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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Claim Objections and Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, filed September 12, 2025, with respect to objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendments to the claims have addressed the issues raised in the previous Office Action. The objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, filed September 12, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The independent claims have been amended to integrate subject matter indicated to be novel in the previous Office Action. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, filed September 12, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of the claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that firstly, cloud platform logs are preprocessed, “filtering duplicate logs, and converting the logs after filtering to a standard format; and storing the logs in the standard format in a table structure, and storing the table in an in-memory column”, and that this process requires a close technical interaction with the hardware device of the cloud platform comprising an in-memory column. Applicant argues that this cannot be performed by a human mind, and cannot be performed by using a computer as a general tool. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of filtering logs, converting the logs to a standard format, and storing the logs in a table structure can be performed in the human mind, as they amount to modifying the way information is arranged. The step of storing the table in an in-memory column is not an abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind, but it does not integrate the rest of the preprocessing into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. As stated in the previous Office Action, it is an additional element directed to electronic recordkeeping and storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). See at least Plattner (NPL, A Common Database Approach for OLTP and OLAP Using an In-Memory Column Database).
Applicant secondly argues that it is well-known that cloud platform logs contain massive data beyond the capabilities of the human mind to practically process, and as such various features identified as abstract ideas cannot be practically performed by the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, cannot be performed by using a computer as a general tool, and are not directed to an abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amount of logs under analysis make analysis difficult, but do not prevent the steps from being performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper or computer as a general tool. The solution described in the claims amounts to the well-understood function of a computer as a general tool to perform repetitive calculations on a large scale. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The claims do not place limitations on the computation that preclude the steps from being performed in the human mind, regardless of scale.
Applicant further argues that the in-memory column represents an improvement in the performance of the computer system itself. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the previous Office Action, it is an additional element directed to electronic recordkeeping and storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). See at least Plattner (NPL, A Common Database Approach for OLTP and OLAP Using an In-Memory Column Database). The abstract idea of analyzing logs is not applied to a particular application. It is unclear what improvement to the computer system this method of log analysis applies.
In addition, the claims recite mathematical calculation abstract ideas which are not directly addressed in arguments, particularly the word segmentation and TF-IDF computations.
An analysis and rejection of the amended claims is included below.
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, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16 - 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
-Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, claims 1 – 4, 7, 12 and 14 are to a process. Claims 9, 10 and 16 – 18 and 21 are to a machine.
-Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes.
Regarding claim 1:
The limitations
“equally dividing the time for recording logs into a plurality of time records according to a preset time length, and counting the total number of logs in each time period”
“performing word segmentation on a log from the time period in which the fault occurred, and calculating a term frequency and an inverse document frequency of each word”
“acquiring a total number of logs in each class, and judging whether there is a class in which the total number of logs is less than a threshold”
“in response to absence of a class in which the total number of logs is less than the threshold, determining the time period in which the fault occurred according to a class with a smallest total number of logs”
“in response to presence of a class in which the total number of logs is less than the threshold, determining the time period in which the fault occurred according to a class with the smallest total number of logs among classes in which the total number of logs is less than the threshold, wherein the presence of a class in which the total number of logs is less than the threshold indicates that there is a class of initial system startup or log missing”
“classifying the cloud platform logs into an exception class and a normal class according to the number of logs in each class, and finding a suspicious time interval in which a fault occurred based on the time in the exception class and a raw log, wherein, a class with the largest number of logs is a normal class, a class with a relatively large number of logs is a class on an edge of a fault, a class with a relatively small number of logs is an exception class that is completely in a fault, and a class with the smallest number of logs is a class with very few logs due to initial system startup or log missing”
are abstract ideas of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The limitations “selecting a time window comprising a plurality of consecutive time periods, classifying each time period in the time window according to a dissimilarity value so as to obtain an exception class, and according to the time corresponding to a log in the exception class, determining a time period in which a fault occurred”, “according to a product of the term frequency and the inverse document frequency, determining a reason for which the fault occurred”, and “filtering duplicate logs, and converting the logs after filtering to a standard format”, are abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding claim 2:
The limitations “S22, successively calculating dissimilarity values of each remaining time period to every one of the initial center points, and according to the dissimilarity values, assigning each remaining time period to a corresponding initial center point to form a plurality of clusters; and S23, calculating the sum of squared errors of each cluster, determining a new center point in each cluster according to the sum of squared errors, and calculating dissimilarity values again based on a new plurality of center points” are abstract ideas of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The limitations “S21, randomly selecting, from the time window, a first number of time periods as initial center points” and “repeating the above steps S21-S23 until a clustering condition is met” are abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Alternatively, they are abstract ideas of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Regarding claim 3:
The limitations “determining a lowest dissimilarity value corresponding to a current time period to be assigned, and assigning the current time period to an initial center point corresponding to the lowest dissimilarity value” are abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Alternatively, they are abstract ideas of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Regarding claim 4:
The limitations “judging whether there is an inflection point in a magnitude of the sum of squared errors of a cluster; and stopping repeating the steps S21-S23 in response to presence of an inflection point in the magnitude of the sum of squared errors of a cluster” are abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Alternatively, they are abstract ideas of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Regarding claim 7:
The limitation “calculating the product of the term frequency and the inverse document frequency of each word” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The limitations “ranking corresponding words in an order from a largest product to a smallest product; and determining the reason for which the fault occurred according to a preset number of top-ranking words” are abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Alternatively, they are abstract ideas of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 9 recites similar language to claim 1, and as such recites similar abstract ideas.
Claim 10 does not recite any additional abstract ideas, but recites all abstract ideas of its parent claims by virtue of dependency.
Claim 12 does not recite any additional abstract ideas, but recites all abstract ideas of its parent claims by virtue of dependency.
Regarding claim 14:
The limitation “using a K-means clustering algorithm to obtain an approximate fault time period” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 16 recites similar language to claim 2, and recites similar abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites similar language to claim 3, and recites similar abstract ideas.
Claim 18 recites similar language to claim 4, and recites similar abstract ideas.
Claim 21 recites similar language to claim 7, and recites similar abstract ideas.
-Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “for analyzing cloud platform logs” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). The scale of cloud platform logs is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
The limitation “storing the table structure in an in-memory column” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore in-column memory is well-understood, routine and conventional. See at least Plattner (NPL, A Common Database Approach for OLTP and OLAP Using an In-Memory Column Database).
Claims 2 – 4 and 7 do not recite any additional elements.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “A computer device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory configured to store computer instructions that can be run on the processor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor” are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the method” are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations “wherein the step of preprocessing cloud platform logs further comprises: formatting logs by dividing each log into five parts: timestamp, log address, code module, log level and specific log content” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Claim 14 does not recite any additional elements.
Claims 16 – 18 and 21 do not recite any additional elements.
-Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “for analyzing cloud platform logs” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). The scale of cloud platform logs is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
The limitation “storing the table structure in an in-memory column” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore in-column memory is well-understood, routine and conventional. See at least Plattner (NPL, A Common Database Approach for OLTP and OLAP Using an In-Memory Column Database).
Claims 2 – 4 and 7 do not recite any additional elements.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “A computer device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory configured to store computer instructions that can be run on the processor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor” are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the method” are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations “wherein the step of preprocessing cloud platform logs further comprises: formatting logs by dividing each log into five parts: timestamp, log address, code module, log level and specific log content” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 14 does not recite any additional elements.
Claims 16 – 18 and 21 do not recite any additional elements.
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 BRYAN PAI SONG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30 AM - 8:30 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, ASHISH THOMAS can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/B.P.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/MICHAEL MASKULINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights