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 office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed 11/25/2025, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1, 4-14, and 17-22 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following issues.
(A) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Issue 1: The applicant argues with respect to independent claims such as claim 1 that the amended limitations overcome the current rejection.
This argument is moot in light of the new ground of rejections set forth below. It is to be noted that the claimed limitation merely requires a correspondence between the misbehavior and a restart of the application component, without requiring that the misbehavior is a restarting misbehavior.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1, 7, 12-14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries et al (US 20190193946), in view of Kalisch et al (US 2017/0337111).
As to claim 1, DeVries discloses a method for adapting telemetry settings in a cloud
computing environment, the method being carried out by a telemetry controller within the
cloud computing environment and the method comprising:
receiving information on at least one misbehavior of an application component ([0086], “the cloud based computing system 105, or another external device such as a computer, may temporarily increase the sampling rate of a particular sensor module 112, 122, 132, 142 in order to confirm a fault condition exists”, wherein confirming a fault condition exists indicates having received information on the fault);
determining, based on the received information, whether to modify a sampling frequency of telemetry data for the application component, the determining comprising determining whether a frequency of misbehavior of the application component is above a predefined threshold value ([0086], “the cloud based computing system 105, or another external device such as a computer, may temporarily increase the sampling rate of a particular sensor module 112, 122, 132, 142 in order to confirm a fault condition exists”, wherein the threshold is 0, and wherein the frequency of the fault is 1 during this collection period); and
if it is determined to modify the sampling frequency of telemetry data for the application
component, initiating modification of the sampling frequency to a modified value ([0086], “the cloud based computing system 105, or another external device such as a computer, may temporarily increase the sampling rate of a particular sensor module 112, 122, 132, 142 in order to confirm a fault condition exists”).
However, DeVries does not express disclose that the misbehavior of the application component corresponds to a restart of the application component. Kalisch discloses a concept for a misbehavior of an application component to correspond to a restart of the application component ([0031]. It is to be noted that the claimed limitation merely requires a correspondence between the misbehavior and a restart of the application component, without requiring that the misbehavior is a restarting misbehavior).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Devries with Kalisch. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to allow the big data platform to remedy the component fault (Kalisch, [0031]).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 1, and DeVries also discloses receiving, by a telemetry subsystem of the cloud computing environment, the telemetry data of the application component, retrieved with the modified sampling frequency; and making available, by the telemetry subsystem, the telemetry data via a telemetry interface (Figure 8).
As to claim 13, DeVries discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
accessing, by an external client, the telemetry data via the telemetry interface (Figure 8); and determining whether the application component has suffered repeated failures ([0125], “The communications may also include maintenance information, such as the amount of faults identified by the sensor modules and/or the number of ancillary devices to be repaired or replaced.”).
As to claim 7, DeVries discloses the method of any of claim 1, further comprising:
after a predefined amount of time after initiating the modification of the sampling frequency, initiating a modification of the sampling frequency back to a previous value (([0086], “the cloud based computing system 105, or another external device such as a computer, may temporarily increase the sampling rate of a particular sensor module 112, 122, 132, 142 in order to confirm a fault condition exists”, wherein confirming a fault condition exists indicates having received information on the fault).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 7.
7. Claims 4, 17, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries-Kalisch, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Batla (US 2016/0099849).
As to claim 4, DeVries-Kalisch discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the information on at least one misbehavior is received from a control plane of the cloud computing environment. Batla discloses a concept of monitoring and reporting application status information from a control place of a cloud computing environment ([0023]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine DeVries-Kalisch with Batla. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to allow the big data platform to dynamically configure the reporting function of different sets of client applications in real-time (Batla, [0023]).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 11, DeVries-Kalisch-Batla discloses the method of any of claim 1, wherein the telemetry controller uses at least one of the following interfaces:
an interface for the receiving of the information on at least one misbehavior of the application component from a control plane of the cloud computing environment (see similar rejection to claim 4);
an interface for the initiating of the modification of the sampling frequency of telemetry data for the application component;
an interface for storage and retrieval of saved information of restarts and/or configuration of at least one application component; and
an interface for configuration of key parameters used by the telemetry controller
8. Claims 5-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries-Kalisch, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of HOTHHAM (US 2022/0350617).
As to claim 5, DeVries-Kalisch discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the cloud computing environment comprises a Kubernetes cluster. HOTHHAM discloses a concept for a cloud computing environment to comprise a Kubernetes cluster ([0001]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine DeVries-Kalisch with HOTHHAM. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide application deployment, scaling, and management (HOTHHAM, [0001]).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, DeVries-Kalisch-HOTHHAM discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the step of initiating modification of the sampling frequency of telemetry data for the application component comprises initiating an adaption of a value stored in a Kubernetes ConfigMap object assigned to the application component (HOTHHAM, [0001]).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim .6
9. Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries-Kalisch, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Caffrey et al (US 2010/0174947).
As to claim 8, DeVries-Kalisch discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the predefined threshold value is derived from a configuration object. Caffrey discloses a concept of derive a predefined threshold value from a configuration object ([0028]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine DeVries-Kalisch with Caffrey. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to compare failure rates to stored thresholds (Caffrey, [0028]).
As to claim 21, see similar rejection to claim 8.
10. Claims 9-10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries-Kalisch-Caffrey, as applied to claim 8, and further in view of HOTHHAM (US 2022/0350617).
As to claim 9, DeVries-Kalisch-Caffrey discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 8, but does not expressly disclose wherein the configuration object further comprises at least one of:
a time value indicating a periodicity of wakeup events of a telemetry control process;
a restart threshold indicating a threshold value for a number of times the application component may restart within a predefined time window without initiating modification of the sampling frequency;
a value indicating a duration of the time window;
a value indicating a predefined amount of time after initiating the modification of the
sampling frequency before initiating a modification of the sampling frequency back to a previous
value;
the modified value of the sampling frequency; and
a value indicating a level of logging.
HOTHHAM discloses a concept of using a configuration object to store updated configuration information ([0001], “To make a change to the configuration, the ConfigMap may be updated”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine DeVries-Kalisch-Caffrey with HOTHHAM. The result of the combination would have been for the updated configuration/setting (such as modified sampling frequency) of DeVries to be stored in the ConfigMap as disclosed by HOTHHAM. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide application deployment, scaling, and management (HOTHHAM, [0001]).
As to claim 22, see similar rejection to claim 9.
As to claim 10, DeVries-Kalisch-Caffrey-HOTHHAM discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the configuration object is a Kubernetes ConfigMap object (HOTHHAM, [0001]).
Conclusion
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458