The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 10 December 2025. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL . In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant’s election without traverse of the instant application in the reply filed on 10 December 2025 is acknowledged. Status of Claims Claims 1-11, 15 are pending. Claims 13 are withdrawn. Claims 12, 14 are cancelled. Claim 1-11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. There is no art rejection for claims 1-11, 15. 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. Judicial Exception Claims 1-11, 15 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more. (Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1 / 15, the claim recites a process / article of manufacturing, which falls into one of the statutory categories. 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites (a) “ analyzing one or more log files of an industrial plant, the method comprising: determining at least one block in log entries of the log files, wherein the log entries comprises one or more log messages and wherein the block represents co-occurring log messages ” (mental process) , which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “analyzing”, “determining ”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyz ing / proces sing / evaluat ing data in log file data of a plant for making decision / creating representation , which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator . 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 ; (b) “ annotating the co-occurring log messages of the block using semantic metadata, wherein the semantic metadata defines one or more message types for the co-occurring log messages, wherein the semantic metadata is indicative of at least one of a start action, an end action, a source, an anomaly, a cause and an inspect action” (mental process) , which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “ annotating ”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyz ing / proces sing / evaluating data in log file data of a plant for making decision / creating representation , which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator . 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 ; (c) “ generating a coherent representation for the block by representing the co-occurring log messages in a graph based on the semantic metadata ” (mental process) ; which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “ generating ”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyz ing / proces sing / evaluating data in log file data of a plant for making decision / creating representation , which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator . 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 ; (d) “ enabling detection of at least one event in the block based on a comparison the coherent representation with template representations of predefined events associated with the industrial plant ” (mental process) , which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “ enabling detection … based on comparison … ”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyz ing / proces sing / evaluating data in log file data of a plant for making decision / creating representation , which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator . 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 ; (e) “ wherein generating a coherent representation for the block by representing the co- occurring log messages in a graph based on the semantic metadata comprises: defining a graph-structure of the graph based on the semantic metadata, wherein the graph-structure comprises a block identifier, a node for each of a plurality of phrases and associated edge with the semantic metadata; and generating the coherent representation for the block based on the graph- structure ” (mental process) , which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “ generating ”, “defining”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyz ing / proces sing / evaluating data in log file data of a plant for making decision / creating representation , which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator . 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 . 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: generic computer elements ( merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f) ) , which are computer components recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) . Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . The claim is directed to an abstract idea. 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer element merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. (Dependent claims) Claims 2-11 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-11 recite the same abstract ideas. With regards to claim 2 , the claim recites further limitation of “predicting an event priority of the detected event based on priority associated with a comparable template representation of the template representations ”, recites further steps to analyze / process data in log file , which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 3 , the claim recites further limitation of “inspecting at least one of the co-occurring log messages when the annotated semantic metadata is the inspection action, wherein the inspection is performed using a digital twin of the industrial plant, wherein the digital twin is a digital representation of the industrial plant in real-time ”, recites further steps to analyze / process data in log file , which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 4 , the claim recites further limitation of “detecting an anomalous log message in the log files of the industrial plant based at least on associated semantic metadata; and predicting an industrial event and associated event priority based on a template representation of an anomalous block ”, recites further steps to analyze / process data in log file , which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 5 , the claim recites further limitation of “inspecting the anomalous log message when the associated semantic metadata is the inspection action, wherein the inspection is performed at least partially through manual validation by an expert associated with the industrial plant ”, recites further steps to analyze / process data in log file , which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 6 , The claim recites “creating one or more batches of the log entries using a sliding window of a predetermined temporal size; identifying a plurality of co-occurring log messages based on pattern frequency analysis of the batches, wherein the plurality of co-occurring log messages comprises the co- occurring log messages of the at least one block; and determining one or more blocks in the log entries by identifying separable co- occurring log messages in the plurality of co-occurring messages, wherein the separable co- occurring log messages are determined as separate blocks and wherein the one or more blocks comprises the at least one block ”, which are further step s of analyz ing / proces sing / evaluating data in log file data of a plant for making decision / creating representation , which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator . 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. T he claim recites the additional elements ” receiving the log entries of the log files based on a common structured representation, wherein the common structured representation of the log entries comprises at least of timestamps and the log messages, and a source identifier ”, which amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ) , “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 7 , the claim recites further limitation of “identifying unique log messages in the batches and associated message-frequency, wherein message-frequency is a number of times each unique log message has been identified; ranking the unique log messages based on descending order of the message- frequency; generating a frequency pattern tree for the unique log messages, wherein the frequency pattern tree includes at least one of a path and one or more new branches, wherein the path includes the unique log messages with common prefix and wherein the new branches include unique log messages with no common prefix; and determining the plurality of co-occurring log messages based on the path and the new branches in the frequency pattern tree ”, recites further steps to analyze / process data in log file , which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 8 , the claim recites further limitation of “further comprising generating the template representations for the predefined events in the industrial plant, wherein generating the template representations comprises :identifying at least one co-occurring log messages as a significant block when frequency of the path in the frequency pattern tree is below a frequency threshold; mapping at least one predefined event to the significant block; and generating the template representations for the significant block as a knowledge graph ”, recites further steps to analyze / process data in log file , which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 9 , the claim recites further limitation of “generating the semantic metadata based on at least one of an input from an expert, a frequency based data analysis performed on the log files and an ontology associated with the industrial plant ”, recites further steps to analyze / process data in log file , which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 10 , the claim recites further limitation of “extracting chunks from the co-occurring log messages in the blocks, wherein the chunks include one or more phrases with a distinct meaning; and annotating the one or more phrases by classifying each phrase according to the semantic metadata using a classification model ”, recites further steps to analyze / process data in log file , which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 11 , the claim recites further limitation of “… determining the comparable template representation from the template representations based on semantic matching between the semantic metadata in the block with sematic metadata associated with the template representations ”, recites further steps to analyze / process data in log file , which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Allowable Subject Matter Analysis Claims 1-11, 15 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 ( Fed.Cir . 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-11, 15 . In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 15 March 2023, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record. Regarding the amended independent claim 1, the primary reason for the allowance is the inclusion of the following specific elements, in combination with the other elements cited, which is not found in the prior art of record: “… annotating the co-occurring log messages of the block using semantic metadata, wherein the semantic metadata defines one or more message types for the co-occurring log messages, wherein the semantic metadata is indicative of at least one of a start action, an end action, a source, an anomaly, a cause and an inspect action; generating a coherent representation for the block by representing the co-occurring log messages in a graph based on the semantic metadata; and enabling detection of at least one event in the block based on a comparison the coherent representation with template representations of predefined events associated with the industrial plant; wherein generating a coherent representation for the block by representing the co- occurring log messages in a graph based on the semantic metadata comprises: defining a graph-structure of the graph based on the semantic metadata, wherein the graph-structure comprises a block identifier, a node for each of a plurality of phrases and associated edge with the semantic metadata … ” in combination with other limitations in the claim. Claims 11, 20 are substantially similar to claim 1. The arguments as given above for claim 1, are applied, mutatis mutandis, to claims 11, 20, therefore the allowance reasoning of claim 1 are applied accordingly. None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claims 1, 11 and 20. Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed. The followings are references close to the invention claimed: Kondejkar et al., US-PGPUB NO.20220187818A1 [hereafter Kondejkar ] teaches predicting athlete rating with certain model. However Kondejkar does not teach the specific elements claimed of generating coherent representation for industrial plant log file with graph embedding meta data. Apostolopoulos et al., US-PGPUB NO.20180219888A1 [hereafter Apostolopoulos] teaches graph representation of data entities. However Apostolopoulos does not teach the specific elements claimed of generating coherent representation for industrial plant log file with graph embedding meta data. Ebel et al., US-PGPUB NO.20160092820A1 [hereafter Ebel ] teaches data analysis for industrial plant. However Ebel does not teach the specific elements claimed of generating coherent representation for industrial plant log file with graph embedding meta data. Zhu et al., “Tools and benchmarks for automated log parsing”, 2019 IEEE/ACM 41th international conference on software engineering, 2019 [hereafter Zhu] teaches log file parsing. However Zhu does not teach the specific elements claimed of generating coherent representation for industrial plant log file with graph embedding meta data. Bhattacharya et al., “Graph-based analysis and prediction for software evolution”, 2012 34 th International conference on software engineering (ICSE), 2-9 June 2012 [hereafter Bhattacharya] teaches using graph for SW modeling & prediction. However Bhattacharya does not teach the specific elements claimed of generating coherent representation for industrial plant log file with graph embedding meta data. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589. 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. /TSU-CHANG LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128