CTNF 18/680,310 CTNF 75006 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 action is in response to the claimed listing filed on 06/04/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 3, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17 , objected to because of the following informalities: The Claims recite “service/container set”. This limitation requires addressing the relation of “/” in terms of a word. The limitations in the Claims would be interpreted as “service set” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim encompasses signal per se. Claim 20 recites: “A non-transient computer readable medium”. In the specification, [0006], it addresses “the computer program product being tangibly stored on a non-transient computer readable medium”. In [0060] : “Computer-readable storage medium used herein is not to be interpreted as transient signals per se”. For having a computer-readable medium falls in the statute, the medium should be in the type: “non-transitory." Non-transient and Non-transitory are two different types of a computer-readable medium. Non-transient has its meaning of not temporary; it does not have the medium in this type to exclude signal. Therefore, Claim 20 recites “A non-transient computer readable medium” interpreted in light of the specification encompasses signal per se, and fails to be eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. The claim should recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-5, 8, 11-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Zain Asgar, “Debugging with eBPF Part 2: Tracing full body HTTP request/responses”, 2020, Pixie Team Blogs, https://blog.px.dev/pixie-team-blogs , 11 pages. As per Claim 1 : Asgar discloses, 1. A method for determining a trace result, comprising: receiving a trace request for tracing a service on a storage device; (p. 1-2: last portion in p.1 and top 2 lines in p. 2: “ Kprobes provide a mechanism to trace the Kernel API or internals and uprobes provide a mechanism to intercept specific instructions in a user program . Since applications typically sit on top of the Kernel system API, if we capture the Kernel interface we should be able to capture all the ingress and egress data and reconstruct the HTTP requests . ”, In p. 2 under “What happens during an HTTP request?”, e.g. “simple HTTP request” and Figure in p. 4 “Linux Kernal”. ) determining a trace service command related to the trace request; (See the command such as ‘perf’ in p.2, e.g. “ We can use the Linux perf command to understand what system calls are invoked: sudo perf trace -p <PID> ” See ‘curl’ and or ‘bt’ in p.6, etc., “ When we run the curl command again the program should interrupt . We get the backtrace using bt :” [ Examiner note: in Linux, Commands used in trace also called ‘Tools”: Perf command is a tool used for monitoring the Linux kernel performance ]) tracing a job related to the trace service command; and (See in p. 3, the box shows spew of data by running ‘perf’. See in p. 6 after using ‘curl’ command to interrupt, using ‘bt’ shown in the second box. In p. 7: in table with uprobe, first bold dot, “ We can access and capture application context, such as stack trace, in addition to the request itself . ”) generating a trace result by parsing job data related to the job. (in p. 7, in table, with uprobe, see second bold dot, “ We can build the uprobes to capture the data after parsing is complete,… ”) As per Claim 2 : Regarding, 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein before determining the trace service command, the method further comprises: determining a category of the trace service command based on the trace request, wherein determining the trace service command related to the trace request comprises: determining the trace service command related to the trace request based on the category. (See in p.3 “ Examining the output of the perf call shows us that there are 3 relevant system calls: accept4 , write , close . Tracing these system calls should allow us to capture all of the data the server is sending out in response to a request .”: in this reference, p.2 , “ We can use the Linux perf command to understand what system calls are invoked :”) As per Claim 3 : Regarding, 3. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: monitoring a service/container set on the storage device. (P. 9, para. in “Benchmarking performance of uprobes vs. kprobes”: ‘ Since these probes will be used to monitor applications in production ’. And See the box in p. 3: “sudo perf trace -p 1011089” and “ app/1011089” read on a service/container set on the storage device) As per Claim 4 : Regarding, 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein tracing the job related to the trace service command comprises: tracing at least one of the following jobs related to the trace service command: generating, deploying, monitoring, or destroying. (P. 9, para in “Benchmarking performance of uprobes vs. kprobes”: ‘ Since these probes will be used to monitor applications in production, we want them to have minimal overhead. On a fully loaded system, we want to understand the impact of deploying our tracers .. ’) As per Claim 5 : Regarding, 5. The method according to claim 1, wherein tracing the job related to the trace service command comprises: creating a job template and a program container related to the job; and tracing the job by utilizing the job template and the program container. (See the box in p. 3 that shows a spew of data) As per Claim 8 : Regarding, 8. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: collecting service/container set information on the storage device; and (Box in p. 3, and the “write” as tracing with Kprobes) creating a first mapping table between the service and the container set based on the service/container set information. P. 4: Referred to ‘file descriptor’ and BPF_MAP mentioned in ‘accept4’ and ‘close’) As per Claim 11 : Regarding, 11. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: retrieving the job data from the job node storing the job data; and (See in p. 2, trace command: “sudo perf trace -p <PID> See in box in p.3 “sudo perf trace -p 1011089”, “1011089” read on job node ) parsing the job data retrieved from the job node. ((in p. 7, in table, with uprobe, see second bold dot, “ We can build the uprobes to capture the data after parsing is complete,… ”) (Examiner Node: <PID> is well-understood as “process ID”) As per Claim 12 : Regarding, 12. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: generating a histogram based on the trace result . (In the box in p. 3) As per Claims 13-14, 18-19 : Claims are directed to an electronic device that recites the limitations corresponding to limitations in the method of claims 1, 8, 11-12. Claims 13-14, 18-19 are rejected with the rationales provided in the claims 1, 8, 11-12 above. As per Claim 20 : Claim is directed to a non-transient computer readable medium having the limitations corresponding to limitations in the method of claim 1. Claim 20 is rejected with the rationales provided in the claim 1 above . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 6-7, 9-10, 15-17 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ted T Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-3706. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm ET. 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 Y 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 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. TTV June 13, 2026 /Ted T. Vo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/680,310 Page 2 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/680,310 Page 3 Art Unit: 2191
Prosecution Insights