Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment submitted on May 27, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 31, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant submitted that examiner agreed that the alternative subject matter regarding: “creating, by a computing system, a knowledge graph identifying dependencies of nodes within each of a plurality of layers for a network application, wherein the plurality of layers are layers of a computing infrastructure,” as recited in the amendment below, appears to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In response, the examiner indicated that the amendment would require further consideration of the specification to determine whether the amendment would overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Furthermore, participants discussed incorporating claim 5 to claim 1, wherein claim 5 included, “obtaining the plurality of candidate logs from the plurality of layers,” which is no longer claimed. See Interview Summary dated June 2, 2025. However, Applicant incorporated a subset of the claim. The amendment does not overcome the rejection of claims under U.S.C. 101.
The claim recites the step, “creating… a knowledge graph identifying dependencies of nodes within each of a plurality of layers for a network application, wherein the plurality of layers are layers of a computing infrastructure.” The specification, on paragraph [0081], discloses that a knowledge graph includes a mapping of cross-layer dependencies of nodes. Fig. 3A illustrates an example of a knowledge graph. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “creating” encompasses a person creating a mapping of nodes and the dependencies of nodes, similar to figure 3A, using pen and paper.
Applicant submitted that amended claim 1 recites an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technological or technical field that amounts to “significantly more” than any alleged judicial exception itself. Claim 1 reflects a technical solution to a technical problem of reducing the computational resources and technical complexity associated with investigating multi-layer logs of a network system to determine potential root causes of a performance issue of a network application.
In response,
MPEP 2016.05(a) states in part,
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) states in part,
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), states in part,
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
Firstly, the claims do not comprise the steps that provide the improvement as asserted by Applicant. The claim does not comprise any steps towards investigating multi-layer logs. The claim merely recites that logs are obtained based on the knowledge graph. Secondly, the claim does not provide an improvement to any computer capabilities as steps of the claim are performed by a “computing system.” The claimed “computing system” amounts to a generic computer and is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The asserted improvements are not by additional element(s) that amount to more than a generic computer. The claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technological or technical field that amounts to “significantly more” than any alleged judicial exception itself.
Claims 18-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention was directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 18 has been amended to be directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions. The amendment has overcome the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 12, and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alavi US Patent Publication No. 2022/0382776 in view of Madsen et al. US Patent Publication No. 2018/0260268 and Hawkinson et al. US Patent Publication No. 2024/0097967.
The amendments to claims 1, 12, and 18 have overcome the rejections. Therefore, the prior rejection has been withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are made in this Office action. The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by Applicant's amendment, and accordingly, this Office action is made Final.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 12, broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps of the claim fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The claim recites the step, “create a knowledge graph identifying dependencies of nodes within each of a plurality of layers for a network application, wherein the plurality of layers are layers of a computing infrastructure.” The specification, on paragraph [0081], discloses a knowledge graph includes a mapping of cross-layer dependencies of nodes. Fig. 3A illustrates an example of a knowledge graph. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “creating” encompasses a person creating a mapping of nodes and the dependencies of node, similar to figure 3A, using pen and paper.
The claim recites the step, “obtain, based on the knowledge graph, a plurality of candidate logs for the plurality of layers.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “obtaining” encompasses a person receiving logs of information, such as on a paper, and evaluating information presented to the person. The claim recites “for the plurality of layers” and does not place limits on how the candidate logs are obtained.
The claim recites the step, “map the candidate log to a log template of a plurality of log templates, wherein each log template to which a candidate log is mapped is a mapped log template.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “mapping” encompasses mental observation and evaluation to match each log to a corresponding template.
The claim recites the step, “rank the mapped log templates based on properties of each of the mapped log templates.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “ranking” encompasses mental observation and evaluation to sort the templates to prioritize certain templates.
The claim recites the step, “selecting, based on the ranking of the mapped log templates, a set of critical logs from the one or more candidate logs corresponding to the mapped log templates.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “selecting” encompasses mental observation and evaluation to identify a particular log as important which requires additional attention.
The claim recites the step, “output at least one of (1) an indication of the critical logs to determine a potential root cause associated with a performance issue of a network application or (2) an indication of the potential root cause associated with the performance issue of the network application.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “output” of an indication encompasses mental observation and evaluation to identify a performance issue and potentially notify another user of the evaluation.
If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, 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. The claim comprises the additional element of a “processing circuitry” to perform steps of the claim. The recited processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor to perform the computer functions, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Furthermore, even if the limitation “obtain a plurality of candidate logs for a plurality of layers of a computing infrastructure,” was considered as an additional limitation beyond the capability of the human mind, the limitation amounts to “mere data gathering,” which the courts have found to be an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element of “obtain a plurality of candidate logs” is found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations do not qualify as additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 1 and 18 are drawn to a method and media corresponding to claim 12 and comprise subject matter similar to claim 12. Therefore, claims 1 and 18 are rejected under a similar rationale as claim 12.
Claim 18 recites the additional limitation of a “computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, when executed, causes a processing circuitry” to perform steps of the claims. The additional limitation is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, 19-20 comprise steps that cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alavi US Patent Publication No. 2022/0382776 (“Alavi”) in view of Arrabolu et al. US Patent Publication No. 2024/0275687 (“Arrabolu”), Madsen et al. US Patent Publication No. 2018/0260268 (“Madsen”) and Hawkinson et al. US Patent Publication No. 2024/0097967 (“Hawkinson”).
Regarding claim 1, Alavi teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, by a computing system, a plurality of candidate logs for a plurality of layers (para. [0022] system 108, cloud services, and/or cloud applications may be configured to generate one or more error logs during operation and/or execution. para. [0025] any of its components may be configured to generate various logs, e.g., execution logs, error logs, etc.);
for each candidate log of the plurality of candidate logs, by the computing system: mapping the candidate log to a log template of a plurality of log templates, wherein each log template to which a candidate log is mapped is a mapped log template (para. [0056] generated message templates may also be used for performing a correlation analysis between errors occurring in a system and one or more external causes that may be triggering the errors. para. [0061] converting each error message into a corresponding template format error message may be determined. para. [0063] conversion may including selecting one or more error message templates in a plurality of error message templates).
Alavi does not teach:
creating, by a computing system, a knowledge graph identifying dependencies of nodes within each of a plurality of layers for a network application, wherein the plurality of layers are layers of a computing infrastructure;
obtaining, by the computing system and based on the knowledge graph, a plurality of candidate logs for the plurality of layers;
ranking, by the computing system, the mapped log templates based on properties of each of the mapped log templates;
selecting, by the computing system and based on the ranking of the mapped log templates, a set of critical logs from the one or more candidate logs corresponding to the mapped log templates; and
outputting, by the computing system, at least one of (1) an indication of the set of critical logs to determine a potential root cause associated with a performance issue of a network application or (2) an indication of the potential root cause associated with the performance issue of the network application.
Arrabolu discloses creating, by a computing system, a knowledge graph identifying dependencies of nodes within each of a plurality of layers for a network application, wherein the plurality of layers are layers of a computing infrastructure (para. [0020] application-specific events that are definable by applications executing on the resource. para. [0024] graphing component 132 may include a layer generating component 140 for generating the multiple layers of the multiple-layer relational graph 150. para. [0025] determine the one or more additional service events based on relationships specified in the multiple-layer relational graph 150. para. [0049] configuration layer of a multiple-layer relational graph can be generated based on relationships between services); and obtaining, by the computing system and based on the knowledge graph, a plurality of candidate logs for the plurality of layers (para. [0020] having one or more service event loggers 104 for logging service events. service events may also include incident reports para. [0025] determine the one or more additional service events based on relationships specified in the multiple-layer relational graph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alavi with Arrabolu’s disclosure of creating a knowledge graph and obtaining candidate logs based on the knowledge graph. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Arrabolu’s disclosure of utilizing a relational graph would have provided benefits of improved event analysis and root cause prediction (para. [0017]).
Madsen discloses ranking, by a computing system, log templates based on properties of each of the log templates (para. [0043] rank the identified patterns of events based at least in part on their frequency of occurrence, an event severity level, a pattern severity level, or any combination thereof. para. [0072] match known patterns) and selecting, by a computing system and based on the ranking of the log templates, a set of critical logs from the one or more candidate logs corresponding to the mapped log templates (para. [0076] detecting the occurrence of the one or more events based at least in part on the ranking of the identified patterns of events. rank patterns of events based on a severity of an adverse condition that results from the pattern). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alavi and Arrabolu with Madsen’s disclosure of ranking such that the templates of Alavi are ranked in order to determine critical logs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for a similar benefit of identifying and prioritizing severe events.
Hawkinson discloses outputting, by a computing system, at least one of (1) an indication of the critical logs to determine a potential root cause associated with a performance issue of a network application or (2) an indication of the potential root cause associated with the performance issue of the network application (para. [0048] CPE device hardware, firmware, or software. para. [0049] log event information may be received from a plurality of CPE devices. para. [0050] determination is made that log events 204 matching a known pattern are detected in received log event information. known/new pattern is categorized as a particular pattern type (e.g., critical or major. troubleshooting of CPE devices 102 and/or root cause analyses may be performed… mitigating or resolving the device anomaly/malfunction associated with the known/new pattern). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alavi and Madsen with Hawkinson’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for because it would have been beneficial to perform the analysis to mitigate or resolve the events.
Regarding claim 12, Alavi teaches a computing system comprising processing circuity having access to a storage device, the processing circuitry configured to:
obtain a plurality of candidate logs for a plurality of layers (para. [0022] system 108, cloud services, and/or cloud applications may be configured to generate one or more error logs during operation and/or execution. para. [0025] any of its components may be configured to generate various logs, e.g., execution logs, error logs, etc.);
for each candidate log of the plurality of candidate logs: map the candidate log to a log template of a plurality of log templates, wherein each log template to which a candidate log is mapped is a mapped log template (para. [0056] generated message templates may also be used for performing a correlation analysis between errors occurring in a system and one or more external causes that may be triggering the errors. para. [0061] converting each error message into a corresponding template format error message may be determined. para. [0063] conversion may including selecting one or more error message templates in a plurality of error message templates).
Alavi does not teach:
creating a knowledge graph identifying dependencies of nodes within each of a plurality of layers for a network application, wherein the plurality of layers are layers of a computing infrastructure;
obtaining, based on the knowledge graph, a plurality of candidate logs for the plurality of layers;
rank the mapped log templates based on properties of each of the mapped log templates;
select, based on the ranking of the mapped log templates, a set of critical logs from the one or more candidate logs corresponding to the mapped log templates; and
output at least one of (1) an indication of the set of critical logs to determine a potential root cause associated with a performance issue of a network application or (2) an indication of the potential root cause associated with the performance issue of the network application.
Arrabolu discloses creating, by a computing system, a knowledge graph identifying dependencies of nodes within each of a plurality of layers for a network application, wherein the plurality of layers are layers of a computing infrastructure (para. [0024] graphing component 132 may include a layer generating component 140 for generating the multiple layers of the multiple-layer relational graph 150. para. [0025] determine the one or more additional service events based on relationships specified in the multiple-layer relational graph 150. para. [0049] configuration layer of a multiple-layer relational graph can be generated based on relationships between services); and obtaining, by the computing system and based on the knowledge graph, a plurality of candidate logs for the plurality of layers (para. [0020] having one or more service event loggers 104 for logging service events. service events may also include incident reports para. [0025] determine the one or more additional service events based on relationships specified in the multiple-layer relational graph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alavi with Arrabolu’s disclosure of creating a knowledge graph and obtaining candidate logs based on the knowledge graph. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Arrabolu’s disclosure of utilizing a relational graph would have provided benefits of improved event analysis and root cause prediction (para. [0017]).
Madsen discloses ranking, by a computing system, log templates based on properties of each of the log templates (para. [0043] rank the identified patterns of events based at least in part on their frequency of occurrence, an event severity level, a pattern severity level, or any combination thereof. para. [0072] match known patterns) and selecting, by a computing system and based on the ranking of the mapped log templates, a set of critical logs from the one or more candidate logs corresponding to the mapped log templates (para. [0076] detecting the occurrence of the one or more events based at least in part on the ranking of the identified patterns of events. rank patterns of events based on a severity of an adverse condition that results from the pattern). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alavi and Arrabolu with Madsen’s disclosure of ranking such that the templates of Alavi are ranked in order to determine critical logs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for a similar benefit of identifying and prioritizing severe events.
Hawkinson discloses outputting, by a computing system, at least one of (1) an indication of the critical logs to determine a potential root cause associated with a performance issue of a network application or (2) an indication of the potential root cause associated with the performance issue of the network application (para. [0048] CPE device hardware, firmware, or software. para. [0049] log event information may be received from a plurality of CPE devices. para. [0050] determination is made that log events 204 matching a known pattern are detected in received log event information. known/new pattern is categorized as a particular pattern type (e.g., critical or major. troubleshooting of CPE devices 102 and/or root cause analyses may be performed… mitigating or resolving the device anomaly/malfunction associated with the known/new pattern). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alavi and Madsen with Hawkinson’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for because it would have been beneficial to perform the analysis to mitigate or resolve the events.
Regarding claim 18, Alavi teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions that, when executed, causes processing circuitry to:
obtain a plurality of candidate logs for a plurality of layers (para. [0022] system 108, cloud services, and/or cloud applications may be configured to generate one or more error logs during operation and/or execution. para. [0025] any of its components may be configured to generate various logs, e.g., execution logs, error logs, etc.);
for each candidate log of the plurality of candidate logs: map the candidate log to a log template of a plurality of log templates, wherein each log template to which a candidate log is mapped is a mapped log template (para. [0056] generated message templates may also be used for performing a correlation analysis between errors occurring in a system and one or more external causes that may be triggering the errors. para. [0061] converting each error message into a corresponding template format error message may be determined. para. [0063] conversion may including selecting one or more error message templates in a plurality of error message templates).
Alavi does not teach:
creating a knowledge graph identifying dependencies of nodes within each of a plurality of layers for a network application, wherein the plurality of layers are layers of a computing infrastructure;
obtaining, based on the knowledge graph, a plurality of candidate logs for the plurality of layers;
rank the mapped log templates based on properties of each of the mapped log templates;
select, based on the ranking of the mapped log templates, a set of critical logs from the one or more candidate logs corresponding to the mapped log templates; and
output at least one of (1) an indication of set of critical logs to determine a potential root cause associated with a performance issue of a network application or (2) an indication of the potential root cause associated with the performance issue of the network application.
Arrabolu discloses creating, by a computing system, a knowledge graph identifying dependencies of nodes within each of a plurality of layers for a network application, wherein the plurality of layers are layers of a computing infrastructure (para. [0024] graphing component 132 may include a layer generating component 140 for generating the multiple layers of the multiple-layer relational graph 150. para. [0025] determine the one or more additional service events based on relationships specified in the multiple-layer relational graph 150. para. [0049] configuration layer of a multiple-layer relational graph can be generated based on relationships between services); and obtaining, by the computing system and based on the knowledge graph, a plurality of candidate logs for the plurality of layers (para. [0020] having one or more service event loggers 104 for logging service events. service events may also include incident reports para. [0025] determine the one or more additional service events based on relationships specified in the multiple-layer relational graph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alavi with Arrabolu’s disclosure of creating a knowledge graph and obtaining candidate logs based on the knowledge graph. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Arrabolu’s disclosure of utilizing a relational graph would have provided benefits of improved event analysis and root cause prediction (para. [0017]).
Madsen discloses ranking, by a computing system, log templates based on properties of each of the log templates (para. [0043] rank the identified patterns of events based at least in part on their frequency of occurrence, an event severity level, a pattern severity level, or any combination thereof. para. [0072] match known patterns) and selecting, by a computing system and based on the ranking of the mapped log templates, a set of critical logs from the one or more candidate logs corresponding to the mapped log templates (para. [0076] detecting the occurrence of the one or more events based at least in part on the ranking of the identified patterns of events. rank patterns of events based on a severity of an adverse condition that results from the pattern). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alavi and Arrabolu with Madsen’s disclosure of ranking such that the templates of Alavi are ranked in order to determine critical logs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for a similar benefit of identifying and prioritizing severe events.
Hawkinson discloses outputting, by a computing system, at least one of (1) an indication of the critical logs to determine a potential root cause associated with a performance issue of a network application or (2) an indication of the potential root cause associated with the performance issue of the network application (para. [0048] CPE device hardware, firmware, or software. para. [0049] log event information may be received from a plurality of CPE devices. para. [0050] determination is made that log events 204 matching a known pattern are detected in received log event information. known/new pattern is categorized as a particular pattern type (e.g., critical or major. troubleshooting of CPE devices 102 and/or root cause analyses may be performed… mitigating or resolving the device anomaly/malfunction associated with the known/new pattern). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alavi and Madsen with Hawkinson’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for because it would have been beneficial to perform the analysis to mitigate or resolve the events.
Regarding claim 5, Alavi in view of Arrabolu, Madsen, Hawkinson teach the method of claim 1. Arrabolu further teaches wherein obtaining the plurality of candidate logs comprises: determining one or more nodes affected by the performance issue based on the knowledge graph; (para. [0018] multiple-layer relational graph can be queried to determine the correlated services and/or service events, patterns of correlations between the services. para. [0061] traversal of this graph 150 can be useful in various applications, such as root cause analysis, determining most failing metrics, grouping of related metric failures etc); and obtaining the plurality of logs to include system logs from the one or more nodes (para. [0020] logging service events occurring on resources of the network 1 102. resources of the network 1 102 may include various types of nodes, such as computing devices. each resource may have an associated service event logger 104 to log service events in a service event repository 106. See prior motivation for combination).
Regarding claim 16, Alavi in view of Arrabolu, Madsen, Hawkinson teach the computer system of claim 12. Arrabolu further teaches wherein to obtain the plurality of candidate logs comprises: determining one or more nodes affected by the performance issue based on the knowledge graph; (para. [0018] multiple-layer relational graph can be queried to determine the correlated services and/or service events, patterns of correlations between the services. para. [0061] traversal of this graph 150 can be useful in various applications, such as root cause analysis, determining most failing metrics, grouping of related metric failures etc); and obtaining the plurality of logs to include system logs from the one or more nodes (para. [0020] logging service events occurring on resources of the network 1 102. resources of the network 1 102 may include various types of nodes, such as computing devices. each resource may have an associated service event logger 104 to log service events in a service event repository 106. See prior motivation for combination).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alavi in view of Arrabolu, Madsen, Hawkinson, and Singh et al. US Patent Publication No. 2015/0019913 (“Singh”).
Regarding claim 9, Alavi in view of Arrabolu, Madsen and Hawkinson teach the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of layers comprise a compute layer and wherein the plurality of candidate logs comprise compute layer logs (Alavi: para. [0022] system 108, cloud services, and/or cloud applications may be configured to generate one or more error logs during operation and/or execution. para. [0025] any of its components may be configured to generate various logs, e.g., execution logs, error logs, etc.). Alavi does not expressly teach an application layer and a network layer, and wherein the plurality of candidate logs comprise application layer logs and network layer logs
Singh discloses an application layer and a network layer, and wherein a plurality of candidate logs comprise application layer logs and network layer logs (para. [0014] application layer that sends an application layer alert to the event server, and a network layer that sends a network layer alert to the event server). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alavi, Madsen, and Hawkinson with Singh’s disclosure of application layer logs and network layer logs such that the plurality of layers comprises application layer logs, compute layer logs, and network layer logs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of detecting and troubleshooting events occurring on different layers (para. [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, Alavi does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing, by the computing system, each of the plurality of candidate logs in a database with metadata identifying a layer of the plurality of layers and a timestamp corresponding to a candidate log of the plurality of candidate logs; and obtaining the plurality of candidate logs from the database.
Singh discloses storing, by a computing system, each of a plurality of candidate logs in a database with metadata identifying a layer of the plurality of layers and a timestamp corresponding to a candidate log of the plurality of candidate logs; and obtaining the plurality of candidate logs from the database (para. [0014] application layer that sends an application layer alert to the event server, and a network layer that sends a network layer alert to the event server. see fig. 1B. para. [0031] information related to the occurrence of the event may include information identifying a type of the event, a time and/or date of the occurrence of the event…, information identifying technology layer 220,). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alavi and Madsen with Singh’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of detecting and troubleshooting events occurring on different layers (para. [0015]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alavi in view of Arrabolu, Madsen, Hawkinson, and King et al. US Patent Publication No. 2023/0229540 (“King”).
Regarding claim 10, Alavi does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: training a template mining model to identify patterns of the plurality of candidate logs; and generating the plurality of log templates by providing historical log data to the template mining model.
King discloses training a template mining model to identify patterns of the plurality of candidate logs; and generating the plurality of log templates by providing historical log data to the template mining model (para. [0048] train a model (e.g., clustering model 212 or machine learning model 306) for determining patterns in various log files. para. [0063] a clustering model may perform the pattern, pattern template. claim 1. wherein the at least one model is configured to form clusters of system log messages of substantially a same type; including… generate a pattern template for the identified system log messages within the cluster). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alavi, Madsen, and Hawkinson with King’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of automating processing a plurality of logs to determine patterns (para. [0003],[0026]).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 13-15, 17, 19-20 have not been rejected over prior art.
Conclusion
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 Joshua Joo whose telephone number is 571 272-3966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-3pm EST.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571 270-1684. 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.
/JOSHUA JOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445