DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing 03/09/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-20, and 22-24 are pending and have been fully 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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 5 and 21 have been cancelled.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20, and 22-24 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claimed subject matter of Claim 13 is identical to the following limitation of Claim 9, from which Claim 13 depends: “wherein generating the lowest match cost template that is applicable to two of the multiple configuration files based on a cost function comprises: constructing finite state machines for each token within the configuration template; inferring a match cost optimal pattern using a dynamic programming table; and tracking automaton states in separate index tables.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, and 22-24 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent Claim 1, and similarly Claims 9 and 17, Vishwakarma et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11546217) teaches one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions and one or more processors coupled to the memory [Col. 12, lines 17-19]; that a configuration template is inferred according to the received configuration file(s) [Col. 5, lines 39-43], the input to the configuration template inference may be a set of support files ("multiple configuration files) [Col 4, lines 65-67]; that the system includes performing a compatibility check on a user configuration (a first type of configuration file) to feature configuration templates (a second type of configuration file) to identify and select relevant features (“lowest match cost”) to generate the configuration template [Col. 5, lines 39-449]; where the most relevant features are extracted from all configuration files ("subsequent configuration file of the multiple configuration files") to generate the (final) configuration template [Col. 5, lines 39-49].
Apostolopoulos (U.S. Patent No. 11343268B2) teaches that the data input for analysis may be configuration files [Col. 15, line 66- Col. 16, line 1], furthermore the data input for analysis may be parsed by the system into entities and actions ("parameters") [Col. 23, lines 1-8], where the data is analyzed using an unsupervised learning model [Col. 27, lines 62-63]; and an anomaly is indicated for parsed event data ("a parameter") [for parsed event data: Col. 22, lines 48-53] when the anomaly score exceeds a threshold [Col. 34, lines 51-53].
In addition to previously cited prior art, the Examiner points to additional closest prior art reference Zhao (CN 115034220). Zhao teaches using a finite state automation constructed from anomalous words to detect anomalous words contained in a log information [n0006, see supplied translation], where the state of the abnormal word node and other abnormal words corresponding to the previously identified abnormal word node are found [0013-0014], where a anomalous value is assigned using a dynamic programming table [n0006].
The above prior art fails to disclose, without impermissible hindsight reasoning, wherein to generate the lowest match cost template that is applicable to two of the multiple configuration files based on a cost function, the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to: construct finite state machines for each token within the configuration template; infer a match cost optimal pattern using a dynamic programming table; and track automaton states in separate index tables [emphasis added to distinguish allowable subject matter]. Claims 9 and 17 recite similarly. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-16, 18-20, and 22-24 depend upon the allowable subject matter recited in each independent claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered. The Examiner agrees that the amendment made to Claim 11 now recite subject matter sufficiently described in the specification (see [0097]). Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on Claims 1-24, the Examiner finds that the claimed matter of “to generate the lowest match cost template that is applicable to two of the multiple configuration files based on a cost function, the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to: construct finite state machines for each token within the configuration template; infer a match cost optimal pattern using a dynamic programming table; and track automaton states in separate index tables” of independent Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite a specific limitation beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. This is an unconventional step in the form of a non-generic arrangement of various computer components for generating a configuration template applicable to two of a plurality of configuration files. While the amended claims do still recite abstract ideas in the form of mental processes (inferring a template and performing thresholding), the claims are eligible under Prong 2B for reciting significantly more. Please see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) and 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are found to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the previous rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. The Examiner finds that the previous subject matter of Claims 5, 13, and 21, for which there was no art rejection, is found in independent Claims 1, 9, and 17. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
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 AUDREY E WHITESELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4767. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm MST.
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 5712723655. 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.
/A.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights