CTNF 18/962,420 CTNF 102080 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to application filed November 27 th 2024. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 were presented, and are pending examination. Drawings Drawings filed on 11/27/2024 are acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 , 8 , and 15 recite “…obtaining, in a first cloud environment, first observability data associated with a cloud service provisioned by the first cloud environment in a second cloud environment…” This language is grammatically unclear. It is unclear on specifying what is in a second environment and if the data is obtained from the first or second environment. Dependent claims 2-7 , 9-14 , and 16-20 depend from claim 1, 8, and 15 and are rejected based on the same rationale. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 8, 10-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20070185912 A1) in view of Myers et al. (US 20210064262 A1) . Regarding claim 1, teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, in a first cloud environment, first observability data associated with a cloud service provisioned by the first cloud environment in a second cloud environment (Fig. 4, Elem: 158, 160, ¶[0052]-[0053], which a second database management system (ie. the first cloud environment) receiving data replication/synchronization from a first database management system (ie. the second cloud environment); processing, by the first cloud environment, the first observability data to generate second observability data (Fig. 4, Elem: 162. ¶[0053], which teaches the database performing an operation on the data ); and providing, by the first cloud environment, the second observability data to the second cloud environment ( Fig. 4, Elem: 164, 166, ¶[0054], which teaches after the second database performs the operation, it returns the finished product back to the first database ). Gupta fails to explicitly teach generate second observability data, wherein the second observability data is compatible with an observability data format of the second cloud environment. However, Myers is in the same field of invention and teaches cloud based communication (See in Myers, ¶[0042]-[0043], which teaches cloud providers can communicate with the management system). Myers discloses a management system 130 obtaining a data package (ie observability data), and converting with the data package to a format that is compatible with the second cloud provider (See in Myers, ¶[0160] and [0169] which teaches a mapping of the data and how to convert the data to be compatible and understood for the receiving cloud environment). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Gupta’s method into incorporating an ability to convert data into being compatible between the cloud environments. In doing so, it would make the transmission process between clouds easier and faster with converting data into more compatible formats for receiving clouds, and allow a variety of more cloud environments to be involved. Regarding claim 2, Gupta teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first observability data comprises one or more metrics and/or one or more events associated with execution of the cloud service. (Fig. 3, Elem: 128, 130, 132, ¶[0040]-[0041], which teaches where the first database (ie. the second cloud) sends a request to update the second database server (ie. the first cloud), the second database server processes the request, and performs the update). Regarding claim 3, Gupta teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: processing the first observability data to generate the second observability data comprises identifying a schema associated with the second cloud environment (Fig. 4, Elem: 162, ¶[0053], which teaches the remote cloud performing a requested operation on the received data); Gupta fails to explicitly teach converting a format of the first observability data to the observability data format of the second cloud environment based on the schema. However, Myers discloses the process of converting data to fit and match the schema (ie. the mapping data) of the receiving cloud environment (See in Myers, Fig. 1C, Elem: 138, ¶[0166] Ln. 6-14, which teaches a mapping of the data and how to convert the data to be compatible and understood for the receiving cloud environment). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Gupta based on the teachings of Myers in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Gupta teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the schema retrieved from the second cloud environment. (¶[0031] Ln. 4-11, which teaches where the remote environment replicates the customer facing environment’s database and table structures). Gupta fails to explicitly disclose the schema is derived from a manifest information However, Myers teaches mapping data that is used to convert information to be used by the destination. (See in Myers, ¶[0166]-[0167], which teaches multiple sets of mapping data that the system can choose to be best fit and translate or convert the data package into a form used by the destination). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Gupta based on the teachings of Myers in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1. Regarding claim 5, Gupta teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to obtaining the first observability data: creating, in an observability data plane within the first cloud environment, one or more targets configured to receive the first observability data (¶[0031], Ln. 4-11, which teaches in both cloud environment there is a storage and database system configured to receive data from the other cloud environment). Claims 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are a different statutory category of, and are slight variations of the rejected claims, 1 and 3-6 above. Therefore, claims 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected base on the same rationale as given for claims 1 and 3-6 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20070185912 A1) in view of Myers et al. (US 20210064262 A1) and in further view of Kempanna et al. (US 20220407915 A1) . Regarding claim 6, Gupta fails to explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a first identifier associated with a customer and a first private cloud in the first cloud environment and a second identifier associated with the customer and a second private cloud in the second cloud environment; storing, in an observability control plane within the first cloud environment, an association between the first identifier, the second identifier; However, Myers teaches identifiers for both the environment being migrated and the destination to where the environment will be migrated to. (Fig. 1C, Elem: 102, 180, ¶[0105], which teaches environment identifiers such as “Server Environment 1” for the environment to be migrated and “Cloud Provider B” representing the destination where the environment will be migrated to). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Gupta based on the teachings of Myers in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1. Gupta and Myers fail to explicitly teach that after obtaining the first observability data: identifying a resource identifier associated with the first observability data; and identifying, based on the resource identifier and the association stored in the observability control plane, the customer, the second cloud environment, and one or more resource details. However, Kempanna teaches a resource identifier (¶[0064], which teaches identifying resources to identify public cloud data centers) . Kempanna is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of data deployment across cloud environment dependent on certain metrics. (See in Kempanna, ¶[0036], which teaches where the metrics are sent to a new cloud environment). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include resource identifiers to help determine and locate clouds. Regarding claim 7, Gupta teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein providing the second observability data to the second cloud environment comprises: providing, from an observability data plane within the first cloud environment, the second observability data within the second cloud environment. (Fig. 3, Elem: 134, 136, 138, ¶[0027], Ln. 13-27, which teaches where the remote database results are received from the customer facing environment, and then saved into the primary database and processes the results) Gupta fails to teach to an agent configured to communicate with an observability data store. However, Kempanna teaches an agent communicating with the data between the databases. (See in Kempanna, ¶[008], ¶[0010], ¶[0035-37], and ¶[84-86], which teaches an agent to provide the metrics to the controller cluster by communicating with databases, so then the databases can receive the metrics) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Gupta based on the teachings of Myers in accordance to the rationale given for claim 6. Claims 13, 14, and 20 are a different statutory category of, and are slight variations of the rejected claims 6 and 7 above. Therefore, claims 13, 14, and 20 are rejected base on the same rationale as given for claims 6 and 7. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CELINE AYLIN IMANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0247. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm. 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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CELINE AYLIN IMANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2457 /RAMY M OSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,420 Page 2 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,420 Page 3 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,420 Page 4 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,420 Page 5 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,420 Page 6 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,420 Page 7 Art Unit: 2457
Prosecution Insights