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 § 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 1,4-8,11-15,18-26 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 – concepts performed in the human mind.
Regarding claim 1, with the exception of the recitation of the limitation ‘by an endpoint of the managed endpoints; by the endpoint’, the claims are directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘monitoring the log file at the endpoint; while monitoring the log file, identifying an error log entry of the log entries based on the type, wherein the error log entry is a record of the technical error experienced at the endpoint; based on the timestamps of the log entries, determining a first time period, a first time interval, and a second time interval, wherein the first time period begins at the error log entry and lasts for a predetermined period of time, the first time interval begins at the end of the first time period and extends back a second time period, and the second time interval, and the second time interval begins at the end of the first time period and moves forward for a third time period; ignoring the log entries that are generated during a first time period to reduce a duplicate error log associated with the technical error; aggregating the first and the second pluralities of log entries’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘communicating an error report to a log file analysis system of an administrative device, wherein the error report is automatically sent in response to a technical error experienced during operations of the endpoint; after communication of the error report, receiving, at the endpoint and from the log file analysis system, a log monitor command that is configured to initiate analysis of a log file at the endpoint, wherein: the log file describes operations association with one or both of an application and a hardware operating on the endpoint, the log file is automatically generated by the endpoint responsive to a pre-classified event that includes the technical error, and the log file includes log entries each having timestamps, types, and log data; collecting a first plurality of log entries during a first time interval from the endpoint to capture operations at the endpoint prior to the technical error; further collecting a second plurality of log entries during the second time interval from the endpoint to capture records of operations at the endpoint following the technical error; communicating the aggregated log entries including the first and the second pluralities of log entries to the log file analysis system to use as a basis of technical error evaluation instead of all of the log entries of the log file; responsive to identification the technical error being experienced at the endpoint by the log file analysis system, receiving a mitigation action from the administrative device, the mitigation action being based on the technical error evaluation of the aggregated log entries by the administrative device and determination of a solution to the technical error; and implementing the mitigation action to implement the solution at the endpoint to correct the technical error at the endpoint’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case the insignificant extra-solution activity involves data gathering and sending/receiving of particular information.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because ‘by an endpoint of the managed endpoints; by the endpoint’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 4, the limitation ‘wherein: the second time period is substantially similar to the third time period; and the first time period is shorter than the second time period’ is a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion for defining the second time period.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation ‘wherein: the second time period is about five minutes; and the first time period is about ten seconds’ is a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion for defining the second time period.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation ‘wherein the first time period, the second time period, and the third time period are set according to a characteristic of the endpoint’ is a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation ‘further comprising communicating the aggregated log entries to a particular storage location at the administrative device’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation ‘wherein: the log monitor command includes a parameter’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)); ‘the analysis of the log file further includes filtering the first and the second pluralities of log entries based on the parameter prior to aggregating first and the second pluralities of log entries’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion; and ‘the parameter includes an event category, an urgency level, an event domain, identification of the application, a message or log prefix, a post identification number, a thread identification number, or a time corresponding to a log entry’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 22, the limitation ‘wherein the monitoring the log file includes reading and parsing new instances of the log entries as they are added to the log file’ is mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 23,26, the limitation ‘wherein the pre-classified event includes a crash of the application’ is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity – indicating specific type of data gathered (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 8, with the exception of the recitation of the limitations ‘One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media configured to store instructions that, in response to being executed, cause a system to perform operations of log entry analysis and mitigation in managed endpoints; by an endpoint of the managed endpoints; by the endpoint’, the claims are directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘monitoring the log file at the endpoint; while monitoring the log file, identifying an error log entry of the log entries based on the type, wherein the error log entry is a record of the technical error experienced at the endpoint; based on the timestamps of the log entries, determining a first time period, a first time interval, and a second time interval, wherein the first time period begins at the error log entry and lasts for a predetermined period of time, the first time interval begins at the end of the first time period and extends back a second time period, and the second time interval, and the second time interval begins at the end of the first time period and moves forward for a third time period; ignoring the log entries that are generated during a first time period to reduce a duplicate error log associated with the technical error; aggregating the first and the second pluralities of log entries’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘communicating an error report to a log file analysis system of an administrative device, wherein the error report is automatically sent in response to a technical error experienced during operations of the endpoint; after communication of the error report, receiving, at the endpoint and from the log file analysis system, a log monitor command that is configured to initiate analysis of a log file at the endpoint, wherein: the log file describes operations association with one or both of an application and a hardware operating on the endpoint, the log file is automatically generated by the endpoint responsive to a pre-classified event that includes the technical error, and the log file includes log entries each having timestamps, types, and log data; collecting a first plurality of log entries during a first time interval from the endpoint to capture operations at the endpoint prior to the technical error; further collecting a second plurality of log entries during the second time interval from the endpoint to capture records of operations at the endpoint following the technical error; communicating the aggregated log entries including the first and the second pluralities of log entries to the log file analysis system to use as a basis of technical error evaluation instead of all of the log entries of the log file; responsive to identification the technical error being experienced at the endpoint by the log file analysis system, receiving a mitigation action from the administrative device, the mitigation action being based on the technical error evaluation of the aggregated log entries by the administrative device and determination of a solution to the technical error; and implementing the mitigation action to implement the solution at the endpoint to correct the technical error at the endpoint’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case the insignificant extra-solution activity involves data gathering and sending/receiving of particular information.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because ‘One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media configured to store instructions that, in response to being executed, cause a system to perform operations of log entry analysis and mitigation in managed endpoints; by an endpoint of the managed endpoints; by the endpoint’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation ‘wherein: the second time period is substantially similar to the third time period; and the first time period is shorter than the second time period’ is a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion for defining the second time period.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation ‘wherein: the second time period is about five minutes; and the first time period is about ten seconds’ is a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion for defining the second time period.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation ‘wherein the first time period, the second time period, and the third time period are set according to a characteristic of the endpoint’ is a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation ‘further comprising communicating the aggregated log entries to a particular storage location at the administrative device’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation ‘wherein: the log monitor command includes a parameter’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)); ‘the analysis of the log file further includes filtering the first and the second pluralities of log entries based on the parameter prior to aggregating first and the second pluralities of log entries’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion; and ‘the parameter includes an event category, an urgency level, an event domain, identification of the application, a message or log prefix, a post identification number, a thread identification number, or a time corresponding to a log entry’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 25, the limitation ‘wherein the monitoring the log file includes reading and parsing new instances of the log entries as they are added to the log file’ is mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 15, with the exception of the recitation of the limitations ‘one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media configured to store instructions that, in response to being executed, cause the managed endpoint to perform operations’, the claims are directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘monitoring the log file at the endpoint; while monitoring the log file, identifying an error log entry of the log entries based on the type, wherein the error log entry is a record of the technical error experienced at the endpoint; based on the timestamps of the log entries, determining a first time period, a first time interval, and a second time interval, wherein the first time period begins at the error log entry and lasts for a predetermined period of time, the first time interval begins at the end of the first time period and extends back a second time period, and the second time interval, and the second time interval begins at the end of the first time period and moves forward for a third time period; ignoring the log entries that are generated during a first time period to reduce a duplicate error log associated with the technical error; aggregating the first and the second pluralities of log entries’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘communicating an error report to a log file analysis system of an administrative device, wherein the error report is automatically sent in response to a technical error experienced during operations of the endpoint; after communication of the error report, receiving, at the endpoint and from the log file analysis system, a log monitor command that is configured to initiate analysis of a log file at the endpoint, wherein: the log file describes operations association with one or both of an application and a hardware operating on the endpoint, the log file is automatically generated by the endpoint responsive to a pre-classified event that includes the technical error, and the log file includes log entries each having timestamps, types, and log data; collecting a first plurality of log entries during a first time interval from the endpoint to capture operations at the endpoint prior to the technical error; further collecting a second plurality of log entries during the second time interval from the endpoint to capture records of operations at the endpoint following the technical error; communicating the aggregated log entries including the first and the second pluralities of log entries to the log file analysis system to use as a basis of technical error evaluation instead of all of the log entries of the log file; responsive to identification the technical error being experienced at the endpoint by the log file analysis system, receiving a mitigation action from the administrative device, the mitigation action being based on the technical error evaluation of the aggregated log entries by the administrative device and determination of a solution to the technical error; and implementing the mitigation action to implement the solution at the endpoint to correct the technical error at the endpoint’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case the insignificant extra-solution activity involves data gathering and sending/receiving of particular information.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because ‘One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media configured to store instructions that, in response to being executed, cause a system to perform operations’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 18, the limitation ‘wherein: the second time period is substantially similar to the third time period; and the first time period is shorter than the second time period’ is a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion for defining the second time period.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation ‘wherein: the second time period is about five minutes; and the first time period is about ten seconds’ is a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion for defining the second time period.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation ‘wherein the first time period, the second time period, and the third time period are set according to a characteristic of the endpoint’ is a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered.
Concerning Applicant’s arguments of the 101 rejection on pages 10-13 of the Remarks section, the ‘technical error mitigation’ and ‘aggregated portions of the log file…instead of all of the log entries of the log file’ are not seen as a practical application. The ‘aggregated portions of the log file…instead of all of the log entries of the log file’ is a form of filtering information. The ‘analysis of the log file’ and its limitation merely monitoring, analyzing, and filtering/grouping information. These limitations are not an improvement to technology. The ‘practical application’ of technical error mitigation is generally linking to error mitigation.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113