DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 09/18/25.
Claims 1, 13, 14, 17, 19 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1, 17 and 20 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 9-11) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, the examiner has introduced George to disclose the amended limitation “modifying, by the process and based on the user selection and any user feedback derived from user customization or ratings on the visualization, generation of subsequent visualizations of log templates such that the subsequent visualizations are better aligned with user preferences for visualizations of the log template”, as shown the rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1, 13, 17 and 20, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “or”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumaresan et al. (U.S. 2021/0027503 A1) in view of George (U.S. 2018/0095983 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 20, Kumaresan discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a process, a log template mapped from network monitoring log messages (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0038, 0040, 0041 and 0069; Kumaresan discloses a log analytics system, i.e. “a process”, implemented as a set of mechanisms and/or modules, performs, i.e. “determining”, collection and analysis of log data, i.e. “log messages”, from log monitoring, i.e. “from network monitoring log messages”, such as, the format of the log in log records, i.e. “log template mapped”);
generating, by the process, a visualization of the log template including interactive graphical representations of a detection frequency for the log template (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0038, 0066, 0072, and 0073; Kumaresan discloses the analytics system, i.e. “the process”, implemented as mechanisms and/or modules, provides a user interface that allows a user to interact, i.e. “interactive”, with the log analytics system that provides a sample of the log records, i.e. “log template”, visually depicted, i.e. “graphical representations”, as the quantity of log messages changing during a time series, “detection frequency…”, over a parallel coordinate axis so that the user is able to recognize distribution values across the log records, i.e. “…for the log template”), a frequency distribution of parameter values per parameter for the log template (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0073, 0079, 0084 and 0092; Kumaresan discloses the parallel coordinate axis provides representation of distribution and variation of values, including parameters, to identify any time patterns, i.e. “a frequency distribution”, that exist between each parameter, i.e. “parameter values per parameter…”, of the log record, i.e. “…for the log template”), and relationships between parameter values across different parameters for the log template (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0073, 0084 and 0092; Kumaresan discloses the visual depiction of a set of paths for the log record over the parallel coordinate axis for a parallel coordinate chart enables the user to recognize the distribution and variation of values, including parameters, i.e. “different parameters”, across the same data fields of multiple log records, i.e. “relationships between parameter values…”. In other words, the axis in the parallel coordinate chart represents a relationship between parameter values by showing the variation of parameter values across the same data fields. The examiner notes that the examiner’s interpretation of a parallel coordinate axis of a parallel coordinate chart representing relationships between parameter values is supported by the applicant’s specification where it states relationships between parameter values across different parameters is shown in an axis of a parameter parallel coordinate chart; see applicant’s specification as filed; page 20 lines 9-17);
filtering, by the process, data included in the visualization based on a user selection of a portion of a particular graphical representation (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0079, 0080 and 0088; Kumaresan discloses the analytics system, i.e. “the process”, enables the user to highlight a portion of a coordinate axis, i.e. “user selection of a portion of a particular graphical representation”, for visualization of only the parameter values of the selected portion, i.e. “filtering…data”).
While Kumaresan discloses “the visualization”, Kumaresan does not explicitly disclose modifying, by the process and based on the user selection and any user feedback derived from user customization or ratings on the visualization, generation of subsequent visualizations of log templates such that the subsequent visualizations are better aligned with user preferences for visualizations of the log template.
In analogous art, George discloses modifying, by the process and based on the user selection and any user feedback derived from user customization or ratings on the visualization, generation of subsequent visualizations of log templates such that the subsequent visualizations are better aligned with user preferences for visualizations of the log template (see George; paragraphs 0035, 0037, 0040 and 0071; George discloses display, i.e. “visualization”, of log files in a graphical user interface for analysis by a user. The user may select, i.e. “user selection”, a string and perform an operation, then a log analytics management software automatically creates a script based on the operation and any input received from the user. For example, a variable setting operation includes the user selecting a string within the log file, i.e. “log template”, and inputting a label for the variable, i.e. “user feedback derived from user customization”. A script for the operation is stored for future use, i.e. “subsequent visualizations”, such as, accessible for use in other log files. In other words, a user modifies a current visualization of a log file, then a script is created based on the modification, i.e. “user preferences”, that is used for future use on other log files, i.e. “modifying…generation of subsequent visualizations of log templates”) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “user customization” alternative).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kumaresan and George because they both disclose features of analyzing log data, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of modifying the display of log data representation as taught by George into the system of Kumaresan in order to provide the benefit of improved user experience by allowing any modifications to the data fields in the parallel coordinate chart (see Kumaresan; paragraph 0092) to be saved and used for future use (see George; paragraph 0037).
Further, Kumaresan discloses the additional limitations of claim 17, a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor on a computer, cause the computer to perform a method (see Kumaresan; paragraph 0014; Kumaresan discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions which, when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform).
Further, Kumaresan discloses the additional limitations of claim 20, an apparatus, comprising: one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network (Kumaresan; paragraphs 0012 and 0149; Kumaresan discloses a data processing apparatus that is coupled to an interface); a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0014 and 0149; Kumaresan discloses one or more processors coupled to the interface); and a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor (see Kumaresan; paragraph 0143; Kumaresan discloses a system memory that stores program instructions and executable by processing unit).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 17, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kumaresan and George clearly discloses wherein an interactive graphical representation of the relationships between parameter values across the different parameters for the log template is a parallel coordinate chart (see Kumaresan; ; paragraphs 0073, 0084 and 0092; Kumaresan discloses the visual depiction of a set of paths for the log record over the parallel coordinate axis for a parallel coordinate chart enables the user to recognize the distribution and variation of values, including parameters, i.e. “different parameters”, across the same data fields of multiple log records, i.e. “relationships between parameter values…”. In other words, the axis in the parallel coordinate chart represents a relationship between parameter values by showing the variation of parameter values across the same data fields).
Regarding claim 3, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kumaresan and George clearly discloses wherein a graphical property of connecting elements between the parameter values across the different parameters corresponds to a frequency of a corresponding parameter combination in the log template (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0073, 0079, 0084 and 0092; Kumaresan discloses the parallel coordinate axis provides representation of distribution and variation of values, including parameters, i.e. “different parameters”, to identify any time patterns, i.e. “frequency of a corresponding parameter combination”, that exist between each parameter of the log record, i.e. “…in the log template”).
Regarding claim 5, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kumaresan and George clearly discloses wherein a portion of the parameter values are categorical (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0088 and 0089; Kumaresan discloses the user can perform operations, such as, labeling, i.e. “categorical”, parameter values on highlighted portions corresponding to the parameter values, i.e. “a portion of the parameter values”, on the parallel coordinate axis).
Regarding claim 6, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kumaresan and George clearly discloses further comprising: disabling, based on the user selection indicating that a particular parameter is irrelevant, a graphical representation of a frequency distribution of a particular parameter value for the log template and a graphical representation of a relationship between parameter values for that particular parameter for the log template (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0073, 0079, 0084 and 0092; Kumaresan discloses the parallel coordinate axis provides representation of distribution and variation of values, including parameters, to identify any time patterns, i.e. “a frequency distribution”, that exist between each parameter, i.e. “parameter values”, of the log record, i.e. “…for the log template” and the user is able to over-ride, i.e. “disabling…indicating that a particular parameter is irrelevant”, some of the selection of parameter values such that the parallel coordinate axis does not show the selection of parameter values for the time patterns, i.e. “graphical representation of a frequency distribution”, and the distribution and variation between the selected parameter values, i.e. “a graphical representation of a relationship between parameter values for that particular parameter”).
Regarding claim 7, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kumaresan and George clearly discloses wherein the user selection of the portion of the particular graphical representation includes a selection of a region of the particular graphical representation corresponding to a specific time window (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0066, 0079, 0080, 0084 and 0088; Kumaresan discloses evaluation of the log data for a time series, i.e. “specific time window”, and the analytics system enables the user to highlight a portion of a coordinate axis, i.e. “a selection of a region of the particular graphical representation”, for visualization of only the parameter values of the selected portion for that time to identify any existing time patterns).
Regarding claim 8, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kumaresan and George clearly discloses wherein filtering the data included in the visualization includes highlighting a region of another graphical representation that corresponds to the specific time window (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0066, 0079, 0080, 0084 and 0088; Kumaresan discloses enabling the user to highlight a portion of a different coordinate axis, i.e. “highlighting a region of another graphical representation”, for visualization of only the parameter values of the selected portion for a time series, i.e. “specific time window”, to identify any existing time patterns).
Regarding claim 9, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kumaresan and George clearly discloses wherein the user selection of the portion of the particular graphical representation includes a selection of parameter value ranges within the particular graphical representation (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0074, 0079 and 0080; Kumaresan discloses user highlighting portions of the coordinate axis, i.e. “particular graphical representation”, corresponding to variations, i.e. “ranges”, in the parameter values).
Regarding claim 11, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kumaresan and George clearly discloses wherein the user selection of the portion of the particular graphical representation includes a selection of a first region of the particular graphical representation corresponding to a first specific time window and a section of a second region of the particular graphical representation corresponding to a second specific time window (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0066, 0079, 0080, 0084 and 0088; Kumaresan discloses evaluation of the log data for different time series, i.e. “first specific time window” and “second specific time window”, and the analytics system enables the user to highlight a portion of different coordinate axis, i.e. “a selection of a first region…” and “a selection of a second region”…“of the particular graphical representation”, for visualization of only the parameter values of the selected portion for each time series to identify any existing time patterns).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 17, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kumaresan and George clearly discloses further comprising: modifying, based on the user feedback, an inferential data model utilized to identify constant and parametric components within network monitoring log messages for log template mapping (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0047, 0079 and 0080; Kumaresan discloses modifying clustering of the log record, i.e. “for log template mapping”, to identify duration and parameter values, i.e. “constant and parametric components”, using k-mean clustering, mean-shift clustering, expectation-maximizing clustering or any clustering algorithm, i.e. “inferential data model”).
Regarding claim 15, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kumaresan and George clearly discloses wherein determining the log template mapped from network monitoring log messages comprises: processing the network monitoring log messages to determine one or more repeating constant portions across the network monitoring log messages and information that is specific to each network monitoring log message (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0038, 0040, 0041 and 0066; Kumaresan discloses a log analytics system performs collection and analysis of log data, i.e. “log messages”, from log monitoring, i.e. “network monitoring log messages” on a periodic basis to identify patterns, i.e. “repeating constant portions”, in the log data and information corresponding to the log messages); and identifying the one or more repeating constant portions as the log template and the information that is specific to each network monitoring log message as parameters of the log template (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0040, 0041, 0066 and 0079; Kumaresan discloses identifying patterns, i.e. “identifying the one or more repeating constant portions”, in the log data and information, such as parameter values, i.e. “the information…as parameters of the log template”, corresponding to the log messages).
Regarding claim 16, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kumaresan and George clearly discloses wherein identifying is based on a parsing tree that encodes nodes of the parsing tree with constant tokens of the network monitoring log messages to create the log template (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0061, 0071, 0076, 0096 and 0102; Kumaresan discloses undergoing a parse stage where the log entries are parsed using a decision tree, i.e. “parsing tree”, which includes one or more nodes, i.e. “encodes nodes”, for each log message of the log record, i.e. “to create the log template”. Further, the network can be implemented as a token-ring, as such, having “constant tokens of the network monitoring log messages”).
Claims 4, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumaresan et al. (U.S. 2021/0027503 A1) in view of George (U.S. 2018/0095983 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hinterbichler et al. (U.S. 2014/0282031 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and while the combination of Kumaresan and George disclose “visualization of the log template”, as discussed above, the combination of Kumaresan and George does not explicitly disclose wherein the visualization of the log template further includes a log table for each of the network monitoring log messages included in the interactive graphical representations
In analogous art, Hinterbichler discloses wherein the visualization of the log template further includes a log table for each of the network monitoring log messages included in the interactive graphical representations (see Hinterbichler; paragraphs 0016, 0020 and 0022; Hinterbichler discloses the interactive visualization of the log messages in certain format, i.e. “log template”, includes a log area, i.e. “a log table”, that displays a plurality of log messages generated over a period of time).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kumaresan, George and Hinterbichler because they all disclose features of analyzing log data, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of modifying the display of log data representation as taught by Hinterbichler into the combined system of Kumaresan and George in order to provide the benefit of improved user experience by allowing any modifications to the data fields in the parallel coordinate chart (see Kumaresan; paragraph 0092) to be accurately represented corresponding to the log records (see Kumaresan; paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 10, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. The combination of Kumaresan and George does not explicitly disclose further comprising: updating a log table included in the visualization to depict only log message data with parameter values within selected parameter value ranges.
In analogous art, Hinterbichler discloses further comprising: updating a log table included in the visualization to depict only log message data with parameter values within selected parameter value ranges (see Hinterbichler; paragraphs 0020, 0022, 0027 and 0037; Hinterbichler discloses a log area, i.e. “a log table”, that displays a plurality of log messages generated over a period of time and can be modified, i.e. “updating a log table”, to include variation of values for data fields, i.e. “parameter value ranges”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kumaresan, George and Hinterbichler because they all disclose features of analyzing log data, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of modifying the display of log data representation as taught by Hinterbichler into the combined system of Kumaresan and George in order to provide the benefit of improved user experience by allowing any modifications to the data fields in the parallel coordinate chart (see Kumaresan; paragraph 0092) to be accurately represented corresponding to the log records (see Kumaresan; paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 12, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Further, the combination of Kumaresan and George clearly discloses the frequency distribution of parameter values per parameter for the log template (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0073, 0079, 0084 and 0092; Kumaresan discloses the parallel coordinate axis provides representation of distribution and variation of values, including parameters, to identify any time patterns, i.e. “a frequency distribution”, that exist between each parameter, i.e. “parameter values per parameter…”, of the log record, i.e. “…for the log template”), and
the relationships between parameter values across different parameters for the log template (see Kumaresan; paragraphs 0073, 0084 and 0092; Kumaresan discloses the visual depiction of a set of paths for the log record over the parallel coordinate axis for a parallel coordinate chart enables the user to recognize the distribution and variation of values, including parameters, i.e. “different parameters”, across the same data fields of multiple log records, i.e. “relationships between parameter values…”).
The combination of Kumaresan and George does not explicitly disclose wherein a color coding that differentiates data associated with the first specific time window from data associated with the second specific time window is applied to the interactive graphical representations of the detection frequency for the log template.
In analogous art, Hinterbichler discloses wherein a color coding that differentiates data associated with the first specific time window from data associated with the second specific time window is applied to the interactive graphical representations of the detection frequency for the log template (see Hinterbichler; paragraphs 0016, 0020, 0022 and 0025; Hinterbichler discloses in the interactive visualization displaying different colors, i.e. “color coding that differentiates”, associated with highlight portions of the log messages at different periods of time, i.e. “associated with a first specific time window…” and “associated with the second specific time window”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kumaresan, George and Hinterbichler because they all disclose features of analyzing log data, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of modifying the display of log data representation as taught by Hinterbichler into the combined system of Kumaresan and George in order to provide the benefit of improved user experience by allowing any modifications to the data fields in the parallel coordinate chart (see Kumaresan; paragraph 0092) to be accurately represented corresponding to the log records (see Kumaresan; paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 13, Kumaresan and George disclose all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, and while the combination of Kumaresan and George disclose “user feedback”, as discussed above, the combination of Kumaresan and George does not explicitly disclose wherein the user feedback includes one or more of: a user customization of a graphical representation.
In analogous art, Hinterbichler discloses wherein the user feedback includes one or more of: a user customization of a graphical representation (see Hinterbichler; paragraph 0042; Hinterbichler discloses the log analytics module receives, via user input, i.e. “user customization”, an indication of a modification to data field); a user rating of an element of the visualization; or a customized log template for log message mapping (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “a user customization of a graphical representation” alternative).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kumaresan, George and Hinterbichler because they all disclose features of analyzing log data, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of modifying the display of log data representation as taught by Hinterbichler into the combined system of Kumaresan and George in order to provide the benefit of improved user experience by allowing any modifications to the data fields in the parallel coordinate chart (see Kumaresan; paragraph 0092) to be accurately represented corresponding to the log records (see Kumaresan; paragraph 0085).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Siddaraju (U.S. 2024/0168872 A1) discloses displaying a modified version of log data.
Bigdelu et al. (U.S. 2024/0143612 A1) discloses interactive display identifying log data.
Agutter et al. (U.S. 2007/0188494 A1) discloses display disparate logs with multiple recommended views with ability to be customized.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 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 ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 01/01/26
/ALINA A BOUTAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458