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 .
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.
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.
Claims 21-38 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the selected service" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 27 and 33 recite similar subject matter to claim 1 and are therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 22-26, 28-32 and 34-38 are rejected based on their incorporation of the rejected subject matter in claims 21, 27 and 33 as explained above.
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.
Claims 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greuel, et al (Pub. No. US 2002/0133584 A1, hereinafter referred to as Greuel), and further in view of Sadovsky, et al (Pub. No. US 2015/0200824 A1, hereinafter referred to as Sadovsky).
Claim 21 is an independent claim and Greuel discloses a method comprising:
displaying, on a graphical user interface, a service-level dashboard that depicts, as a plurality of first graphical elements, a plurality of services executing in a computing environment, each first graphical element presenting a composite health indicator for its corresponding service (health percentage score or graphical dial shows a composite health indicator as claimed, see Fig. 2A – 203, 206, 209);
computing, for each service, a composite health score (health score presented as percentages, FIG. 2A) based on performance data from one or more components associated with the service (determine composite health score from resource scores, para. [0037]), wherein the composite health score is associated with one of a plurality of predefined states (different percentage scores and dial indicators show different states as claimed, Fig. 2A);
applying the composite health indicator to each first graphical element (see FIG. 2A);
displaying, on the graphical user interface, a plurality of second graphical elements, each second graphical element corresponding to a component of the selected service (see FIG. 2B);
each second graphical element presenting a component health score (overall scores for individual routers that make up composite “router health”, see Fig. 2B and para. [0028], [0035]); and
automatically updating the composite health scores and the component health scores, as new performance data is received from the computing environment (the method to calculate and display composite score and component scores repeats periodically or as triggered, para. [0037]).
Greuel does not specifically disclose, but Sadovsky teaches, each first graphical element colored according to the associated predefined state to indicate that its corresponding service is in one of an acceptable state, moderate state, or critical state (graphical object representing the overall system health is colored based on state of health score (e.g. green is when in an acceptable state, yellow is when in a moderate state, and red is when in a critical state), para. [0035]-[0037]), each second graphical element presenting a color-coded component status indicator for the corresponding component (component health score indication in specific colors based on their scores, para. [0035]-[0037]), and updating the coloring of the composite health indicator and the component status indicators as new performance data is received (health scores received at predetermined times (e.g., every two minutes, five minutes, twenty minutes…) or received when requested and used to update component and system health scores, para. [0043]-[0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to incorporate Sadovsky’s color-coded score indicators with Greuel’s score indicators because it would have allowed for further effective visual indications for the user on the state of services and components, making it clearer to a user when an issue is occurring.
As per claim 22, claim 21 is incorporated and Greuel further discloses wherein a component of the service is selected from the group consisting of a server, a router (see Fig. 2B), a database, an operating system, an application, a hypervisor, or a virtual machine.
As per claim 23, claim 21 is incorporated and Greuel further discloses wherein one or more of the first or second graphical elements also includes a trend indicator (any other styles of indicator is possible such as a plot of the health score over time, para. [0023]).
As per claim 24, claim 21 is incorporated and Greuel further discloses wherein the composite health score is based at least in part on the component with the lowest component health score (all resources scores (e.g. including the lowest) are used to compute composite health score, para. [0037]).
As per claim 25, claim 21 is incorporated and Greuel further discloses wherein the graphical user display also shows a list of recent events (comments such as “reset 20 hrs ago”, Fig. 2G).
As per claim 26, claim 21 is incorporated and Greuel further discloses further comprising displaying a dependency map showing associations between the selected service and other services in the computing environment (a first level page may contain the composite score and hyperlinks to second level pages that contain more detailed information, such as other scores on which the first level composite score is based, para. [0035]).
Claim 27 is an independent claim corresponding to independent claim 21 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning. Greuel further discloses a controller computer, the controller computer including a processor and a memory, in networked communication with a plurality of application computers, each application computer providing one or more components of a distributed application; wherein the controller computer and the application computers each include a processor and a memory; and wherein the controller computer and the application computers are each operable to execute instructions stored in the memory, which instructions cause the controller computer and the application computers to perform the operations (server platform shows controller computer as claimed and computer network nodes show application computer as claimed, see FIG. 1 and para. [0018]).
As per claim 28, claim 27 is incorporated. Claim 28 corresponds to claim 22 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 29, claim 27 is incorporated. Claim 29 corresponds to claim 23 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 30, claim 27 is incorporated. Claim 30 corresponds to claim 24 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 31, claim 27 is incorporated. Claim 31 corresponds to claim 25 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 32, claim 27 is incorporated. Claim 32 corresponds to claim 26 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim 33 is an independent claim corresponding to independent claim 27 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 34, claim 33 is incorporated. Claim 34 corresponds to claim 22 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 35, claim 33 is incorporated. Claim 35 corresponds to claim 23 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 36, claim 33 is incorporated. Claim 36 corresponds to claim 24 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 37, claim 33 is incorporated. Claim 37 corresponds to claim 25 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 38, claim 33 is incorporated. Claim 38 corresponds to claim 26 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub No. US 2010/0275054 A1 – generally teaches color coding displays of performance scores based on thresholds.
Pub. No. US 2018/0025360 A1 – generally teaches obtaining end user system statuses based on a score associated with each end user system and color-coding the scores on a display based on thresholds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM - 530PM.
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.
/JONATHAN A BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights