DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is responsive to the Amendment, filed 12/12/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This action is made Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 - Claim 1 is directed to a process, claim 8 is directed to a hardware computing system/apparatus (i.e. a machine or manufacture), claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory CRM product (i.e. a manufacture). Claims 1, 8, and 15 therefore all fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One - The claims recite the following limitations that recite
abstract ideas:
“identify a data type of the raw data object” recites a mentally performable process as a form of observation, evaluation, or judgement. For instance, as drafted and consistent with the spec in [0025], [0046] the BRI of the limitation encompasses one mentally recognizing that a data object relates to a refrigerator data type based on the object content, size, or other object data.
“identify a parser based on the identified data type” recites a mentally performable process as a form of observation, evaluation, or judgement. For instance, as drafted and consistent with the spec in [0046] the BRI of the limitation encompasses one mentally judging that a specific parser should be chosen for the data type.
“execute the parser on the raw data object to at least identify an operation” recites a mentally performable process as a form of observation, evaluation, or judgement. Nothing in the claim or the specification defines what this “parser” constitutes or how it is ‘executed’ other than by function. For instance, as drafted and consistent with the spec in [0046] the BRI of the limitation encompasses one mentally parsing the data object based on a specified parsing algorithm (i.e. looking for specific things within the data). One can mentally parse a data object and identify a identify key, contents, or actions associated from the data object.
“perform the operation on the parsed raw data object” recites a mentally performable process as a form of evaluation, or judgement. For instance, as drafted and consistent with the spec in [0026] this performed operation can be a difference evaluation or subtraction between the newly received state of the data object and a previous state. One can mentally perform such a comparison or difference operation, for instance subtracting the refrigerator’s new running temperature from the previous temperature.
Step 2A Prong Two - The claim(s) recites the following additional elements:
That the claim is “over a network at a cloud-based computer”, computer-implemented by “at least one processor” and “at least one memory storing instructions” executed by the processor which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not provide integration into a practical application. Additionally, to any extent that the “parser” computer-implemented and “executed” this also is nothing more than mere instructions to apply the recited abstract ideas on a computer.
Step 2B
The conclusions above from Step 2A Prong One related to mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer are carried over and do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
With respect to the "receive..." limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated at Step 2B this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more. Looking at the claim(s) as a whole and in combination does not change the above conclusion either. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2-7 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-7 recite the same abstract idea.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “comparing the parsed raw data object with a stored data object; in response to the comparison yielding a difference between the parsed raw data object and the stored data object, replacing the stored data object with the parsed raw data object; and in response to the comparison yielding no difference between the parsed raw data object and the stored data object, not replacing the stored data object with the parsed raw data object”. These limitations recite a mentally performable process as a form of evaluation, or judgement. For instance, as drafted and consistent with the spec in [0026], [0059] the BRI of the limitation encompasses one mentally comparing the newly received refrigerator state data with a currently stored refrigerator state data and based on the result of the comparison to determine whether to replace/update the stored refrigerator state data. The claim represents insignificant extra-solution activity, as one can mentally compare data and determine whether to replace the data and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “the raw data object has a unique key”. These additional limitations of the data object contain a unique key, represents insignificant extra-solution activity, as mere further defining data object and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and recites “the cloud-based computer storage system comprises one or more index files for locating data objects stored at the cloud-based computer storage system”. These additional limitations of further reciting the storage system comprises index files for locating data object, represents insignificant extra-solution activity, as mere describing the storage system and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and recites “the unique key is stored at the raw data object and at an index file of the one or more index files”. These additional limitations of reciting where the unique key is stored, represents insignificant extra-solution activity, as mere describing the locations of the unique key is stored and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 depends from claim 4 and recites “the data objects are located via a tree implementation”. These additional limitations of reciting the data objects are located in a tree structure, represents insignificant extra-solution activity, as mere describing data objects located in a tree structure and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites “the raw data object includes network information”. These additional limitations of further reciting the data object as a network information, represents insignificant extra-solution activity as mere describing the data object as a network information and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 9-14 and 16-20 are essentially same as claims 1-7 except that they recite claimed invention as a system and a medium respective
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saurabh et al. (US 9,135,560) hereinafter Saurabh.
In claim 1, Saurabh teaches
A method comprising:
receiving, over a network at a cloud-based computer storage system, a raw data object (col. 13 lines 4-10, when raw data is received from a remote source);
identifying a data type of the raw data object (col. 4 lines 39-57, A collector acts as a container, or chassis, for "blades." A blade is a data retrieval mechanism. Each blade knows how to access one particular type of data and may be either passive (e.g., acting as a syslog server and receiving forwarded events) or may be active (e.g., able to log into a router using user supplied or other credentials and pull data). One example type of blade is able to tail a local file. Another type of blade is able to tail a remote file. Yet another type of blade can access a domain server and obtain events. Other blades are configured to access various data sources using vendor APIs, col. 13 lines 37-53, the blade that provided the raw data can have its configuration updated to include an appropriate source type (and/or vendor type and version number as applicable). The configuration can be performed automatically and can also be subject to administrator approval. Data received from the blade in the future will be labeled in accordance with the source type and the determined source type can also be retroactively associated with data previously received from the blade, as applicable);
identifying a parser based on the identified data type (col. 13 lines 11-35, the raw data is evaluated against a plurality of rules. As one example of the processing performed at 1204, the raw data could be evaluated (e.g., in sequence) against every rule included in library 924 by parser engine 934, parser engine 934 is implemented as a finite state machine and rules are evaluated in parallel. At 1206, a confidence measure is determined. the first 1,000 lines of raw data received from a blade at 1202 are evaluated against each rule in library 924. Suppose the confidence measure for the raw data with respect to an Apache access log parser is 0.999, with respect to a particular vendor's router parser is 0.321, and with respect to a credit card transaction parser is 0.005. A determination is made that the confidence measure with respect to the Apache access log parser exceeds a threshold, indicating that the received raw data is Apache log data (and in particular, access log data), with a very high confidence);
executing the parser on the raw data object to at least identify an operation (col. 14, lines 19-40, while a particular raw message may include a total of ten columns' worth of data, the selected schema may state that the first column ("time") and third column ("temperature") should be extracted separately from the other columns, that column two should be discarded, and that columns four through ten should be merged into a single column in the structured store and assigned a collective label. Messages may match multiple types of rules with a high confidence. As one example, suppose in an analysis of 10,000 initial lines from a blade, 90% are determined to be Apache access log data, and the remaining 10% are determined to be NTP data. This situation might arise if the device from which the blade is extracting data is an Apache web server that is configured to provide its logs to syslog (as is NTP). In this scenario, the administrator of the blade could be notified of the different types of data appearing in the syslog and be given the opportunity to have those two types of data individually tagged (e.g. with an "Apache" tag and an "ntp" tag)) and
performing the operation on the parsed raw data object (col. 14, lines 19-40, describing operation performed based on parsing).
In claim 2, Saurabh teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
comparing the parsed raw data object with a stored data object;
in response to the comparison yielding a difference between the parsed raw data object and the stored data object, replacing the stored data object with the parsed raw data object; and in response to the comparison yielding no difference between the parsed raw data object and the stored data object, not replacing the stored data object with the parsed raw data object (col. 13 lines 37-53, the blade that provided the raw data can have its configuration updated to include an appropriate source type (and/or vendor type and version number as applicable). The configuration can be performed automatically and can also be subject to administrator approval. Data received from the blade in the future will be labeled in accordance with the source type and the determined source type can also be retroactively associated with data previously received from the blade, as applicable. For example, metadata database 912 can be updated to include the blade's source information and data already stored in either raw storage or in the structured store can be updated to reflect the newly determined source information. In the case of syslog data (which aggregates log data from multiple applications), the source type could remain set to syslog, however, individual messages of the respective contributors to the log (e.g., ssh) can be labeled).
In claim 3, Saurabh teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the raw data object has a unique key (col. 18 lines 30-49, Alice selects a key 1708 and constructs a map 1706 that indicates how data should be obfuscated, the browser leverages client side JavaScript code and the provided key to decrypt the map and de-obfuscate the data in accordance with the map).
In claim 4, Saurabh teaches
The method of claim 3, wherein the cloud-based computer storage system comprises one or more index files for locating data objects stored at the cloud-based computer storage system (col. 18 line 64-col. 19 line 5, Prior to transmission to platform 102 (and query system 936), the administrator is prompted to provide key 1708 (e.g., as part of logging into web service 126). Portions of the query are transformed in accordance with map 1706. The transformed query is illustrated in line 1808. Query system 936 is able to perform a query using the obfuscated data and locate results as appropriate. When results are received by the browser, the browser de-obfuscates the results using the key and map).
In claim 5, Saurabh teaches
The method of claim 4, wherein the unique key is stored at the raw data object and at an index file of the one or more index files (col. 18 line 64-col. 19 line 5, Prior to transmission to platform 102 (and query system 936), the administrator is prompted to provide key 1708 (e.g., as part of logging into web service 126). Portions of the query are transformed in accordance with map 1706. The transformed query is illustrated in line 1808. Query system 936 is able to perform a query using the obfuscated data and locate results as appropriate. When results are received by the browser, the browser de-obfuscates the results using the key and map).
In claim 6, Saurabh teaches
The method of claim 4, wherein the data objects are located via a tree implementation (col. 4 lines 48-57, Multiple blades can be instantiated in a single collector, including multiple blades of the same type. For example, if multiple files (e.g., in different directories) are to be "tailed," in some embodiments one blade will be instantiated per file. In some embodiments, if the files to be tailed are located in the same directory, a single blade is used to tail all of those files. Multiple blades can also be configured to access the same file, and a single blade can be configured to access multiple files across multiple directories, as applicable).
In claim 7, Saurabh teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the raw data object includes network information (col. 5 lines 31-45, contextual data can also be used to augment message information sent by collectors to platform 102. For example, if a customer has devices such as antivirus, LDAP, or IDM servers, role managers, CMDBs, and/or vulnerability data in their network, data from those sources can be provided to platform 102 as context data (i.e., separately from the messages sent by collectors). In some embodiments, users are asked a series of interactive questions, such as whether they have a CMDB or a network scanner, and based on the answers, solutions are recommended, such as "since you don't have a network scanner, click here to install one." Updates to context data can be sent to platform 102 on any appropriate schedule, such as by performing nightly or weekly refreshes, or by sending updates whenever changes are made).
Claims 8-14 are essentially same as claims 1-7 except that they recite claimed invention as a system and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claims 15-20 are essentially same as claims 1-5 and 7 except that they recite claimed invention as a non-transitory computer readable medium and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Response to Arguments
8. In the remarks, the applicant argues that:
Saurabh does not teach “identifying a data type of the raw data object; identifying a parser based on the identified data type”: parsing is used to determine the type; the parser is chosen after the data type is identified. The claim requires a deterministic mapping: once the type is known, the parser is selected accordingly.
Examiner Responds: Saurabh discloses labeling data according to the data source type and using a parser engine to evaluate the data (see the above cited paragraphs: “A blade is a data retrieval mechanism…, data received from the blade in the future will be labeled in accordance with the source type…, the raw data could be evaluated (e.g., in sequence) against every rule included in library 924 by parser engine 934, parser engine 934 is implemented as a finite state machine and rules are evaluated in parallel) (Examiner interprets: data are labeled/classified according to the data source type, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “data type” does not define/limit as “a structural data type”, and a parser engine evaluate the data).
9. In the remarks, the applicant argues that:
The claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter: a cloud-based
computer storage system that identifies a data type of a raw data object, selects a parser based on that type, executes that parser to determine an operation, and performs the operation on the parsed object-with dependent claims adding state-store comparison/update behaviors, unique keys, index files, and tree-based location mechanisms. These concrete, ordered operations improve computer functionality and data ingestion/update performance in a cloud storage setting, and cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Examiner Responds: see the Patent Board decision (5/14/2025) and the above analysis regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, amendment for the claims with additional elements such as network, cloud-based computer, raw data, do not add steps/elements to overcome the rejections.
Conclusion
10. 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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAWEN A PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-5215. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Fri 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/HUAWEN A PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169