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. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 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. Claims 1 , 5- 6 , 10- 11 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements such as storage, a computer system, processors, data storage devices, machine-readable instructions, and computer readable media do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because retrieving, constructing, and displaying are well understood, routine, and conventional computer functions . Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A computer-implemented method for constructing a navigable ontology of products, applications, and event types of l o g messages associated with a system running in a data center, the method comprising: retrieving from data storage a mapping of applications to products executing in the data center and log messages that correspond to the applications for a user-selected time frame ; constructing a tiered ontology based on the products, applications, and event types of the log messages, the ontology representing how the log messages are distributed across the products, applications, and event types: and displaying the ontology as a navigable flow map in a graphical user interface (GU I ) on a display device, the flow map visually representing a distribution of the log messages across products and applications and enabling a user to select particular event types of the log messages for visual inspection . The limitation of retrieving from data storage a mapping of applications to products executing in the data center and log messages that correspond to the applications for a user-selected time frame as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is , nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “retrieving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually receive associated data from a storage location that has been categorized according to some time metric. The limitation of constructing a tiered ontology based on the products, applications, and event types of the log messages, the ontology representing how the log messages are distributed across the products, applications, and event types as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “constructing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually depict a display of messages which are associated with data which is categorical and has multiple levels or tiers. The limitation of displaying the ontology as a navigable flow map in a graphical user interface (GU I ) on a display device, the flow map visually representing a distribution of the log messages across products and applications and enabling a user to select particular event types of the log messages for visual inspection as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “displaying” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually illustrate a categorical depiction of associated messages and data which can be analyzed by a person or a “user”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform retrieving from data storage, constructing a tiered ontology, and displaying the ontology steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform retrieving, constructing, and displaying steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not directed to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: wherein enabling the user to select particular event types of the log messages for visual inspection comprises filtering event types for non-parametric selected via the GUI . These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent Claim 1 because they further the limitations of Claim 1 which are directed towards an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform filtering event types steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform filtering steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible . Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A computer system constructing a navigable ontology of products, applications, and event types of log messages associated with a system running in a data center, the system comprising: one or more processors; one or more data storage devices; and machine readable instructions stored in the one or more data storage devices of the computer system that when executed using the one or more processors controls the computer system to perform operations comprising: retrieving from data storage a mapping of applications to products executing in the data center and log messages that correspond to the applications for a user-selected time frame; constructing a tiered ontology based on the products, applications, and event types of the log messages, the ontology representing how the log messages are distributed across the products, applications, and event types: and displaying the ontology as a navigable flow map in a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device, the flow map visually representing a distribution of the log messages across products and applications and enabling a user to select particular event types of the log messages for visual inspection . The limitation of retrieving from data storage a mapping of applications to products executing in the data center and log messages that correspond to the applications for a user-selected time frame as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “retrieving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually receive associated data from a storage location that has been categorized according to some time metric. The limitation of constructing a tiered ontology based on the products, applications, and event types of the log messages, the ontology representing how the log messages are distributed across the products, applications, and event types as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “constructing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually depict a display of messages which are associated with data which is categorical and has multiple levels or tiers. The limitation of displaying the ontology as a navigable flow map in a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device, the flow map visually representing a distribution of the log messages across products and applications and enabling a user to select particular event types of the log messages for visual inspection as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “displaying” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually illustrate a categorical depiction of associated messages and data which can be analyzed by a person or a “user”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform retrieving from data storage, constructing a tiered ontology, and displaying the ontology steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform retrieving, constructing, and displaying steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not directed to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: wherein enabling the user to select particular event types of the log messages for visual inspection comprises filtering event types for non-parametric selected via the GUI . These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent Claim 6 because they further the limitations of Claim 6 which are directed towards an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform filtering event types steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform filtering steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with machine-readable instructions for enabling one or more processors of a computer system in a data center by performing operations comprising: retrieving from data storage a mapping of applications to products executing in the data center and log messages that correspond to the applications for a user-selected time frame: constructing a tiered ontology based on the products, applications, and event types of the log messages, the ontology representing how the log messages are distributed across the products, applications, and event types; and displaying the ontology as a navigable flow map in a graphical user interface (“GUI”) of a display device, the flow map visually representing a distribution of the log messages across products and applications and enabling a user to select particular event types of the log messages for visual inspection . The limitation of retrieving from data storage a mapping of applications to products executing in the data center and log messages that correspond to the applications for a user-selected time frame as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “retrieving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually receive associated data from a storage location that has been categorized according to some time metric. The limitation of constructing a tiered ontology based on the products, applications, and event types of the log messages, the ontology representing how the log messages are distributed across the products, applications, and event types as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “constructing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually depict a display of messages which are associated with data which is categorical and has multiple levels or tiers. The limitation of displaying the ontology as a navigable flow map in a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device, the flow map visually representing a distribution of the log messages across products and applications and enabling a user to select particular event types of the log messages for visual inspection as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “displaying” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually illustrate a categorical depiction of associated messages and data which can be analyzed by a person or a “user”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform retrieving from data storage, constructing a tiered ontology, and displaying the ontology steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform retrieving, constructing, and displaying steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not directed to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: wherein enabling the user to select particular event types of the log messages for visual inspection comprises filtering event types for non-parametric selected via the GUI. These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent Claim 11 because they further the limitations of Claim 11 which are directed towards an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform filtering event types steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform filtering steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 , 5-6, 10-11, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over McRaven et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0325624 A1) . In respect to Claim 1, McRaven teaches: a computer-implemented method for constructing a navigable ontology of products, applications, and event types of lag messages associated with a system running in a data center, the method comprising: retrieving from data storage a mapping of applications to products executing in the data center and log messages that correspond to the applications for a user-selected time frame; (McRaven teaches [0107] usage of an ontology which correspond to a variety of applications. McRaven further teaches [0121] that these applications are mapped or linked to products within a data structure in a database, wherein a data structure within a database corresponds to data storage in a data center. McRaven teaches [0004 , 0007, 0011 ] retrieval of time specific data using the user interface. McRaven teaches [0058] time series data and information, wherein a log message consists of time stamped records of events.) constructing a tiered ontology based on the products, applications, and event types of the log messages, the ontology representing how the log messages are distributed across the products, applications, and event types: (McRaven illustrates [FIG. 4] creation of an ontology. McRaven teaches [0044 -0045 , 0071, 0107, 0121] an ontology representing a variety of applications and event types . McRaven teaches [0058] time series data and information, wherein a log message consists of time stamped records of events.) and displaying the ontology as a navigable flow map in a graphical user interface (GU I ) on a display device, the flow map visually representing a distribution of the log messages across products and applications and enabling a user to select particular event types of the log messages for visual inspection (McRaven teaches [FIG. 6B, 0083] time series data, wherein this data represents log messages, defined by an ontology, and a user interface to select for display a desired period of time.) As per Claim 5, McRaven teaches: wherein enabling the user to select particular event types of the log messages for visual inspection comprises filtering event types for non-parametric selected via the GUI (McRaven illustrates [FIG. 6A, FIG. 8A] the ability for users to select time series data, wherein this data constitutes log messages, in the user interface.) Claims 6 & 10 are the system claims corresponding to method claims 1 & 5 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted above. Claims 11 & 15 are the media claims corresponding to method claims 1 & 5 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-4, 7-9, & 12-14 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1395 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:00 am - 4:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kavita Stanley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8352 . 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. /JOSHUA BULLOCK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 December 19, 2025