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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues Gupta fails to teach: creating a graph based on logged data where the graph includes “a plurality of computing resource nodes representing respective computing resources” because Gupta’s nodes do not include a plurality of computing resource nodes representing computing resources.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of at least ¶ 4-7 of Gupta describing creating a graph including on nodes of a computing system including underlying compute resources and/or devices.
Applicant argues Gupta fails to teach “identifying a plurality of timestamps in the log data, wherein the plurality of timestamps include a plurality of time values, each time value of the plurality of time values corresponds to a change of a computing resource among a plurality of computing resources of the computing infrastructure”. However, Gupta discloses these features in at least the abstract, ¶ 6-7, and ¶ 207-213 disclosing the identification of times (timestamps) in time series data and including the temporal analysis of times and corresponding events. .
Applicant argues Gupta fails to teach “the plurality of nodes includes a plurality of computing resource nodes representing respective computing resources among the plurality of computing resources and a plurality of user nodes representing respective entities that initiate changes to a computing resource among the plurality of computing resources”. However, Gupta discloses this subject matter in at least the abstract, ¶ 4-7, ¶ 63, 85, and 95 which disclose time series based network graphs; network elements that initiate change; compute nodes initiating events, detection of anomalous event in compute node operation, including logged performance data including compute data; application initiated changes resulting in anomaly detection; and initiated actions of applications and correlation to underlying components.
With respect the claim scope and claim interpretation, applicant argues that language describing the “entities that initiate changes” is a functional part of the method and should be afforded patentable weight. However, the claim language is directed to “creating a graph based on the log data” where the graph includes nodes merely representing “entities that initiate changes” to the computing system. Creating a graph representing entities that initiate changes merely creates a graph, it does not claim, nor cover in scope, the actions of a network entity initiating changes because the language is simply describing aspects of a graph. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the claim language covers graph creation, not the actions of a network entity described or represented by the graph.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest: “wherein the time value assigned to each edge represents a time of a change in the computing infrastructure among a plurality of changes to the computing infrastructure, wherein each change of the plurality of changes is defined at least with respect to one of the plurality of computing resources”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the language referred to was removed from the claim via the applicant’s amendment of 5/26/2026.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach “wherein each action node is connected to a user node of the plurality of user nodes representing a user who initiated the action represented by the action node, wherein each action node is further connected to a computing resource node of the plurality of computing resource nodes representing a computing resource that was created or modified via the action. However, Gupta’s nodes correspond to user nodes – see fig. 1 and ¶ 51: “ Access network 6 includes network nodes that execute communication protocols to transport control and user data to facilitate communication between subscriber devices 16 and network device 18A”. The nodes initiate actions (see at least ¶ 4-7, ¶ 63, 85, and 95) and Gupta discloses the nodes are connected to computing resources created or modified – see ¶ 61 – modification of compute resource including amount of memory, CPU utilization etc. See also ¶ 48-52, 67-68; see also ¶ 58, 125, 132-139, 146, 153 and 160 regarding the addition, removal, and scaling features). Similar rationale applies to applicant’s arguments to claim 7.
Applicant argues, with regards to claim 6, the prior art fails to teach: wherein identifying the root cause of the alert further comprises: detecting at least one anomaly based on the retrieved first temporal variation, wherein the at least one anomaly is at least one anomalous change among the plurality of changes. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as Gupta discloses identifying anomalous conditions comprising anomaly detection based on received temporal variations including anomalous changes (see ¶ 6-7, 61-63, 89, 118-125, 160, 230-232).
Regarding claim 9, applicant argues Gupta fails to teach generating an aggregated node based on the subset of nodes among the plurality of nodes having the at least one common root cause, wherein updating the graph further comprises replacing the subset of nodes with the aggregated node. However, Gupta discloses the features in at least ¶ 92-93, 281-290 which describe the generation of aggregated node comprising subset of nodes, e.g. group of servers, etc.
Applicant argues wherein the at least one node and at least one edge of the first temporal variation represent a state of the computing infrastructure represented in the graph indicated by the alert timestamp. However, Gupta is drawn to provisioning a graph including edges and indicative of temporal variations in infrastructure (see at least the abstract, 6-7, ¶ 195, 204, and fig. 8A-8C, fig. 9A)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-6, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 4-5, 12, 14-15 recite the limitation "the plurality of changes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240007342 to Gupta in view of US 20230099424 to Hawkinson.
Regarding claim 1, Gupta teaches a method for alert mitigation, comprising:
obtaining log data generated from one or more scanners deployed in a computing infrastructure (¶ 6-7; 207-213, see also ¶ 69-70);
identifying a plurality of timestamps in the log data, wherein the plurality of timestamps include a plurality of time values, each time value of the plurality of time values corresponds to a change of a computing resource among a plurality of computing resources of the computing infrastructure (abstract, ¶ 6-7, and ¶ 207-213 disclosing the identification of times (timestamps) in time series data and temporal analysis of times and corresponding events);
creating a graph based on the log data, wherein the graph includes a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges (abstract, ¶ 6-11, 52, 67-68),
the plurality of nodes includes a plurality of computing resource nodes representing respective computing resources among the plurality of computing resources and a plurality of user nodes representing respective entities that initiate changes to a computing resource among the plurality of computing resources (abstract, ¶ 6-7, time series based network graphs; network elements initiate change; ¶ 63, compute nodes initiate events, anomalous event in compute node operation; see also ¶ 85, logged performance data including compute data; ¶ 95, application initiated changes resulting in anomaly detection; ¶ 4-5, initiated actions of applications and correlation to underlying components);
each edge a subset of the plurality of edges representing a change to a respective computing resource among the plurality of computing resources initiated by a respective entity represented by a user node among the plurality of user nodes (abstract, ¶ 6-7, ¶ 207-213, edges in causality graph represent change)
assigning a time value among the plurality of time values to each edge of subset of the plurality of edges based on a timestamp among the plurality of timestamps (¶ 6-11, 230-232, 242, 251, 263, 274, graph of nodes and edges with assigned times corresponding to time series data comprising event indicators of nodes and edges);
obtaining an alert, wherein the alert includes an alert timestamp (¶ 179, 88-89, 124-160, alarm including anomalous conditions corresponding to timestamp);
querying the graph based on the alert timestamp (¶ 263-264, 274, ¶ 9-11, 111-115, query based on alert/fault in time series);
retrieving, based on a result of the query, a first temporal variation of the graph, wherein the first temporal variation includes at least one node among the plurality of nodes and at least one edge among the subset of the plurality of edges (¶ see ¶ 113-116, query and graph based on nodes and edges; see also 252-256, temporal variations of graph);
identifying a root cause of the alert based on the retrieved first temporal variation (abstract, ¶ 4-8, 106, 177-181, 251-256, identification of root cause); and
Gupta fails to teach but Hawkinson teaches:
performing at least one mitigation action based on the identified root cause (abstract, ¶ 51, mitigation based on root cause analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Hawkinson. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Hawkinson would have been advantageous in terms of mitigating anomalies (Hawkinson, abstract, ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 2, 12,
Gupta teaches:
wherein the plurality of nodes further includes a plurality of action nodes, wherein each action node represents a respective action which caused one of the plurality of changes (¶ 6-12, nodes in graph represent connections and other relationships causing changes; ¶ 252-256, 177-181).
Regarding claim 3, 13,
Gupta teaches:
wherein each action node is connected to a user node of the plurality of user nodes representing a user who initiated the action represented by the action node, wherein each action node is further connected to a computing resource node of the plurality of computing resource nodes representing a computing resource that was created or modified via the action (¶ 61, 48-52, 67-68; see also ¶ 58, 125, 132-139, 146, 153 and 160 regarding the addition, removal, and scaling features).
Regarding claim 4, 14,
Gupta teaches:
wherein each change of the plurality of changes is any of: a creation of one of the plurality of computing resources, and a modification of one of the plurality of computing resources (¶ 118, change including modification or creation of resources).
Regarding claim 5, 15,
Gupta teaches:
wherein at least a portion of the plurality of changes includes at least one connection between computing resources among the plurality of computing resources (¶ 10, 61, changes include connections between resources).
Regarding claim 6, 16,
Gupta teaches:
wherein identifying the root cause of the alert further comprises: detecting at least one anomaly based on the retrieved first temporal variation, wherein the at least one anomaly is at least one anomalous change among the plurality of changes (¶ 6-7, 89, anomalous conditions related to time series data; see also see ¶ 61-63,118-125, 160, 230-232).
Regarding claim 7, 17,
Gupta teaches:
wherein each anomalous change is determined based on one of the entities which made the anomalous change (¶ 88-95, anomalous change determined based on nodes and connections between nodes; see also ¶ 4-7, ¶ 63, 85, 95, and ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 8, 18,
Gupta teaches:
aggregating a subset of nodes among the plurality of nodes having at least one common root cause among the plurality of nodes (¶ 7-8, 105, edges of graph indicating nodes associated with root cause of anomalies; ¶ 68-70; see also ¶ 92-93, generation of aggregated node comprising subset of nodes, e.g. group of servers, etc.; ¶ 281, 290, aggregate node representing group of nodes); and
updating the graph based on the aggregated subset of nodes among the plurality of nodes having the at least one common root cause, wherein the first temporal variation is retrieved from the updated graph (¶ 7-8, 105, 218, updated based on ranking and weighting of edges of graph; ¶ 68-70).
Regarding claim 9, 19,
Gupta teaches:
generating an aggregated node based on the subset of nodes among the plurality of nodes having the at least one common root cause, wherein updating the graph further comprises replacing the subset of nodes with the aggregated node (¶ 92-93, generation of aggregated node comprising subset of nodes, e.g. group of servers, etc.; ¶ 281, 290, aggregate node representing group of nodes).
Claim 10-11 addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21,
Gupta teaches:
wherein the at least one node and at least one edge of the first temporal variation represent a state of the computing infrastructure represented in the graph indicated by the alert timestamp (¶ abstract, 6-7, ¶ 195, 204, fig. 8A-8C, fig. 9A)
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. 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.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights