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 .
1. Claims 1 - 20 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are amended as filed on 07/15/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-9, 11, 13-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Patent No. US 9,742,639 B1), and in view of Panikkar et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0065833 A1), hereinafter Pani, in view of Batta et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0230090 A1), hereinafter Batta, and in further view of MANN et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0342785 A1), hereinafter Mann.
2. With respect to claims 1, 11, and 20, Zhang taught a method comprising: performing, by at least one processor (column 5, lines 55-62), operations including: sending instructions to an asset among various hardware and software assets in a networked information technology infrastructure to cause the asset to generate an answer file (column 6, lines 25-45, where the answer file that contains the configuration data can be seen in column 5, lines 23-54, the property and/or imported files); applying an algorithm to the saved data structure to determine a relationship between the various hardware and software assets (column 9, lines 11-21, where the changes being tracked teaches the algorithm to determine relationships. See also, the machine learning of column 5, lines 55-61); and linking the determined relationship between the various hardware and software assets to the saved data structure (column 6, lines 25-45, where the topology is linked).
However, Zhang did not explicitly state using a record including an incident or problem record of the various hardware and software assets. On the other hand, Pani did teach using a ticketing record including an incident change or problem record of the various hardware and software assets (0064, where the record being a converged infrastructure record can be seen in 0100 and the logs record failures in accordance with 0019). Both of the systems of Zhang and Pani are directed towards monitoring network resources and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Zhang, to utilize record logging incident data, as taught by Pani, in order to provide a system that more accurately detect network resource and monitor them accordingly.
However, Zhang did not explicitly state linking, using one or more converged infrastructure item names in a workflow addition ticketing record including an incident or problem record. On the other hand, Batta did teach linking, using one or more converged infrastructure item names in a workflow addition ticketing record including an incident or problem record (0044, where the converged assets appear to be various forms of item identifiers in accordance with the applicant’s specification 0043). Both of the systems of Zhang and Batta are directed towards monitoring/managing a computing environment and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Zhang, to utilize linking ticketing records based on one or more converged items, as taught by Batta, in order to efficiently link computing resources (and the like).
However, while it could argued that a correlation engine does not have a specific definition and could be read upon by anything that makes a correlation between two different relevant things, for a more explicit showing, it will be provided that Zhang did not explicitly state that the linking was performed by a correlation engine. On the other hand, Mann did teach that the linking was performed by a correlation engine (0901, where the linking can be further seen in 1245). Both of the systems of Zhang and Mann are directed towards importing files and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Zhang, to utilize a correlation engines, as taught by Mann, in order to provide a system that better tracks the managed data files.
4. As for claim 13, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 11 (respectively). In addition, Zhang taught wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a query regarding the determined relationship (column 6, lines 25-45, the topology); displaying the saved data structure with the determined relationship between the various hardware and software assets in a user interface (column 11, lines 10-11); and sending the saved data structure with the determined relationship between the various hardware and software assets to an external application (column 11, lines 10-11, where the user report is an external application under broadest reasonable interpretation).
5. As for claims 4 and 14, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Zhang taught wherein the asset includes one or more of a storage asset, a computer asset, and operating system asset, a database asset, or an application asset (column 5, lines 4-6, where this, at least teaches the computer and application limitations).
6. As for claims 8 and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Zhang taught wherein the generated answer file includes one or more of volume properties of a storage asset, virtual machine information of a computer asset, virtual disk information of a computer asset, physical storage information of a computer asset, guest server information of a database asset, database size information of a database asset, database name information of a database asset, or database disk association of a database asset (column 3, lines 20-22, where this, at least teaches the virtual machine name limitation).
7. As for claims 9 and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Zhang taught wherein the determined relationship includes a first field name for the determined relationship based on a second field name from the generated answer file from the asset (column 6, lines 25-45, where topology will have the connected device names. See also, column 2, lines 36-40).
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-7, 10, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Pani, in view of Batta, in view of Mann, and in further view of Rodriguez et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0229648 A1), hereinafter Rodriguez.
8. As for claims 2 and 12, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Zhang taught wherein the operations further comprise: copying data from the generated answer file to memory of a mapping system copying data from the generated answer file to memory of a mapping system (column 6, lines 25-45, where the extraction of the data is given. Further, the mapping system is taught as the system maps the topology of column 6, lines 25-45); tracking and logging events associated with the copying of the data (column 9, lines 11-23, where the changes are tracked); determining standardized reporting data from the validated data in the memory of the mapping system (column 6, lines 16-24); and saving the standardized reporting data in a data structure formatted for the various hardware and software assets (column 7, line 62 to column 8, line 32, where the standard formats can be seen).
However, while Zhang did teach verifying data (column 3, lines 48-67), Zhang did not explicitly state validating the copied data based on the logged events. On the other hand, Rodriguez did teach validating the copied data based on the logged events (0008). Both of the systems of Zhang and Rodriguez are directed towards managing device topology/mapping and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Zhang, to utilize user validation of the resource mappings, as taught by Rodriguez, in order to provide a more confirmed accuracy of the topologies.
9. As for claim 3, it is rejected on the same basis as claims 2. In addition, Zhang taught wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a query regarding the determined relationship (column 6, lines 25-45, the topology); displaying the saved data structure with the determined relationship between the various hardware and software assets in a user interface (column 11, lines 10-11); and sending the saved data structure with the determined relationship between the various hardware and software assets to an external application (column 11, lines 10-11, where the user report is an external application under broadest reasonable interpretation).
10. As for claims 5 and 15, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). However, Zhang did not explicitly state wherein the determined relationship includes one or more of a storage asset linked to a computer asset via a volume unique identifier, a computer asset linked to an operating system asset via a guest identifier, an operating system asset linked to a database asset via a guest name, or a database asset linked to an application asset via a database name. On the other hand, Rodriguez did teach wherein the determined relationship includes one or more of a storage asset linked to a computer asset via a volume unique identifier, a computer asset linked to an operating system asset via a guest identifier, an operating system asset linked to a database asset via a guest name, or a database asset linked to an application asset via a database name (0059, where this, at least, teaches the database limitation). Both of the systems of Zhang and Rodriguez are directed towards managing device topology/mapping and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Zhang, to utilize specific listed assets, as taught by Rodriguez, in order to effectuate determined relationships between standard resources that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
11. As for claims 6 and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). However, Zhang did not explicitly state wherein the operations further comprise: prompting members of an approval group to validate a change to the saved data structure. On the other hand, Rodriguez did teach wherein the operations further comprise: prompting members of an approval group to validate a change to the saved data structure (0017). Both of the systems of Zhang and Rodriguez are directed towards managing device topology/mapping and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Zhang, to utilize user validation of the resource mappings, as taught by Rodriguez, in order to provide a more confirmed accuracy of the topologies.
12. As for claims 7 and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Zhang taught determining a capacity of each of a plurality of servers in the mapping system to collect information from the various hardware and software assets (column 8, line 63 to column 9, line 9, where the high availability is the capacity); and sending the instructions to the asset based on the determined capacity of each server (column 8, line 63 to column 9, line 9, where instructions are sent as the server is available under broadest reasonable interpretation).
13. As for claim 10, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Zhang taught wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a query regarding the determined relationship via a Uniform Resource Locator (column 5, lines 27-29, where the use of URLs for GUIs was contemporary and obvious. See also, the web-browsers of Rodriguez: 0070, which also make clear the use of URLs).
However, Zhang did not explicitly state sending the saved data structure with the determined relationship between the various hardware and software assets to an external application via JavaScript Object Notation. On the other hand, Rodriguez did teach sending the saved data structure with the determined relationship between the various hardware and software assets to an external application via JavaScript Object Notation (0063). Both of the systems of Zhang and Rodriguez are directed towards managing device topology/mapping and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Zhang, to utilize specific listed assets, as taught by Rodriguez, in order to effectuate determined relationships between standard resources that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
14. The applicant argues on page 12 that “The Office Action relies on Zhang's column 6, lines 25-45, to disclose claim 2's recitation of "copying data from the generated answer file to memory of a mapping system." See Office Action, p. 10. However, this portion of Zhang relates to querying network devices and analyzing responses to determine network topology-not copying data from a generated answer file to memory of a mapping system.”
However, the cited portions show a query (i.e. an answer file) that has configuration data and is copied such that the discovered configuration can be determined.
15. The applicant further argues on page 12 that “The Office Action relies on Zhang's column 9, lines 11-23 to disclose claim 2's recitation of "tracking and logging events associated with the copying of the data." See Office Action, p. 10. This portion of Zhang relates to tracking changes in network resource states over time-not tracking and logging events associated with copying data from an answer file.”
However, the data was copied after the querying of the configuration file and tracking events of the discovered configuration teaches tracking events associated with the copying of the data as the discovered configuration is associated with the copying of the data under broadest reasonable interpretation.
16. The applicant further argues on page 12 that “The Office Action state that Zhang does not disclose claim 2's recitation of "validating the copied data based on the logged events," and relies on Rodriguez's paragraph [0008] to cure this deficiency. See Office Action, p. 10. However, this portion of Rodriguez discloses that validation relates to determining whether a validation environment is in a clean configuration before migration, and does not disclose the claimed validating as claim 2 recites.”
However, the validation is implicitly taught by it being a validation environment. However, it can also be more explicitly seen in 0017 (i.e. the approval).
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 JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
