DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a communication dated 10 June 2026 responsive to the 13 March 2026 non-final Office action (the “Previous Action”).
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are amended, as well as paragraph [0042] of the specification.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims.
Any unpersuasive arguments are addressed in the “Response to Arguments” section below.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that that the cited art does not teach or suggest “execut[ing], by an optimizer agent of the application instance executing in the customer domain, the scans on the application instance”. Applicant reasons that the agent in Malhotra is not “integrated with or associated with a specific application instance for autonomous optimization operations” and “Malhotra’s focus is on remote diagnosis and information gathering, not a structured, application-instance-centric optimization framework.” (Remarks, p. 17 par. 4).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits the agent of Malhotra is an optimizer agent because it is used to provide remedies such as suggestions for fixing memory leaks. (See Malhotra, pars. [0018], [0029]). The agent is “of” an application instance because, as shown in figure 1A, it is associated with SUT 128, which is a software application. (Malhotra, Fig. 1A, and par. [0033]). The agent is executing in the customer domain because, as shown in Figure 1A, it executes within client computer system 104. And it executes scans on the application instance because it executes probes that measure performance of Application 128. (See Malhotra at pars. [0040], [0029]).
Malhotra according teaches what is actually claimed. The claim does not refer to any “autonomous optimization operations” or “structured, application-instance-centric optimization framework.” Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues with respect to claim 1 that the cited art does not teach “causing execution of at least one of the selection of fixes to modify one or more configuration settings of the application instance.” Applicant reasons that Miller does not disclose “a coordinated system in which fixes are selected based on scan results and then caused to executed to modify configuration settings of a deployed” or “a system that determines a subset of fixes based on scan result and then causes execution of those fixes in the context of a specific application instance.” (Remarks, p. 18 pars. 2-4).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Miller teaches causing execution of a least one of the selection of fixes because Miller discloses executing solution [fix] code when symptom code indicates that it applies. (Miller col. 4 ll. 8-10). The solution code modifies one or more configuration settings of the application instance because it updates a registry key in order to fix a problem with the Microsoft Exchange mail application. (See Miller, col. 11 ll. 57-59, col. 12 ll. 5-11).
Miller accordingly teaches what is actually claimed. The claim does not refer to any “coordinated system” or “context.” Again, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that the combination of Miller “would at most provide diagnostic information (Malhotra) and stored solutions (Miller)” but does not teach or suggest causing execution of fixes to modify configuration settings of a specific application instance in response to scan results and that “Examiner’s reasoning effectively fills this gap using Applicant’s disclosure, which is improper hindsight reconstruction.” (Remarks, p. 18 par. 4).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Miller teaches causing execution of fixes to modify configuration settings of an application instance as noted above and that Malhotra teaches determining a selection of fixes based on a result of the scans as set forth below. It also would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the two references for the reasons further set forth below. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the rejections rely only upon knowledge within the level of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made. Applicant provides only a conclusion to the contrary and ignores the rationale actually provided.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that the cited art does not teach or suggest “provid[ing] analytics data corresponding to user implementation of the selection of fixes to the application development system.” Applicant reasons that this limitation establishes a “closed-loop optimization framework” and that Miller does not discloses “providing analytics reflecting user adoption or implementation of fixes, or transmitting such analytics to a development system to inform future optimization logic.” (Remarks, p. 18 par. 5 – p. 19 par. 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Miller teaches providing analytics data corresponding to user implementation of the selection of fixes to the application development system because Miller teaches log information (analytics data) on whether a solution (selection of fixes) is used at a customer (user) site or not is incorporated at a central facility and accessed at a call center. (See the rejections below).
Miller accordingly teaches what is actually claimed. The claim does not refer to any “closed-loop optimization” or “inform[ing] future optimization logic.” Again, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant again argues with respect to claim 1 that the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight because, according to Applicant, there is no articulated reasoning that would motivate a person of ordinary skill to “modify Malhotra’s diagnostic system to include an application-instance-specific optimizer agent, integrate Miller’s knowledge base solutions into an automated execution framework that modifies configuration settings, and further add a feedback loop providing analytics based on user implementation of fixes to a development system.” (Remarks, p. 19 par. 2).
Examiner respectfully points out in response that Malhotra already includes an application-instance-specific optimizer agent and that the claim requires no “feedback loop.” No modification of Malhotra is necessary. It would have been obvious to modify Malhotra to include the modification of configuration settings and providing of analytics taught by Miller for the reasons set forth below. Again, the rejections rely upon knowledge within the level of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made and Applicant provides only conclusions to the contrary.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the remaining claims by virtue of their dependence from claim 1, similarity with claim or dependence from a similar claim are unpersuasive for the same reasons.
Drawings
The Previous Action’s objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s specification amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The Previous Action’s interpretation of certain limitation as in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or (pre-AIA ) § 112 sixth paragraph are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 1 is objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “...receive…receive…execute…determine…provide…” at lines 7-22 of the claim. This appears to include typographical errors and should perhaps read -…receiving…receiving…executing…determining…providing- instead.
Claims 2-10 are objected to via dependence from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Previous Action’s § 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments unless reproduced herein.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 3, the claim refers to:
…provid[ing] a notification to the application instance recommending user implementation of the selection of fixes.
There is insufficient support in the originally filed specification for these features. Paragraph [0009] appears to be the most relevant but that paragraph only refers to a “scheduled scan set by the application development system.” This is not the same as what is claimed. No other passage of the originally filed specification describes what is claimed either.
As to claims 4-10, the claims are dependent on claim 3 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 13, it includes the same new matter as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 14-15, the claims are dependent on claim 3 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Previous Action’s § 101 rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11-12, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra et al. (US 2003/0177417) (art of record – hereinafter Malhotra) in view of Miller (US 6,742,141) (art of record – hereinafter Miller).
As to claim 1, Malhotra discloses an application optimizer service system, (e.g., Malhotra, par. [0016]: computer system 106 may comprises a server system) comprising:
one or more processors; (see above, a computer necessarily comprises a processor) and
a memory having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement an application optimizer process to improve performance of an application instance, (e.g., Malhotra, par. [0017], server system 106 comprises analysis software 120 [instructions stored in memory]; par. [0013]: a system and method for remote performance analysis and optimization of computer systems; par. [0028]: proper documentation and remedy is identified so that user 102 can improve application performance of SUT 128), wherein the application instance is executed in a customer domain (e.g., Malhotra, par. [0033]: the SUT 128 comprises a software application to be probed and analyzed; par. [0034]: client system 104 [customer domain, or part of one] comprises SUT 128) the application optimizer process including:
receive a request to run an optimizer service on the application instance; (e.g., Malhotra, par. [0035]: user 102 is presented with another browser form, an initial page, that user 102 fills in a user input with information describing symptoms of the SUT)
execute, by an optimizer agent of the application instance executing in the customer domain, the scans on the application instance in response to the request; (e.g., Malhotra, par., [0036]: analyzer 120 of server system 106 receives the user input and makes a decision as to what performance tests need to be carried out on the SUT. All collected information may include the user input and data output of selected probes based on the user input; par. [0029]: probe(s) 130 are software programs that measure specific performance statistics of the SUT 128; par. [0040]: Agent 132 [optimizer agent of the application instance] executes the selected probe(s) on SUT 128)
based on a result of the scans, determine a selection of fixes configured to improve the performance of the application instance; (e.g., Malhotra, par. [0042]: once analyzer 120 is able to match the collected information, a corresponding diagnosis is generated; par. [0044]: once the corresponding diagnosis is generated in block 218, a list of remedies from the library of remedies may be proposed to user 102 at block 222; par. [0028]: proper documentation and remedy is identified so that user can improve their application performance of SUT 128)
Malotra does not explicitly disclose wherein the application optimizer service system is executed in a developer domain; to receive a plurality of checks from an application development system for the application instance, the plurality of checks including scans and fixes for configuration settings of the application instance; causing execution of at least one of the selection of fixes to modify one or more configuration settings of the application instance; or to provide analytics data corresponding to the user implementation of the selection of fixes to the application development system.
However, in an analogous art, Miller discloses:
wherein the application optimizer service system is executed in a developer domain and (e.g., Miller, col. 20 ll. 22-23: integration between the call center and the central facility [optimizer service system] is done [the call center and central facility together comprising a developer domain]) and
receive a plurality of checks from an application development system (e.g., Miller, col. 5 ll. 35-39: technicians [developers] at the call center [application development system] reproduce the problem and discover a solution for it. If they are successful, they add a new entry [check] to the master knowledge base that can diagnose and resolve the problem; col. 5 ll. 53-59: this facility gives technicians access to any information they need for successful diagnosis and resolution of the problem. Once they have been able to code and test database entry to diagnose and resolve the problem, they add it to the master knowledge base [so that base receives the entry (check)]) for the application instance, the plurality of checks including scans and fixes for configuration settings of the application instance; (e.g., Miller, col. 9 ll. 24-31: each entry has four parts [including] the symptom [scan], which contains executable code to determine whether the database entry actually applies, and the solution [fix], which contains executable code to resolve the issue; col. 4 ll. 48-51: other database entries address problems that are not errors by themselves but represent situations where the customer has made a mistake in configuring the system; Fig. 8B and associated text: col. 11 ll. 57-59: step 141 [of the symptom, see figure] checks to make sure that the electronic mail application being used is Microsoft Exchange [application instance]; col. 12 ll. 5-11: in the executable code for the solution, step 1149 finds the registry key [configuration setting] that must be updated on the client. Step 153 adds the required value) and
causing execution of at least one of the selection of fixes to modify one or more configuration settings of the application instance; (e.g., Miller, col. 4 ll. 8-10: if the symptom code indicates that the database entry applies, then the solution code for the entry is executed [and see above, the solution changes a registry key that configures Microsoft Exchange (application instance)])
provide analytics data corresponding to the user implementation of the selection of fixes to the application development system (e.g., Miller, col. 14 ll. 24-31: after executing the solution executable code, step 168 checks the return value. If it is FALSE, step 169 logs the solution failure. If TRUE, step 170 logs the solution use, which will be eventually incorporated at the central facility; col. 20 ll. 14-17: the entire log is available for review to create a new entry in the master knowledge database [which is performed by technicians at the call center (development system, see above)]; col. 5 ll. 29-37: customer site software selects all relevant information about the customer facility, as well as the information gathered while detecting the problem, and transfers this information to the call center [application development system])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application optimizer system of Malhotra by incorporating the application optimizer service system is executed in a developer domain receive a plurality of checks from an application development system for the application instance, the plurality of checks including scans and fixes for configuration settings of the application instance; causing execution of at least one of the selection of fixes to modify one or more configuration settings of the application instance; and provide analytics data corresponding to the user implementation of the selection of fixes to the application development system, as taught by Miller, as Miller would provide the advantage of a means of creating and adding new checks for the system, as well as a means of automatically addressing mistakenly configured application settings. (See Miller, col. 5 ll. 53-59, 4 ll. 48-51).
As to claim 2, Malhotra/Miller discloses the application optimizer service system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Malhotra further discloses: further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to provide a notification to the application instance recommending user implementation of the selection of fixes (e.g., Malhotra, ar. [0017]: server system comprises memory 110. Memory 110 stores a library of remedies; par. [0044]: remedies may include relevant resource suggestions such as tips; par. [0018]: remedies in column 2 include suggestions for monitoring or fixing memory leaks; par. [0029]: Probe(s) 130 and Agent 132, presenting remedy documentation to user 102; par. [0027]: components “(Probe(s) and Agent 132)” on the SUT 128).
As to claim 11, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 12, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 16, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth with respect to that claim below.
As to claim 18, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth with respect to that claim below.
As to claim 19, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth with respect to that claim below.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra (US 2003/0177417) in view of Miller (US 6,742,141) in further view of Vora et al. (US 2017/0060629) (art made of record – hereinafter Vora).
As to claim 3, Maholtra/Miller discloses the application optimizer service system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses the request to run the optimizer service, the application development system and the application optimizer service system (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the request to run the optimizer service is generated based on a schedule transmitted from the application development system to the application optimizer service system .
However, in an analogous art, Vora discloses:
wherein the request is generated based on a schedule transmitted from the system to the system (e.g., Vora, par. [0064]: a server computer device [system] may provide schedules to gateway device 290 [system]; par. [0068]: the gateway device forwards schedules associated with devices to those devices; par. [0018]: the remote device may parse the schedule to generate for a command for a device operation at a specified time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request to run the optimizer service, application development system and optimizer service system taught by Malhotra/Maloney, such that the request is generated based on a schedule from the system to the service system as taught by Vora, as Vora would provide the advantage of a means of for a user of the developer system to schedule the requests on a device managed by the optimizer service system. (See Vora, pars. [0031], [0066]).
As to claim 13, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 4-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra (US 2003/0177417) in view of Miller (US 6,742,141) in view of Vora (US 2017/0060629) in further view of Maloney et al. (US 2023/0161604) (art of record – hereinafter Maloney).
As to claim 4, Malhotra/Miller/Vora discloses the application optimizer service system of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), but Malhotra does not explicitly disclose further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to perform the scheduled scan on a plurality of customer application instances including the application instance; and determine separate selections of fixes for each of the plurality of customer application instances.
However, in an analogous art, Maloney further discloses further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to
perform the scheduled scan on a plurality of customer application instances including the application instance (e.g., Maloney, par, [0006]: scheduling period health checks of computers par. [0037]: a schedule can be defined to execute the configuration tool such that computers are inspected to verify compliance with a configuration file; par. [0083]: the configuration file may specify settings to customization of applications and software installed on computers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application development system in the developer domain and running of the optimizer service based on a request of Malhotra to include performing a scheduled scan on a plurality of customer application instances including the application instance, as taught by Maloney, as Maloney would provide the advantage of a means of ensuring the application is consistently configured in a desired state. (See Maloney, par. [0039]).
Further in an analogous art, Miller discloses
determine separate selections of fixes for each of the plurality of customer application instances (e.g., Miller, Fig. 9C and associated text, col. 12 ll. 1-5: if the tests succeeded, then step 148 returns TRUE, indicating that the database does apply and that the solution should be executed; col 3 l. 65- col. 4 l. 2: applications 60 include an electronic mail application, web browsing applications and other business applications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination of fixes for software of Malhotra to include selections of fixes for each of a plurality of customer application instances, as taught by Miller, as Miller would provide the advantage of a means of ensuring stability of multiple interacting applications on the of the customer. (See Miller, abstract).
As to claim 5, Malhotra/Miller/Vora/Maloney discloses the application optimizer service system of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), but does not explicitly disclose further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to: generate the analytics data based on user implementations of the separate selections of fixes from the plurality of customer application instances.
However, in an analogous art, Miller discloses:
further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors (e.g., Miller, col. 21 ll. 35-55) to:
generate the analytics data based on user implementations of the separate selections of fixes from the plurality of customer application instances (e.g., Miller, Fig. 9C and associated text, col. 12 ll. 1-5: if the tests succeeded, then step 148 returns TRUE, indicating that the database entry does apply and that the solution should be executed; col 3 l. 65- col. 4 l. 2: applications 60 include an electronic mail application, web browsing applications and other business applications; col. 14 ll. 24-31: after executing the solution executable code, step 168 checks the return value. If it is FALSE, step 169 logs the solution failure. If TRUE, step 170 logs the solution use, which will be eventually incorporated at the central facility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination of fixes for software of Malhotra to include generating analytics data based on user implementations of the separate selections of fixes from the plurality of customer application instances, as taught by Miller, as Miller would provide the advantage of a means of tracking how often the fixes are actually used. (See Miller, col. 14 ll. 24-31).
As to claim 6, Malhotra/Miller/Vora/Mahoney discloses the application optimizer service system of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Malhotra further discloses
further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors (e.g., Malhotra pars. [0015-0016]) to:
maintain a database of the plurality of checks (e.g., Malhotra, par. [0017]: memory stores a library of descriptions, a corresponding library of diagnoses 114, a corresponding library of remedies 116).
Malhotra does not explicitly disclose to provide an API (application programming interface) to the application development system enabling modification of the plurality of checks.
However, in an analogous art, Miller discloses:
to provide an API (application programming interface) to the application development system enabling modification of the plurality of checks (e.g., Miller, col. 20 ll. 37-40: modifying entries in the master knowledge database; col. 15 ll. 34-36: the master knowledge base 265 is accessed thought a database programming interface 264).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the database of checks of Malhotra to include an API (application programming interface) to the application development system enabling modification of the plurality of checks as taught by Miller, as Miller would a means for the developer at the development system to modify the checks. (See Miller, col. 20 ll. 37-40).
As to claim 7, Malhotra/Miller/Vora/Maloney discloses the application optimizer service system of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the fixes include instructions to manually adjust the configuration settings to improve performance.
However, in an analogous art, Miller discloses:
wherein the fixes include instructions to manually adjust the configuration settings to improve performance (e.g., Miller, col. 3 ll. 20-25: manual intervention may be employed to complete the diagnosis or solution; col. 12 ll. 5-11: in the executable code for the solution, step 1149 finds the registry key [configuration setting] that must be updated on the client. Step 153 adds the required value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the database of fixes of Malhotra such that the fixes include instructions to manually adjust the configuration settings to improve performance, as taught by Miller, as Miller would a means to implement fixes that cannot be completely automated. (See Miller, col. 3 ll. 20-30)
As to claim 8, Malhotra/Miller/Vora/Maloney discloses the application optimizer service system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), but Malhotra does not explicitly disclose wherein the fixes include instructions executable by the customer domain to automatically adjust the configuration settings in response to a button selection by a user.
However, in an analogous art, Miller discloses:
wherein the fixes include instructions executable by the customer domain to automatically adjust the configuration settings in response to a button selection by a user (e.g., Miller, col. 15 ll. 7-8: a menu appears where the customer can click on a menu item 240 to initiate a diagnosis; col. 13 ll. 40-42: executing code for the symptom and solution parts to automatically diagnose and resolve problems; col. 12 ll. 3-7: step 148 returns a TRUE value, indicating that the database entry does apply and that the solution should be executed. In the executable code for the solution, step 149 finds the registry key that must be updated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixes of Malhotra such that the fixes include instructions executable by the customer domain to automatically adjust the configuration settings in response to a button selection by a user, as taught by Miller, as Miller would provide the advantage of a means to facilitate fixing via a graphical user interface. (See Miller, Fig. 12A and associated text).
As to claim 14, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 15, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra (US 2003/0177417) in view of Miller (US 6,742,141) in view of Vora (US 2017/0060629) in view of Maloney (US 2023/0161604) in further view of Wu et al. (US 2005/0091003) (art of record – hereinafter Wu).
As to claim 9, Malhotra/Miller/Vora/Maloney discloses the application optimizer service system of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), but does not explicitly disclose further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to: determine the selection of fixes to include a subset less than all of the fixes identified by the scans that could improve the performance of the application instance.
However, in an analogous art, Wu discloses further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors (e.g., Fig. 14 and associated text) to:
determine the selection of fixes to include a subset less than all of the fixes identified by the scans that could improve the performance of the application instance (e.g., Wu, par. [0004]: a poorly-configured system may not function as well as intended; Fig. 10A and associated text, par. [0078]: identifiers 119B and 119a are the most critical failed checks. The user may select either of the displayed identifiers and initiate fixes associated with the failed checks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination of fixes of Malhotra to include determining a selection of fixes to include a subset less than all of the fixes identified by the scans that could improve the performance of the application instance, as taught by Wu, as Wu would provide the advantage of means of addressing only critical issues or a means for a user to only implement the fixes that he or she desires. (See Wu, par. [0078]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra (US 2003/0177417) in view of Miller (US 6,742,141) in view Vora (US 2017/0060629) in view of Maloney (US 2023/0161604) in view of Wu (US 2005/0091003) in further view of Vergnes et al. (US 11,416,285) (art of record – hereinafter Vergnes).
As to claim 10, Malhotra/Miller/Vora/Maloney/Wu discloses the application optimizer service system of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), Malhotra further discloses:
wherein executing the scans on the application instance includes
to:
retrieve the scans from the database; (e.g., Malhotra, par. [0030]: agent downloads probe(s) 130)
run the scans on the application instance; (e.g., Malhotra, par. [0030]: agent executes selected probe(s) 140; par. [0029]: probes measure specific performance statistics on the SUT 128 [application instance])
receive the result of the scans from the application instance; (e.g., Malhotra, par. [0030]: agent 132 filters output statistics returned by probe(s) 130) and
provide the result of the scans to the application optimizer service system (e.g., Malhotra, par [0030]: agent 132 is also responsible for transferring statistics data to server system 106).
Malhotra does not explicitly disclose creating a job control adj pod for performing the above steps.
However, in an analogous art, Vergnes discloses:
creating a job control pod for performing steps (e.g., Vergnes col. 12 ll. 11-43: a pod generally refers to a separately deployable unit of compute resources. A pod may contain a single container. A pod can perform “(e.g., via a container(s))”, the operation or execution of a task process, or workload. A container may refer to an application that includes all its own dependencies, so that it can run separately and reliably in various computing environments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scan process steps of Malhotra to include creating a pod to perform them, as taught by Vergnes, as Vergnes would provide the advantage of a means of running the process steps separately and reliably in various computing environments. (See Vergnes, col. 12 ll. 11-43).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra (US 2003/0177417) in view of Miller (US 6,742,141) in further view of Vergnes (US 11,416,285).
As to claim 17, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 10. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra (US 2003/0177417) in view of Miller (US 6,742,141) in further view of Wu (US 2005/0091003).
As to claim 20, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
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 TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights