks in the order specified in the tuple to avoid the possibility of deadlock. The network transport software implements, e.g., strictly implements, the locking order, e.g., using techniques to ensure the correctness of the implementation and to detect aberration from the correct locking order as early as possible. In some implementations, the acquired locks are owned by the conduits for short periods of time, e.g., less than 1 ms, allowing for high throughput. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate detecting monitoring process in software service. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine teaching helps in reducing in manual inspection and ensuring they are functioning as they are intending for alter management for any issues and all process executed efficiently and in timely manner.
Regarding claim 59
Shmulevich et al teaches
the first event is at least one of sending an alert, sending a message, or initiating a help ticket [0049] template 108D may identify software components for a specific UI service that may operate within the UI tier application associated with template 108A, template 108E may identify software components for an application programming interface (API) service, template 108F may identify software components for a grammar service, template 108G may identify software components for an alerting service, and template 108H may identify software components for a metric service. Of course these are just examples and templates 108 may identify software components for building any software application or service]. The feature of providing alert… would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 60
Smith et al teaches
the second event is at least one of sending an alert, sending a message, or initiating a help ticket, and wherein the second event is different than the first event [0110] every initial subscription to a remote publisher causes the local network transport software to subscribe itself to the publisher by reliably routing a node-service-handle-subscribe message to the publisher's node. This message encloses a new conversation identifier and an appropriate network transport software service handle subscription key that specifies the publisher and the subscribing node. When a node receives such a message, it extracts the subscription key and looks up the conversation associated with it in the network transport software subscription conversation map. If the message is new, then the receiver updates the other second-tier maps in lock step. As a result: the network transport software subscribers map now lists the subscribing node in its publisher's set of subscribers; the network transport software publishers map now lists the publisher in the subscribing node's set of publishers. Finally the receiver reliably sends the subscribing node a node-service-handle-notification message that includes a new conversation identifier, the subscriber's network transport software identifier, the publisher, and the publisher's state circa message creation time. Additional complexities emerge when sending notifications about closed publishers shortly after starting up the network transport software on a node; these are described in greater detail below]. The feature of providing messaging … would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 44- 46, 51-53 and 56-57 are 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.
Relevant Prior Art
US 20260017119 A1 Custodio et al teaches PROVISIONING A DATABASE MANAGEMENT PLATFORM IN A CLOUD COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
US 11086755 B2 Gaier et al teaches System And Method For Implementing An Application Monitoring Tool
US 9652225 B1 Bohn et al teaches Development Community Assessment Via Real-time Workspace Monitoring
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anil Khatri whose telephone number is (571)272-3725. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 Zhen 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 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.
/ANIL KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights