DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed on June 22nd, 2026.
Claims 1~19 and 21 are examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1~19 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 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 1~19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averdunk et al. hereinafter Averdunk (2024/0378108) in view of Sigoure (U.S 2020/0220779).
Regarding Claim 1,
Averdunk taught a method for managing operation of a deployment, the method comprising:
identifying an occurrence of an issue impacting an ability of the deployment to provide computer implemented services [¶22, AIOps engine 120 may identify the root causes of issues and problems];
based on the identifying of the occurrence: obtaining at least one log of operation of a service hosted by the deployment that contributes to the computer implemented services [¶60, state updater 118 determines current operational states of the determined components, which may be determined from log information];
obtaining a state map for the service that indicates operational states of functionalities of the service over time [¶46, Fig. 4, table 400 providing different reliability patterns 402 having different possible reliability states 404; ¶60];
obtaining a remediation plan based on the at least one log and the state map [¶22, AIOps engine 120 may identify the root causes of issues and problems and suggest potential remediation steps. The AIOps engine 120 may also automate the incident response process by triggering automated remediation workflows];
performing the remediation plan to update operation of the deployment to obtain an updated deployment ¶21, determine, diagnose, and correct problems and improve settings]; and
providing the computer implemented services using the updated deployment [¶61, AIOps engine 120 may be invoked to analyze the updated model, as defined by the updated component node information 200 and link information 300, and determine diagnostic and corrective actions to perform].
Averdunk did not specifically teach the state map being a record of an index of a performance of at least one operation of the service, the record being recorded over a period of time prior and leading up to the occurrence of the issue.
Sigoure taught the state map being a record of an index of a performance of at least one operation of the service, the record being recorded over a period of time prior and leading up to the occurrence of the issue [¶23, a state monitoring agent can provide sufficient information to reconstruct the configuration state and status of a specific network element at an arbitrary time in the past; ¶24, operational status of the network element includes information discovered at runtime, such as runtime interface link status, network processor status, cooling fan status, and software agent status. The operational status changes can be transmitted in real time or quasi-real time using data coalescing; ¶37; ¶47].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Sigoure’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Averdunk, because the combination may improve network uptime or availability [¶3].
Regarding Claim 2,
Averdunk taught wherein the state map is part of a state definition for a service [¶46, Fig. 2, Fig. 4, table 400 providing different reliability patterns 402 having different possible reliability states 404 and tags 406].
Regarding Claim 3,
Averdunk taught wherein the state definition comprises all of: an identification of the service; at least one instance of the service; a functionality definition for the service; at least one threshold that describes a measure of success of at least one service; a copy of the state map; and a backup copy of the state map [¶46, Fig. 2, Fig. 4, table 400 providing different reliability patterns 402 having different possible reliability states 404 and tags 406].
Regarding Claim 4,
Averdunk taught wherein the functionality definition indicates whether each function of the service is operable or inoperable [¶46, Fig. 4, table 400 providing different reliability patterns 402 having different possible reliability states 404].
Regarding Claim 5,
Averdunk taught wherein the functionality definition is usable to define portions of the state map at different points in time [¶23, link information 300 reliability describes the ability of a system or component to function under stated conditions for a specified period of time, and is characterized through aspects such as availability, latency, correctness, durability, freshness, etc.].
Regarding Claim 6,
Averdunk-Sigoure taught wherein each of the portions of the state map corresponds to different points in time within the period of time for which the index of the performance of the at least one operation of the service was recorded [Sigoure: ¶23; ¶24; ¶37; ¶47], and each of the portions comprises: a listing of indications of operability of functions of the service, and an indication of a corresponding one of the different points in time [¶23, link information 300; ¶46, Fig. 4, table 400 providing different reliability patterns 402 having different possible reliability states 404]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 7,
Averdunk taught wherein obtaining the remediation plan comprises: identifying a point in time using the at least one log; and identifying a portion of the state map based on the point in time [¶448, AIOps engine 120 may the process and analyze the model of the system 100 components, as represented by the component node information 200 and link information 300 to detect patterns, anomalies, and other useful insights. The AIOps engine 120 may identify the root causes of issues and problems and suggest potential remediation steps].
Regarding Claim 8,
Averdunk taught wherein the portion of the state map indicates operability of functions of the service during the point in time [¶23, link information 300; ¶46, Fig. 4, table 400 providing different reliability patterns 402 having different possible reliability states 404].
Regarding Claim 21,
Averdunk taught wherein the index of the performance of the at least one operation of the service is generated based on consideration of all of a data output of the operation, a response time of the operation, a success rate of the operation, a throughput of the operation, and a resource utilization of the operation during the period of time [Sigoure: ¶23; ¶24; ¶37; ¶47; ¶65]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding Claims 9~19, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1~8 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights