E 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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination in this application. The application filing date on 09/27/2024. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are independent.
Examiner notes
(A). Drawings submitted on 09/27/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(d),
(B). Limitations have been provided with the Bold fonts in order to distinguish from the cited part of the reference (Italic).
(C). Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2141.02 VI and 2123.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 directed to a “computer program product, stored on a computer readable medium”. As indicated, The terms "computer-readable storage medium" refers to a non-transitory, physical or tangible storage medium (e.g., volatile or non-volatile memory), which may be differentiated from a "computer-readable transmission medium," which refers to an electromagnetic signal. Such a medium may take many forms, including, but not limited to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Specification paragraph 0049). Claim 20 recited "computer readable medium". However, Paragraph [0049] recited "computer-readable storage medium" might not be a signal but the claim doesn't refer to a computer readable storage medium, just a computer-readable medium.
In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner suggests amending the claims to “non-transitory computer-readable medium on which a computer program is stored” to overcome this rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. (US 2018/0367417 A1, hereinafter Dixit) in view of Villasante et al. (US 20220385543 A1, hereinafter Villasante) and Sun et al. (US 20250193246 A1, hereinafter Sun).
As to claim 1, Dixit discloses an apparatus (Fig. 8, item 800) comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 8, item 810), to cause the one or more processors to:
receive an interface definition data object that comprises a set of interface rules (Fig. 6B, item 650, par. 0192, “The end result is 18 flattened rules in the flat rules listing 650”, Further, par. 0054, “Contracts can include rules specifying what and how communications between EPGs take place.”, Further, par. 0062, “the term ‘Contract’ can refer to rules or configurations that specify what and how communications in a network are conducted (e.g., permitted, denied, filtered, processed, etc.). In an ACI network, contracts can specify how communications between endpoints and/or EPGs take place.”) associated with managing communications between components of a multi-component system of an application framework (par. 0041, … application groups or profiles, through a software-defined network (SDN) framework (e.g., Application-Centric Infrastructure (ACI) or VMWARE NSX). To illustrate, one or more administrators can define configurations at a logical level (e.g., application or software level) through Controllers 116, which can implement or propagate such configurations through Network Environment 100. In some examples, Controllers 116 can be Application Policy Infrastructure Controllers (APICs) in an ACI framework. In other examples, Controllers 116 can be one or more management components for associated with other SDN solutions, such as NSX Managers);
generate a server-based application associated with a particular type of programming format from a plurality of programming formats based at least in part on the set of interface rules associated with the interface definition data object (par. 0025, … a model generated based on configurations defined in one or more controllers or servers in a software-defined network (SDN), such as an APIC (application policy infrastructure controller) in an ACI (application-centric infrastructure) network. … . Further, par. 0164, … interface policies, application policies, endpoint groups, etc.), network policies (e.g., BDs, VRFs, L2Outs, L3Outs, protocol configurations, etc.), security policies (e.g., contracts, filters, etc.), service chaining policies, … c.), endpoint dynamics (e.g., EPM, COOP EP DB, etc.));
determine whether the utilization of the server-based application satisfies defined performance criteria for the server-based application (par. 0155, … perform assurance checks [i.e. determine] and analysis (e.g., security adherence checks, TCAM utilization analysis, etc.) based on Ci_Model 274, Hi_Model 276, and Li_Model 272. Policy Operator 318 can perform assurance checks on a switch-by-switch basis by comparing one or more of the models. The output of Policy Operator 318 can be passed [i.e. satisfies] to an event generator (not shown) that can generate warning events for external consumption, where the events correspond to security violations or utilization statistics (such as TCAM usage) that comprise a policy violation. …);
Dixit does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Villasante discloses initiate utilization of the server-based application via the multi-component system of the application framework (par. 0124, … application program 1025, and data 1027. In other embodiments, storage medium 1021 may include other similar types of information. Certain UEs may utilize all of the components shown in FIG. 10, or only a subset of the components. … );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include initiate utilization of the server-based application via the multi-component system of the application framework, as disclosed by Villasante, for the purpose of to provide better customer satisfaction and more efficient use of the network resources (see paragraph 0156 of Villasante).
Sun discloses in response to a determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, initiate one or more actions associated with the server-based application (par. 0010, … checks rule performance post conversion. Rules that fail performance checks can be updated accordingly and reevaluated until they pass performance checks, … the converted rules fail the performance evaluation, the conversion system can update the converted rules and/or notify a user of possible deficiencies for the rules such as patterns that are too long or short. This cycle occurs until the resulting converted rules pass the performance evaluation and/or user criteria for implementing rules, at which point the conversion system performs a coverage check of the converted rules prior to exporting them for implementation. The disclosed methodology for rule conversion [i.e. action] provides an automated pipeline for rule conversion that ensures high quality converted rules with both testing and updating in the case of performance failure. Further, par. 0046, … software (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.), or a combination of software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.” The functionality presented as individual modules/units in the example illustrations can be organized differently in accordance with any one of platform (operating system and/or hardware), application ecosystem, interfaces).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include in response to a determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, initiate one or more actions associated with the server-based application, as disclosed by Sun for the purpose of providing an automated pipeline for rule conversion that ensures high quality converted rules with both testing and updating in the case of performance failure. (see paragraph 0010 of Sun).
As to claim 11, Dixit discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are further operable, when executed by the one or more processor, to cause the one or more processor to:
determine a particular computer-executable task from a plurality of computable-executable tasks associated with the multi-component system of the application framework (par. 0030, network assurance by modeling various aspects of the network and/or performing consistency checks [i.e. determine] as well as other network assurance checks. The network assurance approaches herein can be implemented [i.e. task] in various types of networks, including a private network, such as a local area network (LAN); an enterprise network; a standalone or traditional network, such as a data center network; a network including a physical or underlay layer and a logical or overlay layer, such as a VXLAN or software-defined network (SDN) (e.g., Application Centric Infrastructure (ACI) or VMware NSX networks); etc. The approaches herein can also enable identification and visualization of hardware-level (e.g., network switch-level) errors along any software or application-centric dimension. In this manner, data center operators can quickly see hardware errors that impact particular tenants or other logical entities, across the entire network fabric);
determine whether the utilization of the server-based application satisfies the defined performance criteria based at least in part on the particular computer-executable task (par. 0155, … perform assurance checks [i.e. determine] and analysis (e.g., security adherence checks, TCAM utilization analysis, etc.) based on Ci_Model 274, Hi_Model 276, and Li_Model 272. Policy Operator 318 can perform assurance checks on a switch-by-switch basis by comparing one or more of the models. The output of Policy Operator 318 can be passed [i.e. satisfies] to an event generator (not shown) that can generate warning events for external consumption, where the events correspond to security violations or utilization statistics (such as TCAM usage) that comprise a policy violation. …).
Villasante discloses initiate the utilization of the server-based application via the multi-component system based at least in part on the particular computer-executable task (par. 0124, … application program 1025, and data 1027. In other embodiments, storage medium 1021 may include other similar types of information. Certain UEs may utilize all of the components shown in FIG. 10, or only a subset of the components. … );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include initiate the utilization of the server-based application via the multi-component system based at least in part on the particular computer-executable task, as disclosed by Villasante, for the purpose of to provide better customer satisfaction and more efficient use of the network resources (see paragraph 0156 of Villasante);
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. and Sun et al. as applied in the claim 1 above and further in view of Talby et al. (US 8949772 B1, hereinafter Talby).
As to claim 2, Dixit as modified by Villasante and Sun does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Talby discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are further operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to:
modify one or more portions of the server-based application in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application (col. 2, ll. 35-37, interact with the software system [i.e. server] created by the development system 100. Further, col. 6, ll. 11-24, At 220, a determination is made as to whether the models produce an acceptable workflow result. If the modeled workflow is acceptable at 220, the models can be written to the model repository at 225. If the workflow is not acceptable [i.e. fail to satisfy], changes [i.e. modify] can be made to the models of the workflow process at 230. Changes at 230 can be made during an initial development stage of an application or where revisions to application development occur, as described below. The changed models are then tested in the interpretative test environment at 235 and a determination is made at 240 as to whether the new models are acceptable. If the models are not acceptable, the change process continues until the modeled workflow is acceptable at 240 and the models are written to the model repository at 225).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include modify one or more portions of the server-based application in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, as disclosed by Talby, for the purpose to change process modeled workflow is acceptable. (see col. 6, ll. 22-23 of Talby).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. and Sun et al. as applied in the claim 1 above and further in view of Talby et al. and (Trefler et al. (US 8924335 B1).
As to claim 3, Dixit as modified by Villasante and Sun does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Talby discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are further operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to:
(see , col. 6, ll. 11-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, as disclosed by Talby, for the purpose to change process modeled workflow is acceptable. (see col. 6, ll. 22-23 of Talby).
Dixit as modified by Villasante, Sun and Talby does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Trefler Discloses modify one or more portions of the interface definition data object (col. 2, ll. 38-49, a digital data processing system that comprises one or more digital data processors, a step of determining whether one or more aspects of the user interface generated as a result of execution of at least one of those rules is in conformity with one or more requirements. The system responds to a negative such determination by generating a notification indicative thereof, identifying modifications to generate a conforming user interface from those one or more rules, modifying one or more of those rules to generate a conforming user interface, and/or generating a conforming user interface from (e.g., based directly or indirectly on) those one or more rules)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include modify one or more portions of the interface definition data object, as disclosed by Trefler, for the purpose to generate a conforming user interface from those one or more rules, and/or generating a conforming user interface from those one or more rules. (see abstract of Trefler).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. and Sun et al. as applied in the claim 1 above and further in view of Mayers et al. (US 20200099773 A1, hereinafter Mayers).
As to claim 4, Dixit as modified by Villasante and Sun does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Mayers discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are further operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to (par. 0004, … server environments may be configured with different numbers of processors, different types of processors … . Further, par. 0239, … a server-based application, serving of a document, or performing a database search, can consume system resources within a computing environment):
restrict utilization of the server-based application in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application (Fig. 3B, par. 0135, … the performance information indicates an increase in the number of maximum active end-users that can be supported (e.g., increase from 1128 to 1420 end-users), an increase in the mean time between failures (e.g., increase from 1128 hours to 1420 hours), and a decrease in the average response time required to load the top ten most resource intensive documents (e.g., decrease from 6.78 to 5.08 seconds). The administrator is also shown a percentage increase for each performance parameter (e.g., 9.8%, 25.9%, and 31.3%). … . Further, par. 0314, … intelligently merge server-level settings (e.g., governing limits) or flag [i.e. restrict] when destination limits may cause reduced [i.e. fail to satisfy] application performance; …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include restrict utilization of the server-based application in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, as disclosed by Mayers, for the purpose of indicating / identifying server resource usage levels and response times of the server environment during the server environment test. (see abstract of Mayers).
As to claim 5, Mayers discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are further operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to:
initiate a rendering of a visualization via an electronic interface in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application (par. 0289, FIG. 12 is an exemplary illustration of an overall system health score. In this particular example, the SPPI is displayed in the interface 1200, and may display information regarding the performance parameters of an environment. Information regarding various performance parameters such as the remaining user capacity and server reliability in the “Aqueduct Production” environment, machine storage size, memory usage efficiency, disk usage efficiency, and a central processing unit efficiency associated with particular servers is displayed. One or more graphical and alphanumeric representations may be used to display the various performance parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include initiate a rendering of a visualization via an electronic interface in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, as disclosed by Mayers, for the purpose of determining usage patterns may include identifying bottlenecks in performance and providing a visual representation of the usage patterns to the user. (see par. 0154 of Mayers).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. and Sun et al. as applied in the claim 1 above and further in view of Jain et al. (US 20230017196 A1, hereinafter Jain).
As to claim 6, Dixit discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are further operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to:
in response to (i) a first determination that the utilization of the server-based application satisfies the defined performance criteria for the server-based application (par. 0155, … perform assurance checks [i.e. determine] and analysis (e.g., security adherence checks, TCAM utilization analysis, etc.) based on Ci_Model 274, Hi_Model 276, and Li_Model 272. Policy Operator 318 can perform assurance checks on a switch-by-switch basis by comparing one or more of the models. The output of Policy Operator 318 can be passed [i.e. satisfies] to an event generator (not shown) that can generate warning events for external consumption, where the events correspond to security violations or utilization statistics (such as TCAM usage) that comprise a policy violation. …);
Dixit as modified by Villasante, Sun and Talby does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Jain discloses (ii) a second determination that a particular interval of time is satisfied subsequent to the utilization of the server-based application ,repeatedly determine whether the utilization of the server-based application satisfies the defined performance criteria for the server-based application (par. 0330, the program duration engine 1226a computes a progress measure for a particular period [i.e. particular interval of time] based on a set of requirements associated with the period. The value of the progress measure is then used to represent a user's progress through the particular period. In this example, the value of the progress measure can be compared between successive data transmissions from the user device 1210 to measure a user's development through the period. In another example, the program duration engine 1226a performs a set of tests to detect when the user 1204 has transitioned between successive periods. In this example, the program duration engine 1226a can aggregate the values for a set of performance level measurements for each of the multiple tracks within a particular period, and determine that the user has satisfied the requirements for the particular period based on determining that the aggregate performance level measurement exceeds a threshold value In yet another example, the program duration engine 1226a uses a combination of techniques to both measure the progress of the user 1204 within a particular period and determine if the user 1204 has satisfied the requirements to transition to a successive [i.e. repetitive] period after a data exchange with the user device 1210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include a second determination that a particular interval of time is satisfied subsequent to the utilization of the server-based application, repeatedly determine whether the utilization of the server-based application satisfies the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, as disclosed by Jain, for the purpose to determine when the user's progress and/or performance level satisfies the requirements to transition between different periods of the program sequence. (see par. 0287 of Jain).
As to claim 12, Jain discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are further operable, when executed by the one or more processor, to cause the one or more processor to:
initiate a diagnostic operation based at least in part on (i) the interface definition data object (par. 0486, … applications can process historical data and provide analyses [i.e. diagnostic] and recommendations, such applications are often unable to dynamically adjust (i) the content that is provided to the user on the application, and (ii) the arrangement specifications of the application (e.g., types and characteristics of interface elements) and
(ii) a defined executable code associated with a particular computer-executable task (par. 0077, FIGS. 1-6B, a “health management module” refers to a set of computer-implemented code or instructions that define a user experience associated with a mobile application. The health management module can indicate specific features of an application that a particular client organization selected to expose to the user …); and
in response to a determination that the diagnostic operation satisfies diagnostic criteria for the interface definition data object (par. 0173, the method further includes: obtaining, by the one or more computers, data indicating historical information indicating received activity data that has satisfied one or more triggers or conditions over a particular period of time; providing, on the configuration interface, a user-selectable list of preconfigured rules that are identified based on the received activity data; …), generate a diagnostic data object for the interface definition data object based at least in part on the diagnostic operation (par. 0025, the decision engine module 726 may provide the real-time reports 716b for output to the administrator device 710 and/or systems associated with provider 706. The decision engine module 726 may also generate audit logs 724c based on the user input data 716a received from the user device 730. As described previously with respect to FIG. 7A, the audit logs 724c may provide data that represents analyses related to the satisfaction of triggers and/or evaluation conditions of rules associated with programs. The audit logs 724c provided for output include information that assists the administrator 704 and/or healthcare provider 706 adjust program criteria based on the user's performance within the program indicated by the user input data 716a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include initiating a diagnostic operation based at least in part on (i) the interface definition data object and
(ii) a defined executable code associated with a particular computer-executable task and
in response to a determination that the diagnostic operation satisfies diagnostic criteria for the interface definition data object, generate a diagnostic data object for the interface definition data object based at least in part on the diagnostic, as disclosed by Jain, for the purpose to determine that the rule has been satisfied and satisfaction of the rule can be used to coordinate the execution backend processes that adjust the selection of content to be provided on the mobile application. (see par. 0343 of Jain).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. and Sun et al. as applied in the claim 1 above and further in view of Jain et al. and Gevorkyan et al. (US 11782821 B2, hereinafter Gevorkyan).
As to claim 7, Dixit as modified by Villasante, Sun and Talby does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Jain discloses the apparatus wherein the server-based application is a first server-based application, the set of interface rules is a first set of interface rules, and the instructions are further operable, when executed by the one or more processor, to cause the one or more processor to:
second server-based application associated with a second set of interface rules (par. 0355, FIG. 16B, the interface 1616 can be adjusted at different time points to alternate configurations specified by different rules as described previously with respect to FIG. 15. The configurations of the interfaces 1622, 1624, 1626, and 1628 can be adjusted based on a user's progress through the program. …);
monitor performance of the multi-component system based at least in part on the first server-based application and the second server-based application (Fig. 1, elements 110, 130 [i.e. first and second server], 152a-a52c, par. 0088, … In some instances, different app stores 140 can be used with different mobile operating systems of the user devices 150b, and 150c. In such instances, a mobile application of the publishing system 100 can be designed for multiple mobile operating systems. … Further, par. 0443, determining a performance category for a user of an application (2210). For instance, the adaptive engagement module 1824 may identify a performance category for which performance is tracked for the user 1802 on the application 1812. The identified performance category relates to a particular aspect of user performance which is evaluated to improve the engagement between the user 1802 and the application 1812));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include second server-based application associated with a second set of interface rules and monitor performance of the multi-component system based at least in part on the first server-based application and the second server-based application, as disclosed by Jain, for the purpose to determine when the user's progress and/or performance level satisfies the requirements to transition between different periods of the program sequence. (see par. 0287 of Jain).
Gevorkyan discloses transform the interface definition data object into a second server-based application (col. 26, ll. 37-49, … transform data, physical devices, and/or representations of physical devices from one form to another. For example, one or more of the modules recited herein may receive data to be transformed, transform the data, output a result of the transformation to initialize a test, use the result of the transformation to perform the test, and store the result of the transformation as test results. Additionally, or alternatively, one or more of the modules recited herein may transform a processor, volatile memory, non-volatile memory, and/or any other portion of a physical computing device from one form to another by executing on the computing device, storing data on the computing device, and/or otherwise interacting with the computing device);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include second server-based application associated with a second set of interface rules and monitor performance of the multi-component system based at least in part on the first server-based application and the second server-based application, as disclosed by Gevorkyan, for the purpose to transform the data, output a result of the transformation to initialize a test, use the result of the transformation to perform the test, and store the result of the transformation as test result. (see col. 26, ll. 40-43 of Fang).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. and Sun et al. , Jain et al. and Gevorkyan et al. as applied to the claim 7 above and further in view of Yaddula et al. (US 20200336553 A1, hereinafter Yaddula).
As to claim 8, Dixit as modified by Villasante, Sun ,Talby Jain and Gevorkyan does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Yaddula discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are further operable, when executed by the one or more processor, to cause the one or more processor to:
compare a first performance of the first server-based application and a second performance of the second server-based application (par. 0085, … a first instance and/or version of a microservice app may be associated with one or more servers in a first geographic region, while a second instance and/or version of the microservice app may be associated with one or more servers in a second geographic region. A customizable router may implement a traffic shaping rule based on performance metrics of the one or more servers in the first geographic region compared to the one or more servers in the second geographic region. … ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include compare a first performance of the first server-based application and a second performance of the second server-based application, as disclosed by Yaddula, for the purpose to monitor performance of various regions of a cloud computing system and manually adjust traffic routing based on performance metrics of the cloud computing system. (see par. 0085 of Yaddula).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. and Sun et al. , Jain et al. , Gevorkyan et al. and Yaddula as applied to the claim 8 above and further in view of Mayers and Leemet et al. (US 20160164957 A1, hereinafter Leemet).
As to claim 9, Dixit as modified by Villasante, Sun, Talby, Jain, Gevorkyan and Yaddula does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Leemet discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are further operable, when executed by the one or more processor, to cause the one or more processor to:
in response to a determination that the first performance of the first server-based application is optimal as compared to second performance of the second server-based application (par 0021, … The second server may be associated with a second hosting provider. The first and second servers may each be associated with the first hosting provider. The first and second servers may each have a performance associated therewith. The performance associated with the first server may be higher [i.e. optimal] than the performance associated with the second server. …),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include in response to a determination that the first performance of the first server-based application is optimal as compared to second performance of the second server-based application, as disclosed by Leemet, for the purpose to determine if options are available that could save money on the cost associated with the software application or provide different performance levels. (see abstract of Leemet).
Mayers discloses restrict utilization of the second server-based application via the multi-component system of the application framework (Fig. 3B, par. 0135, … the performance information indicates an increase in the number of maximum active end-users that can be supported (e.g., increase from 1128 to 1420 end-users), an increase in the mean time between failures (e.g., increase from 1128 hours to 1420 hours), and a decrease in the average response time required to load the top ten most resource intensive documents (e.g., decrease from 6.78 to 5.08 seconds). The administrator is also shown a percentage increase for each performance parameter (e.g., 9.8%, 25.9%, and 31.3%). … . Further, par. 0314, … intelligently merge server-level settings (e.g., governing limits) or flag [i.e. restrict] when destination limits may cause reduced [i.e. fail to satisfy] application performance; …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include restrict utilization of the second server-based application via the multi-component system of the application framework, as disclosed by Mayers, for the purpose of indicating / identifying server resource usage levels and response times of the server environment during the server environment test. (see abstract of Mayers).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. and Sun et al. , Jain et al. and Gevorkyan et al. as applied to the claim 7 above and further in view of Mayers et al..
As to claim 10, Dixit as modified by Villasante, Sun and Talby does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Mayers discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are further operable, when executed by the one or more processor, to cause the one or more processor to:
initiate a rendering of a dashboard visualization via an electronic interface based at least in part on first data associated with the first server-based application and second data associated with the second server-based application (par. 0289, FIG. 12 is an exemplary illustration of an overall system health score. In this particular example, the SPPI is displayed in the interface 1200, and may display information regarding the performance parameters of an environment. Information regarding various performance parameters such as the remaining user capacity and server reliability in the “Aqueduct Production” environment, machine storage size, memory usage efficiency, disk usage efficiency, and a central processing unit efficiency associated with particular servers is displayed. One or more graphical and alphanumeric representations may be used to display the various performance parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include initiate a rendering of a dashboard visualization via an electronic interface based at least in part on first data associated with the first server-based application and second data associated with the second server-based application, as disclosed by Mayers, for the purpose of determining usage patterns may include identifying bottlenecks in performance and providing a visual representation of the usage patterns to the user. (see par. 0154 of Mayers).
Claims 13 and 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. and Mayers et al.
As to claim 13, Dixit discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving an interface definition data object that comprises a set of interface rules (Fig. 6B, item 650, par. 0192) associated with managing communications between components of a multi-component system of an application framework (par. 0041);
generating a server-based application associated with a particular type of programming format from a plurality of programming formats based at least in part on the set of interface rules associated with the interface definition data object (par. 0025);
determining whether the utilization of the server-based application satisfies defined performance criteria for the server-based application (par. 0155);
Dixit does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Villasante discloses initiating utilization of the server-based application via the multi-component system of the application framework (par. 0124);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include initiate utilization of the server-based application via the multi-component system of the application framework, as disclosed by Villasante, for the purpose of to provide better customer satisfaction and more efficient use of the network resources (see paragraph 0156 of Villasante).
Mayers discloses initiating one or more actions associated with the server-based application based at least in part on whether the utilization of the server-based application satisfies the defined performance criteria for the server-based application (par. 0201, … The system can give insight of the system usage in terms of user concurrency, report and document workload, and execution times. These variables can help identify the success criteria of a load performance test when upgrading software. The concurrency or load level over time (e.g., average concurrent usage per hour) can illustrate the relationship between the amount of sessions and users, and the number of executing jobs (reports and documents), for every hour and weekday. … . Further, 0271, The management server 760 may automatically [i.e. action] benchmark the capabilities of different devices in the enterprise computing system. This can involve actively instructing different devices to perform a standardized set of tasks while measuring the performance. …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include initiating one or more actions associated with the server-based application based at least in part on whether the utilization of the server-based application satisfies the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, as disclosed by Mayers, for the purpose of to provide performance predictions may be provided substantially in real time, as the user is managing the configuration of the system (see paragraph 0240 of Mayers).
As to claim 17, Dixit as modified by Villasante, Sun and Talby does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Mayers discloses the computer-implemented method the computer-implemented method further comprising:
restricting utilization of the server-based application in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application (Fig. 3B, par. 0135, … the performance information indicates an increase in the number of maximum active end-users that can be supported (e.g., increase from 1128 to 1420 end-users), an increase in the mean time between failures (e.g., increase from 1128 hours to 1420 hours), and a decrease in the average response time required to load the top ten most resource intensive documents (e.g., decrease from 6.78 to 5.08 seconds). The administrator is also shown a percentage increase for each performance parameter (e.g., 9.8%, 25.9%, and 31.3%). … . Further, par. 0314, … intelligently merge server-level settings (e.g., governing limits) or flag [i.e. restrict] when destination limits may cause reduced [i.e. fail to satisfy] application performance; …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include restrict utilization of the server-based application in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, as disclosed by Mayers, for the purpose of indicating / identifying server resource usage levels and response times of the server environment during the server environment test. (see abstract of Mayers).
As to claim 18, Mayers discloses the computer-implemented method the computer-implemented method further comprising:
initiating a rendering of a visualization via an electronic interface in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application (par. 0289, FIG. 12 is an exemplary illustration of an overall system health score. In this particular example, the SPPI is displayed in the interface 1200, and may display information regarding the performance parameters of an environment. Information regarding various performance parameters such as the remaining user capacity and server reliability in the “Aqueduct Production” environment, machine storage size, memory usage efficiency, disk usage efficiency, and a central processing unit efficiency associated with particular servers is displayed. One or more graphical and alphanumeric representations may be used to display the various performance parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include initiate a rendering of a visualization via an electronic interface in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, as disclosed by Mayers, for the purpose of determining usage patterns may include identifying bottlenecks in performance and providing a visual representation of the usage patterns to the user. (see par. 0154 of Mayers).
As to claim 20, Dixit discloses a computer program product, stored on a computer readable medium, comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to:
receive an interface definition data object that comprises a set of interface rules (Fig. 6B, item 650, par. 0192, “The end result is 18 flattened rules in the flat rules listing 650”, Further, par. 0054, “Contracts can include rules specifying what and how communications between EPGs take place.”, Further, par. 0062, “the term ‘Contract’ can refer to rules or configurations that specify what and how communications in a network are conducted (e.g., permitted, denied, filtered, processed, etc.). In an ACI network, contracts can specify how communications between endpoints and/or EPGs take place.”) associated with managing communications between components of a multi-component system of an application framework (par. 0041, … application groups or profiles, through a software-defined network (SDN) framework (e.g., Application-Centric Infrastructure (ACI) or VMWARE NSX). To illustrate, one or more administrators can define configurations at a logical level (e.g., application or software level) through Controllers 116, which can implement or propagate such configurations through Network Environment 100. In some examples, Controllers 116 can be Application Policy Infrastructure Controllers (APICs) in an ACI framework. In other examples, Controllers 116 can be one or more management components for associated with other SDN solutions, such as NSX Managers);
generate a server-based application associated with a particular type of programming format from a plurality of programming formats based at least in part on the set of interface rules associated with the interface definition data object (par. 0025, … a model generated based on configurations defined in one or more controllers or servers in a software-defined network (SDN), such as an APIC (application policy infrastructure controller) in an ACI (application-centric infrastructure) network. … . Further, par. 0164, … interface policies, application policies, endpoint groups, etc.), network policies (e.g., BDs, VRFs, L2Outs, L3Outs, protocol configurations, etc.), security policies (e.g., contracts, filters, etc.), service chaining policies, … c.), endpoint dynamics (e.g., EPM, COOP EP DB, etc.));
Villasante discloses initiate utilization of the server-based application via the multi-component system of the application framework (par. 0124, … application program 1025, and data 1027. In other embodiments, storage medium 1021 may include other similar types of information. Certain UEs may utilize all of the components shown in FIG. 10, or only a subset of the components. … );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include initiate utilization of the server-based application via the multi-component system of the application framework, as disclosed by Villasante, for the purpose of to provide better customer satisfaction and more efficient use of the network resources (see paragraph 0156 of Villasante).
Mayer discloses based on whether the utilization of the server-based application satisfies defined performance criteria for the server-based application, initiate one or more actions associated with the server-based application (par. 0201, … The system can give insight of the system usage in terms of user concurrency, report and document workload, and execution times. These variables can help identify the success criteria of a load performance test when upgrading software. The concurrency or load level over time (e.g., average concurrent usage per hour) can illustrate the relationship between the amount of sessions and users, and the number of executing jobs (reports and documents), for every hour and weekday. … . Further, 0271, The management server 760 may automatically [i.e. action] benchmark the capabilities of different devices in the enterprise computing system. This can involve actively instructing different devices to perform a standardized set of tasks while measuring the performance. …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include initiating one or more actions associated with the server-based application based at least in part on whether the utilization of the server-based application satisfies the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, as disclosed by Mayers, for the purpose of to provide performance predictions may be provided substantially in real time, as the user is managing the configuration of the system (see paragraph 0240 of Mayers).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. and Mayers et al. as applied to the claim 13 above and further in view of Sun et al.
As to claim 14, Dixit as modified by Villasante et al. and Mayers et al. does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Sun discloses the computer-implemented method the computer-implemented method further comprising: in response to a determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, initiating the one or more actions associated with the server-based application (par. 0010, … checks rule performance post conversion. Rules that fail performance checks can be updated accordingly and reevaluated until they pass performance checks, … the converted rules fail the performance evaluation, the conversion system can update the converted rules and/or notify a user of possible deficiencies for the rules such as patterns that are too long or short. This cycle occurs until the resulting converted rules pass the performance evaluation and/or user criteria for implementing rules, at which point the conversion system performs a coverage check of the converted rules prior to exporting them for implementation. The disclosed methodology for rule conversion [i.e. action] provides an automated pipeline for rule conversion that ensures high quality converted rules with both testing and updating in the case of performance failure. Further, par. 0046, … software (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.), or a combination of software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.” The functionality presented as individual modules/units in the example illustrations can be organized differently in accordance with any one of platform (operating system and/or hardware), application ecosystem, interfaces).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include in response to a determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, initiate one or more actions associated with the server-based application, as disclosed by Sun for the purpose of providing an automated pipeline for rule conversion that ensures high quality converted rules with both testing and updating in the case of performance failure. (see paragraph 0010 of Sun).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. and Mayers et al. as applied to the claim 13 above and further in view of Talby et al.
As to claim 15, Dixit as modified by Villasante et al. and Mayers et al. does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Talby discloses the computer-implemented method the computer-implemented method further comprising:
modifying one or more portions of the server-based application in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application (col. 2, ll. 35-37, interact with the software system [i.e. server] created by the development system 100. Further, col. 6, ll. 11-24, At 220, a determination is made as to whether the models produce an acceptable workflow result. If the modeled workflow is acceptable at 220, the models can be written to the model repository at 225. If the workflow is not acceptable [i.e. fail to satisfy], changes [i.e. modify] can be made to the models of the workflow process at 230. Changes at 230 can be made during an initial development stage of an application or where revisions to application development occur, as described below. The changed models are then tested in the interpretative test environment at 235 and a determination is made at 240 as to whether the new models are acceptable. If the models are not acceptable, the change process continues until the modeled workflow is acceptable at 240 and the models are written to the model repository at 225).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include modify one or more portions of the server-based application in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, as disclosed by Talby, for the purpose to change process modeled workflow is acceptable. (see col. 6, ll. 22-23 of Talby).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. and Mayers et al. as applied to the claim 13 above and further in view of Talby et al. and Trefler et al.
As to claim 16, Dixit as modified by Villasante and Mayers does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Talby discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 13, the computer-implemented method further comprising:
(see , col. 6, ll. 11-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include in response to the determination that the utilization of the server-based application fails to satisfy the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, as disclosed by Talby, for the purpose to change process modeled workflow is acceptable. (see col. 6, ll. 22-23 of Talby).
Dixit as modified by Villasante, Sun and Talby does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Trefler discloses modify one or more portions of the interface definition data object (col. 2, ll. 38-49, a digital data processing system that comprises one or more digital data processors, a step of determining whether one or more aspects of the user interface generated as a result of execution of at least one of those rules is in conformity with one or more requirements. The system responds to a negative such determination by generating a notification indicative thereof, identifying modifications to generate a conforming user interface from those one or more rules, modifying one or more of those rules to generate a conforming user interface, and/or generating a conforming user interface from (e.g., based directly or indirectly on) those one or more rules)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include modify one or more portions of the interface definition data object, as disclosed by Trefler, for the purpose to generate a conforming user interface from those one or more rules, and/or generating a conforming user interface from those one or more rules. (see abstract of Trefler).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dixit et al. , Villasante et al. Mayers et al. as applied in the claim 13 above and further in view of Jain et al.
As to claim 19, Dixit discloses the computer-implemented method the computer-implemented method further comprising:
in response to (i) a first determination that the utilization of the server-based application satisfies the defined performance criteria for the server-based application (par. 0155, … perform assurance checks [i.e. determine] and analysis (e.g., security adherence checks, TCAM utilization analysis, etc.) based on Ci_Model 274, Hi_Model 276, and Li_Model 272. Policy Operator 318 can perform assurance checks on a switch-by-switch basis by comparing one or more of the models. The output of Policy Operator 318 can be passed [i.e. satisfies] to an event generator (not shown) that can generate warning events for external consumption, where the events correspond to security violations or utilization statistics (such as TCAM usage) that comprise a policy violation. …);
Dixit as modified by Villasante and Mayers does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Jain discloses (ii) a second determination that a particular interval of time is satisfied subsequent to the utilization of the server-based application, repeatedly determining whether the utilization of the server-based application satisfies the defined performance criteria for the server-based application (par. 0330, the program duration engine 1226a computes a progress measure for a particular period [i.e. particular interval of time] based on a set of requirements associated with the period. The value of the progress measure is then used to represent a user's progress through the particular period. In this example, the value of the progress measure can be compared between successive data transmissions from the user device 1210 to measure a user's development through the period. In another example, the program duration engine 1226a performs a set of tests to detect when the user 1204 has transitioned between successive periods. In this example, the program duration engine 1226a can aggregate the values for a set of performance level measurements for each of the multiple tracks within a particular period, and determine that the user has satisfied the requirements for the particular period based on determining that the aggregate performance level measurement exceeds a threshold value In yet another example, the program duration engine 1226a uses a combination of techniques to both measure the progress of the user 1204 within a particular period and determine if the user 1204 has satisfied the requirements to transition to a successive [i.e. repetitive] period after a data exchange with the user device 1210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Dixit to include a second determination that a particular interval of time is satisfied subsequent to the utilization of the server-based application, repeatedly determine whether the utilization of the server-based application satisfies the defined performance criteria for the server-based application, as disclosed by Jain, for the purpose to determine when the user's progress and/or performance level satisfies the requirements to transition between different periods of the program sequence. (see par. 0287 of Jain).
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP § 707.05 (C) For Examples:
I. Schaude et al. (US 20190171503 A1) discloses: “As illustrated, one or more clients 170 may be present in the example system 100. Each client 170 may be associated with requests transmitted to the backend system 102 related to the backend functionality 114 and/or one or more data objects 118 and which request data or the performance of actions associated with those data objects 118. As illustrated, the client 170 may include an interface 172 for communication (similar to or different from interface 104), a processor 174 (similar to or different from processor 106), a client application 176, memory 182 (similar to or different from memory 116), and a graphical user interface (GUI) 180.” (please see [0039]).
II. Will et al. (US 12664077 B1) discloses: “In at least some embodiments, it is contemplated that the framework performs a continuous or semi-continuous execution of the application such that components whose build is in progress will continually receive traffic. There may not be a single “test phase” for the application (and/or stack of resources implementing the application) but rather a continual evaluation of components, in some embodiments, such as whenever another component becomes available for testing-via submission through the Test interface,” (please see col. 3, ll. 24-33).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Kabir whose telephone number is (571)270-13411. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Sough can be reached on (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 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.
/Mohammad Kabir/
Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights