DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having application No. 18/792,047 filed on August 1, 2024, presents claims 1-20 for examination. The case does not have priority data.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, the “each of the targets” in line 10 is not clear whether it is the same as the one in line 9, if they are not the same, “the each of the targets” recited in dependent claims 3 and 6 is not clear which “each of the targets” it refers to.
Claims 8 and 14 have the same issue as claim 1, and are objected to for the same reason.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are objected to for the same reason because of their dependencies from their respective independent claim 1, 8, or 15.
Claim 7, Line 3, - a list of software programs installed on a target-.
Claims 14 and 20 have the same issue, and are objected to for the same reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20140053073 A1, hereinafter “Guo”) in view of Stead et al. (US 20250291652 A1, hereinafter “Stead”).
With respect to claim 1, Guo discloses A method comprising:
receiving a set of targets distributed in the distributed computing environment (e.g. para [0031], “… At 204, the console connects to the script execution server, which optionally queries the service request system (ticketing system), passing in the ticket ID and returning the account ID, user role(s), and target endpoints with platform type. …”);
translating the one or more commands to a set of target commands, wherein each target command is associated with at least one target of the set of targets (e.g. para [0034], “At 218, the command may be translated to platform-specific command of the selected one or more managed computers, so that the command (or a compatible form of the command) can be executed on the selected one or more managed computers. …”);
transmitting a request to execute a script associated with each of the target commands to each of the targets (e.g. para [0034], “… At 220, the command is sent to the selected one or more managed computers, and the logic of the method proceeds to 232. In one embodiment of the present disclosure, commands are assumed to exist on each target server, e.g., as built into the operating system or native shell. "Sending" the command here sends the name of the command (possibly including parameters) to the agent on the target computer, and instructing the agent to execute the command. …”);
executing the script on each of the targets thereby generating a plurality of results corresponding to each of the target commands and each of the targets (e.g. para [0034], “… For example, the command is sent to the script/command execution agent on each endpoint, and executed.”); and
storing the plurality of results in a format for display in a user interface (e.g. para [0037], “… At 234, any platform-dependent translation of results may be performed by a translation engine or the like. At 236, the results are presented to the user, e.g., in the script/command execution console in an aggregated display.”).
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose
receiving one or more commands from a predefined list of commands from one or more devices in a distributed computing environment;
However, this is taught in analogous art, Stead (e.g. Fig. 2, step 202, para [0029], “In an operation 202, the enterprise management system 101 receives a command from the personal computing device 102a via the user interface. For example, the administrator may interact with enterprise management system 101 via the user interface by providing one or more commands. The commands may include a command to backup or restore one or more databases within the processing system 100, push or deploy files to one or more remote servers 103a-c, update databases within the processing system 100 (e.g., add or remove columns or rows), deploy or enact database schema changes, and so on. …”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Guo with the invention of Stead because it provides techniques for improving the efficiency, reliability, and convenience of managing the independent platforms (e.g., independent database systems) and thereby all of the computing systems of the enterprise. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for improving the efficiency, reliability, and convenience of managing the independent platforms (e.g., independent database systems) and thereby all of the computing systems of the enterprise as suggested by Stead (see para [0018]).
With respect to claim 2, Guo discloses wherein the set of targets comprises:
a first target having a first operating system (e.g. para [0039], “… For instance, a user may enter `uptime` Linux.TM. operating system command as shown at 402. …”);
a second target having a second operating system that is different from the first operating system (e.g. para [0039], “… For instance, a user may enter `uptime` Linux.TM. operating system command as shown at 402. The user selects Linux.TM. and Windows.TM. target servers from 404. At 406, the servers or computers running those platforms are presented.. …” wherein Windows reads on the second OS); and
wherein the script associated with each of the target commands comprises a first script operable to execute the target command on the first target and a second script operable to execute the target command on the second target system (e.g. para [0039], “… he methodology of the present disclosure in one embodiment may automatically translate the `uptime` command into an equivalent function in Windows.TM. operating system, e.g., `net stats srv`. According to the methodology of the present disclosure, `uptime` command is executed on Linux and `net stats srv` command is executed on Windows.TM. servers”).
With respect to claim 6, Guo discloses wherein execution of the script on each of the targets occurs simultaneously (e.g. para [0039], “… The methodology of the present disclosure in one embodiment may automatically translate the `uptime` command into an equivalent function in Windows.TM. operating system, e.g., `net stats srv`. According to the methodology of the present disclosure, `uptime` command is executed on Linux and `net stats srv` command is executed on Windows.TM. servers.” One of ordinary skill in the art understands that the two targets Linux and Windows may execute the script simultaneously).
With respect to claim 8, it is directed to a system to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 8. Note that, Guo teaches A system for executing commands in a distributed computing environment, the system comprising:
one or more processors;
a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (e.g. Fig. 1, and corresponding text in para [0022-0030]).
With respect to claim 9, it recites same features as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 13, it recites same features as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 15, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 15. Note that, Guo teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying program code that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (e.g. Fig. 1, and corresponding text in para [0022-0030]).
With respect to claim 16, it recites same features as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 19, it recites same features as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Stead as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, in further view of TANAKA et al. (EP 3805928 A1, hereinafter “TANAKA”, please refer to attached NPL copy), Arora (US 20160196173 A1, hereinafter “Arora”) and HUSSAIN et al. (US 20230236944 A1, hereinafter “HUSSAIN”).
With respect to claim 3, Guo as modified by Stead discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising:
transmitting a timestamp to the set of target commands executed on the each of the targets;
receiving an indication of a failure at one or more of the targets during execution of the script;
generating, in response to receiving an indication of the failure, an alert of the failure for display on the user interface;
modifying, in response to receiving the alert, the script associated with the target command thereby generating a modified script;
transmitting a second request to one or more of the targets to execute the modified script; and
executing the modified script on the one or more targets.
However, in analogous art, TANAKA discloses
transmitting a timestamp to the set of target commands executed on the each of the targets (e.g. p5 third paragraph, “For example, the log is constituted with information on requests and responses that includes a vehicle ID; a timestamp (date and information); information on a connection source (a subsystem constituting the vehicle 20); information on an external connection destination (an external such as the car company's official 30a or the service providing 30b, a device to be connected by short-distance wireless , or a device physically connected through the USB or the like); and an execution command. …” where the vehicle 20 reads on the target);
receiving an indication of a failure at one or more of the targets during execution of the script (e.g. p7 second paragraph, “If it is determined that there is a likelihood of a failure (i.e., if the event that has occurred in the target vehicle 20 is classified as a failure) (YES at Step S104), the analysis unit 12 stores a determination result of the failure (hereafter, referred to as the "failure determination result") in the failure determination DB 122 at Step S105. The failure determination result includes the vehicle ID of the target vehicle 20, a timestamp indicating the current time, the group of logs, and the like.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of TANAKA because it provides techniques for detecting events occurring across multiple devices. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for detecting events occurring across multiple devices as suggested by TANAKA (see Summary of Invention).
Guo as modified by Stead and TANAKA does not appear to explicitly disclose
generating, in response to receiving an indication of the failure, an alert of the failure for display on the user interface;
modifying, in response to receiving the alert, the script associated with the target command thereby generating a modified script;
transmitting a second request to one or more of the targets to execute the modified script; and
executing the modified script on the one or more targets.
However, in analogous art, Arora discloses
generating, in response to receiving an indication of the failure, an alert of the failure for display on the user interface (e.g. para [0047], “At block 22 a visual indicator is generated based on determining whether the error was corrected in the preconfigured time period. Upon generating the visual indicator, the process may communicate the visual indicator as explained in block 24.” Para [0016], “In other embodiments, the visual indicator is a dynamic report comprising an interactive user control. The present invention is further configured to update the report based on a user interacting with the interactive user control, and updating the visual indicator based on receiving the request.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Arora because it provides techniques for generating electronic visual indicators based on receiving incident reports relating to a reduction in capacity of a machine to perform a function and minimizing the effects of machines that perform lower than normal operating conditions or become inoperable. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for generating electronic visual indicators based on receiving incident reports relating to a reduction in capacity of a machine to perform a function and minimizing the effects of machines that perform lower than normal operating conditions or become inoperable as suggested by Arora (see para [0004-0006]).
Guo as modified by Stead, TANAKA and Arora does not appear to explicitly disclose
modifying, in response to receiving the alert, the script associated with the target command thereby generating a modified script;
transmitting a second request to one or more of the targets to execute the modified script; and
executing the modified script on the one or more targets.
However, in analogous art, HUSSAIN discloses
modifying, in response to receiving the alert, the script associated with the target command thereby generating a modified script (e.g. Fig. 7, steps 702-708, para [0054], “At 708, error handling system 102 generates updated computer code. …”);
transmitting a second request to one or more of the targets to execute the modified script (e.g. para [0054], “… At 710, error handling system 102 provides the updated
computer code to a client device. Error handling system 102 may provide the updated
computer code (e.g., using network interface 640) to, for example, one or more of computing devices 108a-108n. …”); and
executing the modified script on the one or more targets (e.g. para [0054] as cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that providing updated code to the devices is for the devices to execute the code).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of HUSSAIN because it provides techniques for recommending solutions to execution errors of software packages which are extremely difficult to find solutions for. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for recommending solutions to execution errors of software packages which are extremely difficult to find solutions for as suggested by HUSSAIN (see para [0001-0002]).
With respect to claim 4, Guo as modified by Stead, TANAKA, Arora and HUSSAIN discloses The method of claim 3, Arora further discloses wherein the failure is detected when a time for executing the script exceeds a predefined threshold as compared to the timestamp (e.g. para [0046], “After receiving the second report at block 16, an amount of time between receiving the first report and receiving the second report is determined, as shown in block 18. Based on such, the amount of time between receiving the first report and receiving the second report is compared with the time period for correcting the transaction processing error as shown in block 20.” Wherein the time for receiving the first report corresponding to the timestamp that was transmitted along with the command for executing the task, comparing the amount of time between receiving the first report and receiving the second report with the time period for correcting the transaction processing error reads on the claim feature, and renders the claim feature obvious. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 3).
With respect to claim 10, it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 11, it recites same features as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 17, it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Stead as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, in further view of Shipper et al. (US 20180011678 A1, hereinafter “Shipper”).
With respect to claim 5, Guo as modified by Stead discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the format for display comprises a table comprising a plurality of rows and each row displays one of the results of the plurality of results and wherein each row corresponds to a particular target. However, this is taught in analogous art, Shipper (e.g. para [0098], “… Some customer applications can use a table structure to identify and display error messages. For example, the customer application UI definition might display multiple error messages using multiple table rows with one error message UI element per table row. …” one of ordinary skill in the art understands and can make a similar table with the target in place of a UI element, thus this teaching renders the claim feature obvious.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Shipper because it provides techniques for facilitating information sharing with tables. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for facilitating information sharing with tables as suggested by Shipper (see Abstract and para [0098]).
With respect to claim 12, it recites same features as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 18, it recites same features as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Stead as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, in further view of TANAKA et al. (EP 3805928 A1, hereinafter “TANAKA”, please refer to attached NPL copy).
With respect to claim 7, Guo as modified by Stead discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of results comprises at least one of a determination of a software version implemented on a target, a list of processes running on a target, a list software programs installed on a target, a determination of a top consuming computing resource on a target, a memory capacity of a target, a list of program data located in a folder of a target, and a determination of whether a particular configuration file is used across the set of targets. However, this is taught in analogous art, TANAKA (e.g. p5 fifth paragraph, “Note that the system log and the application log include, for example, information on the vehicle ID, timestamps, processes of the OS and applications constituting the information subsystem 220 in the vehicle 20; information on actions (operations on objects such as creation, deletion, and modification);information on objects (files, communications, and (child) processes); and the like. …” wherein “processes of the OS and applications constituting the information subsystem 220 in the vehicle 20” reads on a list of processes running on a target or a list of software programs installed on a target.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of TANAKA because it provides techniques for detecting events occurring across multiple devices. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for detecting events occurring across multiple devices as suggested by TANAKA (see Summary of Invention).
With respect to claim 14, it recites same features as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 20, it recites same features as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Ivanov et al., US 20190187968 A1 teaches distribution and execution of instructions in a distributed computing environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights