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 .
Herein after “it would have been obvious” should be read as “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilderman et al PN 2022/0171667 in view of Jagannathan et al PN 2022/0094595 and Margalit et al PN 2015/0381409.
In regards to claims 1, 8: Gilderman et al teaches a configuration change support apparatus ([0068] “FIG. 8 illustrates an example of process 800 that, as a result of being performed by one or more processors of a computer system, implements a reliability service that improves the reliability of application infrastructure, in an embodiment. The process 800 may, in various embodiments, be implemented using a computer system with one or more processors in communication with a computer-readable memory”) for supporting a configuration change in an information technology infrastructure ([0069] “At block 802, the computer system analyzes the metadata to identify potential failures for the infrastructure. In one example, the computer system identifies services, systems, and dependencies of the application from the metadata, and suggests configuration changes to improve the reliability of the infrastructure. For example, the computer system may identify that the application depends on a database, and suggests that redundant databases be created in multiple availability regions to increase the resiliency of the application infrastructure”) including one or more storage apparatus (“computer readable memory and database) and one or more hosts (processors) each connected with the storage apparatus (memory/database), the information technology infrastructure ([0002] “IT infrastructure”) being abbreviated as IT hereinafter, the configuration change support apparatus comprising: a storage device (“computer readable memory); and a processing device (one or more processors), wherein the storage device stores IT infrastructure configuration information ([0055] “In one example, an application adapter 302 reads a set of inputs 304 which are provided to customer application components 306. The set of inputs may include for example the PC configuration 308, infrastructure as code 310, database configuration information 312”) indicating physical connection ([0088] “The term “connected,” when unmodified and referring to physical connections, is to be construed as partly or wholly contained within, attached to, or joined together, even if there is something intervening“) and logical connection ([0034] “In one example, application metadata is used to adapt the customer's physical or logical resources into application components”) in the IT infrastructure and arrangement information of resources constituting the IT infrastructure (if it can be determined the availability of resources this is the resources being arranged into the zones [0061] “Hardware failures or instance failures may be solved by restarting or replacing the specific instance of a virtual machine. Availability zone failures may be solved by using resources in a different availability zone. Region failures can be solved by using resources of another region” [0077] “Example requests include requests to manage and/or interact with computing resources hosted by the system 900 and/or another system, such as for launching, terminating, deleting, modifying, reading, and/or otherwise accessing such computing resources” Claim 5 ” the infrastructure including a set of computing resources, the metadata usable to configure the set of computing resources for an instance of the application”), and application dependency information indicating dependency of an application being executed by the host on the IT infrastructure ([0069] “In one example, the computer system identifies services, systems, and dependencies of the application from the metadata, and suggests configuration changes to improve the reliability of the infrastructure”), and the processing device acquires configuration change information on the IT infrastructure ([0069] “In one example, the computer system identifies services, systems, and dependencies of the application from the metadata, and suggests configuration changes to improve the reliability of the infrastructure. For example, the computer system may identify that the application depends on a database, and suggests that redundant databases be created in multiple availability regions to increase the resiliency of the application infrastructure”), Gilderman et al does not teach creating additional configuration changes to minimize an effect if the configuration change is made. Jagannathan et al teaches creates additional configuration change information ([0049] “At step E, configuration decision manager 204 prompts a decision from the user with respect to the configuration change in view of the current architecture of the network. In some embodiments, the user is presented with information relating to the impact of the configuration change on the security posture of the network, such as an explanation of why the configuration change may produce a compliance issue. In certain embodiments, the user is also provided with one or more recommendations related to the configuration change, such as a recommendation of whether to accept or reject the configuration change, historical explanations given for similar decisions, and/or recommended additional changes to the network to mitigate or avoid the potential compliance issue”) to minimize (“mitigate”) an effect (impact) on the system if a configuration change based on the configuration change information is made, according to the configuration change information, the IT infrastructure configuration information, and the application dependency information,. Jagannathan et al teaches notifying of the changes (recommend). It would have been obvious to determine the effect on the configuration change request and if it is sub-optimal, minimize the effect so that the configuration change is optimized. Jagannathan et al teaches the effect is on the security posture as opposed to on the applications running on the IT infrastructure Margalit et al teaches (Abstract ” Techniques are disclosed for automatic remediation of application performance degradations caused by configuration changes. In one embodiment, a learning module keeps track of application configuration changes and subsequent effects on the application's performance” [0027] “Alternatives to rolling back the configuration change may include modifying the configuration settings in such a way as to reduce or eliminate the performance degradation, or, in a virtual environment, allocating more resources”) The examiner recognizes modifying the configuration is additional configuration changes this however does not stat the user is notified of the additional changes.. It would have been obvious to determine the effect on application running on the infrastructure because this would have prevented slow or improper operating of the applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claims 2, 9: Gilderman teaches a conversion table ([0046] “One or more databases (e.g., the database 118), tables, other suitable information sources, or portions or combinations thereof may be stored, managed, or otherwise provided by one or more of the elements of the system 100 other than the database server 116, such as the client 104 or the application server 112”). Margalit et al teaches updating/storing file changes in a repository ([0018] “Change tracker 61 receives change events from event processor 62 and processes the versioning of the changes to files using a versioning tool to store any changes to the files in change repository 80, which may be provisioned in system memory or local storage. In one embodiment, the versioning tool known as Git is used”). Neither expressly teach updating the application dependencies. Kulshreshtha et al PN 2023/0252133 was found that teaches ([0029] “In certain embodiments, the method may further include applying traces in the application and/or capturing snapshots of the application in addition to the first trace and/or the first snapshot, and updating the application dependency map associated with the application based at least in part on the additionally applied traces and/or the additionally captured snapshots. As application architecture changes over time, the continuous application of traces to the application and or captures of snapshots will allow for these changes to be captured within the updated application dependency map”). It would have been obvious to update the dependencies when they change because this would have kept the database up to date. The claim language however includes the limitation “updates the application dependency information according to the conversion table when the setting file of the application is changed”. The combination updates the database/conversion not updating according to the table.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Multiple references are cited that teach support for changing configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL R MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3639. The examiner can normally be reached telework M-F start 7-8 leave 4-5.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/Paul R. MYERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights