Detailed Action
This action is in response amendments filed on 06/11/2026.
This application was filed on 09/21/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 06/09/2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 8, and 15. Applicant argued against various rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 03/11/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites “the instance” (line 12). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8, and 15 include similar limitation as noted above for claim1, and are therefore objected to under the same rational as set forth above for claim 1.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to A method comprising:
performing, by a computing device, a pre-analysis process utilizing a collected log from multiple sources, the pre-analysis process including a data formatter that identifies data based on a metric, and a dimensionality reduction process that distributes the data into an n-dimensional space;
extracting, by the computing device, key patterns from the data based on temporal metrics associated with an instance identifier to identify expected timing relationships between events and to separate a normal status and an abnormal status for the extracted key patterns; and
performing, by the computing device, a post-analysis process on the extracted key patterns by applying thresholds to the temporal metrics to detect deviations in timing relationships for the instance; wherein the data formatter transforms each log entry into a structured record including an instance identifier, a key event, and temporal metrics comprising a first time metric (Tm) and a second time metric (Dm), such that the log entries from the multiple sources corresponding to the instance identifier are correlated and ordered based on the temporal metrics.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
Mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”).
Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform a method comprising: mentally and/via pen/paper performing, a pre-analysis process utilizing a collected log from multiple sources, the pre-analysis process including a data formatter that identifies data based on a metric, and a dimensionality reduction process that distributes the data into an n-dimensional space; mentally and/or via pen/paper extracting, key patterns from the data based on temporal metrics associated with an instance identifier to identify expected timing relationships between events and to separate a normal status and an abnormal status for the extracted key patterns; and mentally and/or via pen/paper performing, a post-analysis process on the extracted key patterns by applying thresholds (e.g. mathematical concepts) to the temporal metrics to detect deviations in timing relationships for the instance; wherein the data formatter transforms each log entry into a structured record including an instance identifier, a key event, and temporal metrics comprising a first time metric (Tm) and a second time metric (Dm), such that the log entries from the multiple sources corresponding to the instance identifier are correlated and ordered based on the temporal metrics.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “computing device”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “computing device”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 8, and 15 are product and system claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 8, and 15 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 8, and 15. In particular,
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the health check is utilized for discovering an exception in a virtual machine instance (VMI) creation process.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, further recites wherein the health check is utilized to predict whether a VMI can be successfully created in advance.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, further recites wherein a runtime log is provided as input to a failed pattern filter that determines whether the runtime log passes the failed pattern filter.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 further incorporated, further recites wherein upon the runtime pattern filter passing the runtime log, a timer reset check determines whether a next normal pattern is reached based on a second threshold.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein a health check agent is generated for a plurality of system components for the pre-analysis process and the post-analysis process.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the health check is applied to a runtime log in each of the multiple sources.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Claims 9-14, and 16-20 are product and medium claims corresponding to method claims 2-7 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 2-7.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if above noted objections/rejections are overcome via amendments and/or arguments. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance until all matters in the prosecution are closed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of new/modified grounds of rejections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant argues that “claim 1 is directed to a specific computer-implemented technique for structuring and processing distributed cloud logs, not a mental process. As amended, claim 1 recites transforming each log entry into a structured record including an instance identifier, a key event, and temporal metrics (Tm, Dm). This transformation generates a machine-specific representation tied to request lifecycle timing across multiple distributed sources. Such processing includes correlation of high-volume logs using computed temporal relationships, and cannot practically be performed in the human mind” (response page 12).
The examiner disagrees.
As noted in the rejection, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform a method comprising: mentally and/via pen/paper performing, a pre-analysis process utilizing a collected log from multiple sources, the pre-analysis process including a data formatter that identifies data based on a metric, and a dimensionality reduction process that distributes the data into an n-dimensional space; mentally and/or via pen/paper extracting, key patterns from the data based on temporal metrics associated with an instance identifier to identify expected timing relationships between events and to separate a normal status and an abnormal status for the extracted key patterns; and mentally and/or via pen/paper performing, a post-analysis process on the extracted key patterns by applying thresholds (e.g. mathematical concepts) to the temporal metrics to detect deviations in timing relationships for the instance; wherein the data formatter transforms each log entry into a structured record including an instance identifier, a key event, and temporal metrics comprising a first time metric (Tm) and a second time metric (Dm), such that the log entries from the multiple sources corresponding to the instance identifier are correlated and ordered based on the temporal metrics. The examiner notes that the claim language does not specify the size of data being processed or transformed.
Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the claims integrate any abstract concept into a practical application. The claims further recite: extracting patterns based on temporal relationships associated with a specific instance, and applying thresholds to detect deviations in timing relationships. The claimed method applies mathematical concepts within a specific technological context, cloud resource scheduling, to detect abnormal system behavior in real time. The specification confirms that this processing enables early detection of failures in VMI creation and improves system operation (specification, paragraph 34)” and that “The claimed invention improves computing functionality in two ways. Data representation improvement because the structured record standardizes distributed logs and encodes lifecycle timing, enabling correlation across components that cannot be achieved with raw logs. And, system operation improvement by detecting deviations in timing relationships, the method identifies abnormal behavior during resource scheduling, improving reliability and reducing failed provisioning. These are concrete improvements to cloud system operation, not abstract data processing” (response page 12).
The examiner disagrees.
As noted in the rejection, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform a method comprising: mentally and/or via pen/paper extracting, key patterns from the data based on temporal metrics associated with an instance identifier to identify expected timing relationships between events and to separate a normal status and an abnormal status for the extracted key patterns; and mentally and/or via pen/paper performing, a post-analysis process on the extracted key patterns by applying thresholds (e.g. mathematical concepts) to the temporal metrics to detect deviations in timing relationships for the instance; wherein the data formatter transforms each log entry into a structured record including an instance identifier, a key event, and temporal metrics comprising a first time metric (Tm) and a second time metric (Dm), such that the log entries from the multiple sources corresponding to the instance identifier are correlated and ordered based on the temporal metrics. In other words, claimed invention merely generates/extracts data, and determines/identifying abnormal/normal status and applying thresholds; however, these operations do not achieve any improvement to computing device or technical field. The claim language does not recite steps/limitation that necessarily achieves the purported improvements, if any.
Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “additionally, claim 1 recites a specific combination of technical steps: transforming logs into lifecycle-based structured records; extracting patterns based on temporal relationships of events; and applying thresholds to those temporal relationships to detect abnormal system behavior. Thereby, claim 1 recites a particular implementation, not a generic application of an abstract idea on a computer.
Thus, claim 1 is directed to a specific technological solution for improving cloud system performance through lifecycle-based log structuring and temporal analysis. The claim does not recite a mental process and, in any event, integrates any abstract concept into a practical application and recites significantly more. Therefore, Applicant contends that amended claim 1 recites eligible subject matter and consequently the rejection should be withdrawn” (response page 13).
The examiner disagrees.
As noted in the rejection above, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform a method comprising: mentally and/via pen/paper performing, a pre-analysis process utilizing a collected log from multiple sources, the pre-analysis process including a data formatter that identifies data based on a metric, and a dimensionality reduction process that distributes the data into an n-dimensional space; mentally and/or via pen/paper extracting, key patterns from the data based on temporal metrics associated with an instance identifier to identify expected timing relationships between events and to separate a normal status and an abnormal status for the extracted key patterns; and mentally and/or via pen/paper performing, a post-analysis process on the extracted key patterns by applying thresholds (e.g. mathematical concepts) to the temporal metrics to detect deviations in timing relationships for the instance; wherein the data formatter transforms each log entry into a structured record including an instance identifier, a key event, and temporal metrics comprising a first time metric (Tm) and a second time metric (Dm), such that the log entries from the multiple sources corresponding to the instance identifier are correlated and ordered based on the temporal metrics.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “computing device”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “computing device”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Inferring Temporal Relationships For Cybersecurity Events
DOCUMENT ID
US 20200322361 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2020-10-08
Abstract
A cognitive security analytics platform is enhanced by providing a technique for automatically inferring temporal relationship data for cybersecurity events. In operation, a description of a security event is received, typically as unstructured security content or data. Information such as temporal data or cues, are extracted from the description, along with security entity and relationship data. Extracted temporal information is processing according to a set of temporal markers (heuristics) to determine a time value marker (i.e., an established time) of the security event. This processing typically involves retrieval of information from one or more structured data sources. The established time is linked to the security entities and relationships. The resulting security event, as augmented with the identified temporal data, is then subjected to a management operation.
COGNITIVE DATA CENTER MANAGEMENT
DOCUMENT ID
US 20200162342 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2020-05-21
Abstract
An apparatus for cognitive data center management is disclosed. A computer-implemented method and computer program product also perform the functions of the apparatus. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the apparatus includes a performance module that determines performance metrics over a predetermined time interval at a device coordinate in a three-dimensional (“3D”) coordinate system for each replaceable device of a plurality of replaceable devices within a data center. The apparatus maps the performance metrics to environmental sensor measurements taken in the 3D coordinate system. The apparatus further includes an input analysis module that uses discovery analytics to determine a predicted time to failure for each replaceable device. The apparatus further includes a preventative action module that determines recommended actions to prevent failure of the replaceable devices and a tradeoff learning module that provides updated weighting factors based on changes to performance metrics in response to taking recommended actions.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights