DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to RCE filed on 22 July 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. The claims have been considered and examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-10 are directed to a computer program product. Claims 11-17 are directed to a method/process, and claims 18-20 are directed to a system, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-10
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 1, recites the limitations “cluster the plurality of log records…”, “identify a first dissimilar subset of log records…”, “identify a second dissimilar subset of log records…” (Mental processes). The claims also recite “using at least one similarity algorithm” (Mathematical concepts), “incrementally add the new log records to the first cluster of log records and the second cluster of log records to form an updated first cluster of log records and an updated second cluster of log records” (Mental processes), “incrementally update the first dissimilar subset and the second dissimilar subset using the updated first cluster of log records and the updated second cluster of log records, without requiring re-processing of an entirety of available log records, by determining whether a new log record is more dissimilar to an average similarity of existing log records than a particular log record already included in a respective dissimilar subset, and replacing the particular log record with the new log record” (Mental processes). The limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) and mathematical formulas and equations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
The limitations cite processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or mathematical equations but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or on paper with pencil. The limitations involve grouping information, adding new information, and replacing information, based on a judgment and identifying information, thereby describing an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion of data. Such an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process. The limitations also involve algorithms and thus are mathematical equation and recite mathematical concepts.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind or mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping or “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 2-10 cite further details pertaining to “cluster the plurality of log records…”, “identify a first dissimilar subset of log records…”, “identify a second dissimilar subset of log records…” and “using at last one similarity algorithm” specified in claim 1; additionally cite “selecting a first cluster...”, “determine a similarity score...”, “add the first compared log record…”, “designate the first compared log record...”, “add a second log record…”, “identifying first similarity score…”, “identify a lowest similarity score…”, “include a first dissimilar log record…”, “identify second similarity scores…”, “select a seconds dissimilar log record…”, “designate a size of each …”, “replace at least one log record…”. Each of the limitations in these dependent claims describes processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, contain mental processes directed to performing the abstract idea identified in claim 1.
Claims 2-10 also cite “calculate average similarity scores…”. The limitation describes mathematical equation and recite, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, an abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
In claims 2-10, The limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) and mathematical formulas and equations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind or mathematical equations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping or “Mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, claims 2-10 each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1, indicates the computer program product comprising “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “executed by at least one computing device”. Even if the described computer program product is implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The computing device and medium cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 1, further recites the limitations “receive a plurality of log records…” and “receive new log records”. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claims 1-10, recites “train at least one machine learning model” without any specification of details pertaining to how the associated machine learning model is trained and/or how the actual machine learning is performed. Such details would include description of specific algorithms used in training the machine learning model. As currently written, the limitations in the claims describe merely certain data inputted to the machine learning model and received. There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s).
Claims 2-10 describe further details regarding the clustering and identifying. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claim 1 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The computer program product recited in the claim describe a generic computer device and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitation pertaining to “receive a plurality of log records…” and “receive new log recores” describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering and are written at a high level in a generic manner. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
Claims 1-10, recite limitations regarding the use of training at least one machine learning model. As discussed above in the Step 2A - Prong 2 analysis regarding integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitations, as currently written, describe merely certain data inputted to the machine learning model and received. There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor or other generic computer component, or utilizing generic artificial intelligence technology to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 1-10 recite and are directed to abstract ideas and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Claims 1-10 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 11-17
Claims 11-17, contain limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the computer program product specified in claims 1-7, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 11-17 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-7.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claims 11-17 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claims 11-17 recites the additional elements of a “a computer-implemented method”. The computer-implemented cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 11-17 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 11-17 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 18-20
Claims 18-20, contain limitations for a system which are similar to the limitations for the computer program product specified in claims 1, 2, and 5, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 18-20 is similar to that presented above for claims 1, 2, and 5.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claims 18-20 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claims 18-20 recites the additional elements of a “a system comprising: at least one memory including instructions; and at least one processor that is operably coupled to the at least one memory and that is arranged and configured to execute instructions that, when executed, case the at least one processor to”. The processor and memory cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception. The configuring of the processors recites intended use of the claimed limitations and does not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 18-20 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 18-20 are therefore not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the newly added amended claims are not abstract ideas. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations “incrementally add the new log records to the first cluster of log records and the second cluster of log records to form an updated first cluster of log records and an updated second cluster of log records” (Mental processes), and “incrementally update the first dissimilar subset and the second dissimilar subset using the updated first cluster of log records and the updated second cluster of log records, without requiring re-processing of an entirety of available log records, by determining whether a new log record is more dissimilar to an average similarity of existing log records than a particular log record already included in a respective dissimilar subset, and replacing the particular log record with the new log record” (Mental processes), are mental processes.
That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or on paper with pencil. The limitations involve grouping information, adding new information, and replacing information, based on a judgment and identifying information, thereby describing an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion of data. Such an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process. These limitations do not describe additional elements and are considered abstract ideas.
The other limitation “receive new log records” describes insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
Thus, the claims and newly added amended limitations are directed to abstract ideas and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D MANOSKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am to 3:30pm.
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.
/JOSEPH D MANOSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113 August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights