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 .
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The steps of collecting (receiving data logs), categorizing, analyzing usage patterns and determining retention periods fall within the category of mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgement). Mapping the retention estimate to the access pattern is considered data analysis. Setting a retention period is a decision based on the previous analysis. 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. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim
recites an additional element - receiving, by a computer system, a log entry to store within a log file. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of data gathering), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.5(G)). Applicant’s NPL pipeline and computer system are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is well-understood, routine and conventional to generating, by the computer system, a log retention value based on mapping log retention estimates to the categorized information and the one or more patterns. Prior art Hubbard (US 2019/0303038) discloses wherein the storage device controller may interpret the workload type attribute as indicative of the anticipated retention time, e.g., by assuming that data items associated with the “log data” attribute would have longer retention time than data items that are marked as the “user data.” The storage device controller may utilize the data attribute value to identify the storage media type that is best suited for storing the data items and the memory device that supports the identified storage media type (¶0032). The claim is not patent eligible. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-10 recite limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation that fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The dependent claims add details to the data analysis and organization process, but rely on generic computing components (computer system and NLP pipeline) and conventional data processing techniques. The claims fail to recite specific technical improvement or solutions to technical problems.
Claims 11-26 and 17-21 follow the same analysis and conclusion of ineligibility. Claims 11-26 and 17-21 disclose a computer program product and system that preform the steps of the method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states:
Even if amended claims 2, 11, and 17 are considered as judicial exceptions (which Applicant does not concede), Applicant submits that the claims are integrated into a practical application as applied to prong 2 analysis. The Office Action asserts that the recited limitations of independent claims 2, 11, and 17 do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. More specifically, the Office Action asserts that "[t]he claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is well-understood, routine and conventional to generating, by the computer system, a log retention value based on mapping log retention estimates to the categorized information and the one or more patterns." Office Action at page 3.
The limitations recited in amended claim 2 include, after a log entry has been stored with a retention period determined based on analysis of information within the log entry, aggregating the log entry with different log entries that are selected based on respective categorized information from prior analysis, and storing a portion of the log entry with the different log entries. As one can see, such a technique allows information from expired log entries to be retained for a longer time without increased costs (e.g., additional non-volatile memory storage circuits). Furthermore, significant information held in the expired log entries may be retained for future access, despite loss of portions of the original expired log entry. For example, claim 10 (dependent on claim 2) has been amended to recite that "in response to a query received after the retention period ends, reconstructing the particular log entry from the stored portion using a simulator to predict information of the particular log entry that is not included in the portion." Accordingly, if an expired, but aggregated, log entry is relevant to a user query, the information from the expired log entry remains available for a longer period of time without having to store the complete log entry past the retention period by utilizing the computer system to reconstruct the expired log entry based on a simulation model.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claims 2, 11, and 17 are directed to practical applications and, therefore, they do not recite judicial exceptions. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claims 2-21 are patent eligible, for at least the reasons presented above, and respectfully requests the rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While applicants argues that the aggregating expired log entries allows information to be retained longer without increased costs. The claim merely recites selecting, aggregating, and storing portions of the log entries based on categorized information. The claims do not recite any specific improvement to the computer technology or operation. The aggregation and storage of portions of the log entries are not tied to any specific storage mechanism, data structure or memory management technique. The computer is used in a generic manner to implant rules for storage. This is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Limitations directed to organizing, analyzing and selectively storing/retaining information has been deemed an abstract idea. The benefits of reduced storage and extended availability of information are results of the selection and aggregation based on categorized information rather than a specific improvement to storage technology or computer functionality.
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 CHARLES EHNE whose telephone number is (571)272-2471. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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.
/CHARLES EHNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113