Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1 have been amended. Claims 1-2 are pending and presented for examination.
Regarding 35. U.S.C. 112(f), (a), (b) The modifications to claim 1 does recite sufficient structure such that it overcomes the interpretations under 35. U.S.C. 112(f), and are persuasive. Thus the 112 (a) and (b) rejections associated with the 112(f) interpretation is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant highlights this quotation from Claim 1:
"In operation (b), as the first application is called, the first log collecting agent issues a unique first transaction ID according to the call, and adds the issued first transaction ID to a message header of the first log information" and "in operation (c), the first log collecting agent calls the second application in a state in which the first transaction ID is added to the message header" (page 8)
Regarding the argument that Agarwal does not recite the proper structure, that the Trace ID, Span ID, and Parent Span ID, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Agarwal recites that the REST API is used for context propagation, which is added to the context propagation through an instrumentation system. This is sent to a log collecting agent, (column 8, lines 29-53, Fig. 3, column 10, lines 3-14). Regarding the argument that Agarwal does not recite “issuing or generating the new Span ID in a state of setting the span ID of Span A as the Parent Span ID”, when a new child Span is created, it must generate a new Span that serves as the second transaction ID, and then connects it to the first transaction ID (the parent Span), thus, setting it as the span for that process.
Further, Applicant recites: "in operation (d), as the second application is called, the second log collecting agent receives the first transaction ID and sets the first transaction ID as a parent transaction ID, and in a state of setting the first transaction ID as the parent transaction ID, the second log collecting agent issues a unique second transaction ID, and collects the first transaction ID set as the parent transaction ID and the issued second transaction ID as the second log information" (page 8-9).
Regarding the argument that Agarwal does not recite the proper structure, that the Trace ID, Span ID, and Parent Span ID, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Agarwal recites that the REST API is used for context propagation, which is added to the context propagation through an instrumentation system. This is sent to a log collecting agent, (column 8, lines 29-53, Fig. 3, column 10, lines 3-14). Regarding the argument that Agarwal does not recite “issuing or generating the new Span ID in a state of setting the span ID of Span A as the Parent Span ID”, when a new child Span is created, it must generate a new Span that serves as the second transaction ID, and then connects it to the first transaction ID (the parent Span), thus, setting it as the span for that process. Further, the trace IDs are used for the second span to map to the first parent Span ID, such that the second Span ID is linked to it.
The complete rejection can be found below and claims 1 and 2 are found to not be patentable over the recited art. The full detail of the analysis is in the amended 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection below.
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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11347622 B1 (Agarwal et. al).
Regarding claim 1, Agarwal recites, A method of tracing a call relationship between multiple applications and displaying log information on the call relationship by a server in which a microservice architecture including multiple applications is built, the method comprising: (a) calling a first application among the multiple applications (calling a program using a trace, which included log information, column 5, lines 23-43, column 6, lines 62 – column 7, line 7, communication between different microservices; see also column 1, lines 16-56; column 22, line 21 – column 23, line 62; column 25, line 38 – column 26, line 41); (b) collecting first log information of the first application from a first log collecting agent installed in the first application (column 9, lines 20-31, a collector that collects log information); (c) calling a second application among the multiple applications through an application programming interface (API) call from the first application (column 6, lines 62 – column 7, line 7, communication between different microservices, using an API); (d) collecting second log information of the second application from a second log collecting agent installed in the second application; and (e) transmitting the log information of the first application collected in operation (b) and the log information of the second application collected in operation (d) to a log collecting server and displaying the transmitted log information of the first application and the transmitted log information of the second application on a display unit of the log collecting server (column 10, lines 42-60, transmitting the data from the query engine and reporting system to another system, which includes a GUI for reporting), wherein, in operation (b), as the first application is called, the first log collecting agent issues a unique first transaction ID according to the call, and adds the issued first transaction ID to a message header of the first log information, (column 8, lines 39-54, a new trace id in the message, in the first system; see also column 29, line 25 – column 31, line 27; column 35, line 24 – column 36, line 46; column 37, line 61 – column 38, line 62), in operation (c), the first log collecting agent calls the second application in a state in which the first transaction ID is added to the message header in operation (d), as the second application is called, the second log collecting agent receives the first transaction ID and sets the first transaction ID as a parent transaction ID, and in(column 8, lines 39-54, a trade id communicated to the second device, with information about the handling data, column 7, lines 55- column 8, line 8 of data, including a span ID, parent Span, and trace ID; see also column 29, line 25 – column 31, line 27; column 35, line 24 – column 36, line 46; column 37, line 61 – column 38, line 62) and in operation (e), log information of the multiple applications is displayed on the display unit, and based on the first transaction ID transmitted to the log collecting server and the first transaction ID set as the parent transaction ID and the second transaction ID transmitted to the log collecting server, a call relationship between the first application and the second application is traced so that the first log information of the first application and the second log information of the second application according to the call relationship between the first application and the second application identified by the first transaction ID are displayed to be identified in the log information of the multiple applications (a display of the call information, column 22, lines 21- 27, provided by the aggregation module, and column 8, lines 39-54, a trade id communicated to the second device, with information about the handling data, column 7, lines 55- column 8, line 8 of data, including a span ID, parent Span, and trace ID; see also column 29, line 25 – column 31, line 27; column 35, line 24 – column 36, line 46; column 37, line 61 – column 38, line 62).
2. Regarding Claim 2, Agarwal recites, The method of claim 1, wherein topology of the multiple applications is displayed on the display unit and topology regarding a call relationship between the first application and the second application identified by the first transaction ID is displayed as a topology in a state in which the first application and the second application are connected to each other (column 22, lines 21-30, showing the topology and the call relationship between services, column 8, lines 1 – 6, a trace associated; see also column 29, line 25 – column 31, line 27; column 35, line 24 – column 36, line 46; column 37, line 61 – column 38, line 62; figures 8, 10-12 and 20).
Conclusion
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 t whose telephone number is (571)272-4314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 6:30-5 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, LEWIS BULLOCK can be reached at (571) 272-3759. 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.
/C.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199