DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In response to the Office action mailed on 5/7/2026, the applicants have filed a response: claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 17 – 20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite a computer readable storage device which does not exclude transitory signals. The specification does limit the term computer readable storage media in paragraph [0125] to exclude transitory signals, but this limitation does not extend to the term computer readable storage device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. More specifically, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended include the following limitation: “wherein the primary and secondary relationships are structural relationships based on log message types such that a secondary log message type is deterministically associated with a primary log message type based on a design of an application or operating system generating the log messages, independent of probabilistic statistical analysis of observed log sequences.” The specification is silent regarding association log message types based on a design of an application or operating system generating the log messages. Specification paragraph [0049] recites the creation of a hierarchical structure that identifies relationships between log messages, but no further details or examples appear in the specification. Claims 2 – 8, 10 – 16 and 18 – 20 depend from the independent claims and are thus rejected on the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, 7 – 10 and 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (U.S. Patent 11,243,835) (Chan hereinafter) and Shabi et al. (U.S. Patent 10,795,596) (Shabi hereinafter) in further view of Detlefs et al. (U.S. Publication 2009/0327636) (Detlefs hereinafter).
9. As per claim 1, Chan teaches a computer implemented method for managing log messages, the computer implemented method comprising:
creating, by one or more computer processors, a hierarchical structure identifying
primary and secondary relationships between the log messages [“The message graph construction unit 102 can construct the knowledge graph by writing in pointer to the system log to point a first log message to a second log message based on a semantic, statistical, or functional relationship between the log messages. The direction of the pointer is based on the second lob message being written after the first log message,” col. 9, lines 15 – 29; knowledge graph mapped to hierarchical structure; first log message pointing to second log message based on semantic/functional relationship established primary/secondary relationship];
wherein the primary and secondary relationships are structural relationships based on log message types such that a secondary log message type is deterministically associated with a primary log message type based on a design of an application or operating system generating the log messages, independent of probabilistic statistical analysis of observed log sequences [“The message graph construction unit 102 can also make the determination based on a functional relationship between log messages. For example, message graph construction unit 102 can retrieve a message identification code of a first log message and detect that the log message relates to the initiation of a job task. The message graph construction unit 102 can also retrieve a message identification code of a log message and detect that the log message relates to either the completion of the job task or a conditional response to initiation of the job task. In this instance, the two log messages are functionally correlated,” col. 3, lines 32 – 42; log messages may relate to initiation of job tasks; “Each log message includes a message identification code, which is a unique identifier of the log message. In many instances, the message identification code is alphanumeric code and is specific to the operating system being run on the mainframe. As an application executing a job, the application will write a sequence of messages. In many instances, the messages are a routine update of the status of the job. A job is a unit of execution for an application. Each job also includes a unique identification code,” col. 4, line 63 - col 5, line 5]; the message identification code identifies the operating system generating the log messages relating to jobs].
identifying, by the one or more computer processors, each primary log message in the log messages that has one or more secondary log messages using the hierarchical structure [“The message graph construction unit 102 can construct the knowledge graph by writing in can further remove any redundant edges. For example, a first node can be connected to a second node and a third node. The second node can be connected to a fourth node and the first node can also be connected to the fourth node. There pointer to the system log to point a first log message to a fore, the first node is indirectly connected to the fourth node second log message based on a semantic, statistical, or functional relationship between the log messages,” col. 9, lines 23 – 27;
adding, by the one or more computer processors, one or more pointers to each
primary log message in the log messages having the one or more secondary log
messages, wherein each pointer points to a secondary log message in the hierarchical
structure [“The message graph construction unit 102 can construct the knowledge graph by writing a data structure into a knowledge base 110 (system log) of a mainframe. For example, the data structure can be a pointer that includes a memory address of a correlated log message. The knowledge graph is a directed graph, and therefore a log message points to a subsequent log message. The message graph correlation unit can determine that a message is a subsequent log message based on the time stamps of the log messages or a functional relationship of the log messages,” col. 3, lines 53 – 62].
Chan does not explicitly discloses but Shabi discloses removing, by the one or more computer processors, the one or more secondary log messages from the log messages to form remaining log messages [“wherein the information stored in each entry of the log includes a timestamp indicating when a write request was received for its respective block of data; and wherein sorting the entries of the log by their respective stored logical addresses includes removing from the log entries that include a same logical address as another entry having a later timestamp,” Cl. 3; logical addresses suggest a relationship between the entries].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chan and Shabi available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of creating a hierarchical message structure as disclosed by Chan to include the capability of managing log entries as taught by Shabi, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system performance and efficiency by removing unneeded storage data.
Chan and Shabi do not explicitly disclose but Detlefs discloses saving, by the one or more computer processors, header information from log message headers and content information from log message content in the remaining log messages to form compressed log information [“If the header 42 is available for the compressed transactional lock 46A, STM system 10 stores the compressed transactional lock 46A in a portion 46 of an object header 42 as indicated in a block 64 and stores a corresponding write log entry 52 in a corresponding write log 34W in preferred write log memory 18A as indicated by a block 65,” ¶ 0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chan, Shabi and Detlefs available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of creating a hierarchical message structure as disclosed by Chan and Shabi to include the capability of compressing log data as taught by Shabi, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system performance and efficiency by reducing the need to system resources.
10. As per claim 2, Chan, Shabi and Detlefs teach the computer implemented method of claim 1. Chan further teaches wherein creating, by the one or more computer processors, the hierarchical structure comprises: creating, by the one or more computer processors, the hierarchical structure identifying primary and secondary relationships between the log messages using a log model identifying the primary and secondary relationships between log messages [“The error propagation unit 106 can generate a model-based prediction for a root cause error. The model can be trained using previous instances of log messages written by an application executing on various components of a mainframe. The model can be trained to calculate a probability that each log message is followed by another particular log message. For example, the error propagation unit 106 can calculate that a log message written for initiation of a task is followed by a log message for completion of the task,” col. 6, lines 32 – 40]; determination of a particular log message following each log message suggests a primary (each log message)-secondary (following particular log message) relationship].
11. As per claim 7, Chan, Shabi and Detlefs teach the computer implemented method of claim 1. Chan further teaches training, by the one or more computer processors, a machine learning model using a log history to identify the primary and secondary relationships between the log messages, wherein the machine learning model after training is the log model [“The error propagation unit 106 can generate a model-based prediction for a root cause error. The model can be trained using previous instances of log messages written by an application executing on various components of a mainframe. The model can be trained to calculate a probability that each log message is followed by another particular log message. For example, the error propagation unit 106 can calculate that a log message written for initiation of a task is followed by a log message for completion of the task,” col. 6, lines 32 – 40].
12. As per claim 8, Chan, Shabi and Detlefs teach the computer implemented method of claim 1. Chan further teaches wherein the hierarchical structure is selected from a group comprising a tree structure, a directed acyclic graph, a database, and a multilevel list [“The message graph construction unit 102 can construct the knowledge graph by writing in pointer to the system log to point a first log message to a second log message based on a semantic, statistical, or functional relationship between the log messages. The direction of the pointer is based on the second lob message being written after the first log message,” col. 9, lines 15 – 29; knowledge graph mapped to hierarchical structure].
13. As per claim 9, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
14. As per claim 10, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
15. As per claim 15, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
16. As per claim 16, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
17. As per claim 17, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
18. As per claim 18, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
19. Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, Shabi and Detlefs in further view of Chunduri et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0377367) (Chunduri hereinafter).
20. As per claim 3, Chan, Shabi and Detlefs teach the computer implemented method of claim 1. Detlefs further teaches wherein saving, by the one or more computer processors, the header information from the log message headers and the content information from the log message content comprises: splitting, by the one or more computer processors, a log message in the remaining log messages into a log message header and a log message content [“STM system 10 is configured to generate and store compressed transactional locks 46A in a portion 46 of headers 42 of objects 30. FIGS. 2A-2B are block diagrams illustrating embodiments of creating and storing compressed transactional locks 46A, uncompressed transactional locks 72, and write log entries 52,” ¶ 0026; locks associated with the transaction are stored in a header while write log entries are stored in separate write log memory].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chan, Shabi and Detlefs available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of creating a hierarchical message structure as disclosed by Chan and Shabi to include the capability of compressing log data as taught by Shabi, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system performance and efficiency by reducing the need to system resources.
Chan, Shabi and Detlefs do not explicitly disclose but Chunduri discloses identifying, by the one or more computer processors, fields in the log message
header to form the header information; identifying, by the one or more computer processors, attributes in the log message content to form the content information; and saving, by the one or more computer processors, the fields and the attributes to
form the compressed log information [“the header comprises a type field, a decompressed length field, a compression identifier field, a type field, and a compressed length field, wherein the type field carries a value indicating that the compressed message carries the compressed data, wherein the decompressed length field carries the length of the data prior to compressing the data, wherein the compressed length field carries the length of the compressed data, wherein the compression identifier field carries the compression identifier, and wherein the type field carries a value identifying a type of the data being compressed,” ¶ 0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chan, Shabi, Detlefs and Chunduri available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of creating a hierarchical message structure as disclosed by Chan, Shabi and Detlefs to include the capability of creating header data as taught by Chunduri, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system performance and efficiency by distilling critical information.
21. As per claim 11, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
22. As per claim 19, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
23. Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, Shabi and Detlefs in further view of Chunduri and Ryu et al. (U.S. Publication 2010/0177693) (Ryu hereinafter).
24. As per claim 4, Chan, Shabi, Detlefs and Chunduri teach the computer implemented method of claim 3. Chan, Shabi, Detlefs and Chunduri do not explicitly disclose but Ryu discloses wherein the fields are selected from at least one of a system name, a timestamp, a job identifier, a user exit flag, or a domain [“wherein the second compressed MAC header includes at least one of a flag field representing whether the second MAC header has been compressed, a identifier for identifying a service flow (SF), an error detection field for detecting whether the header has an error, and a field representing a size of MAC message, the identifier being uniquely used to identify the service flow within a mobile station,” Cl. 14; flag field mapped to user exit flag].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chan, Shabi, Detlefs, Chunduri and Ryu available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of creating a hierarchical message structure as disclosed by Chan, Shabi, Detlefs and Chunduri to include the capability of gathering log data as taught by Ryu, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system performance and efficiency by identifying and storing identifiable information.
25. As per claim 5, Chan, Shabi, Detlefs and Chunduri teach the computer implemented method of claim 3. Chan, Shabi, Detlefs and Chunduri do not explicitly disclose but Ryu discloses wherein the attributes are selected from at least one of an event mapping object, a parameters mapping object, an event identifier, a parameter identifier, or a secondary log message identifier [“wherein the second compressed MAC header includes at least one of a flag field representing whether the second MAC header has been compressed, a identifier for identifying a service flow (SF), an error detection field for detecting whether the header has an error, and a field representing a size of MAC message, the identifier being uniquely used to identify the service flow within a mobile station,” Cl. 14; field size mapped to parameter].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chan, Shabi, Detlefs, Chunduri and Ryu available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of creating a hierarchical message structure as disclosed by Chan, Shabi, Detlefs and Chunduri to include the capability of gathering log data as taught by Ryu, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system performance and efficiency by identifying and storing identifiable information.
26. As per claim 12, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
27. As per claim 13, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
28. Claims 6, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, Shabi and Detlefs in further view of Peterson et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0005542) (Peterson hereinafter).
29. As per claim 6, Chan, Shabi and Detlefs teach the computer implemented method of claim 1. Chan, Shabi and Detlefs do not explicitly disclose but Peterson discloses identifying, by the one or more computer processors, a log relationship policy
identifying the primary and secondary relationships between the log messages [“As another example, the at least one policy may include additional log processing rules such as a second log processing rule for use in identifying a second subset of logs. In this case, the method may include processing, at the processing platform, the received logs using said second log processing rule; identifying, from the second log processing rule processing step, a second subset of the received logs based on one or more metadata fields of the received logs and a classification of the received logs; and distributing, from the processing platform to the receiving entity, information related to the second subset,” ¶ 0008]; and
creating, by the one or more computer processors, logic implementing rules for
the primary and secondary relationships between the log messages in the log relationship policy, wherein the logic generates the hierarchical structure in response to receiving the log messages [“a utility is provided for use in monitoring one or more platforms of a data system. The utility includes: establishing, on a processing platform, a number of log processing rules for selectively processing logs associated with one or more monitored platforms based on a content of one or more data fields of the logs; identifying, using the processing platform, a log message associated with one of the one or more monitored platforms (e.g., selecting said log message on a user interface associated with said processing platform); first operating the processing platform to establish at least one correlation filter (e.g., classification, impacted country, impacted origin, direction and domain) based on one or more metadata fields of the identified log message; and second operating the processing platform to correlate logs previously received and processed by the processing platform using the at least one correlation filter,” ¶ 0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chan, Shabi, Detlefs, Chunduri and Peterson available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of creating a hierarchical message structure as disclosed by Chan, Shabi, Detlefs and Chunduri to include the capability of implementing policy-based message log storage rules as taught by Peterson, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system performance and efficiency by facilitating identification of entity relationships.
30. As per claim 14, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
31. As per claim 20, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/15/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
In claims 1, 9, and 17, the limitation “wherein the primary and secondary relationships are structural relationships based on log message types such that a secondary log message type is deterministically associated with a primary log message type based on a design of an application or operating system generating the log messages, independent of probabilistic statistical analysis of observed log sequences.” is not supported by the original disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
32. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The subject rejection as written is based on the claim language, not whether one term is broader than another. The term recited in the rejected claims does not explicitly exclude transitory signals and is thus not eligible directed to non-transitory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
33. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
34. Applicant argues on pages 10 and 11 that Chan “does not – and cannot – teach or suggest the hierarchical structure as now claimed, because Chan’s relationships between log messages are fundamentally and irreconcilably different in kind from the structural, deterministic, type-based relationships required by the amended claims.” In support, applicant refers to page 7 of the subject Office Action: “In mapping Chan’s teaching to the hierarchical structure limitation, the Office Action cited Chan’s description of a model that is trained to calculate a probability that each log message is followed by another particular log message.” This is incorrect and misleading. The rejection to which applicant refers is related to dependent claim 2, which recites the use of a log model to identify a hierarchy of primary and secondary messages, which is different from “the hierarchical structure limitation” that first appears in independent claim 1, which is disclosed by a different section of Chan. A review of the instant specification shows that paragraph [0060] defines the log model term as being predictive, not deterministic, as follows: “If log relationship policy 300 is unavailable, log model 223 can be generated from historical data. For example, log history 310 can contain logs 312 with log messages 314. The sequence of log messages 314 can be used to train machine learning model 315. In the train form, machine learning model 315 is log model 223. In this illustrative example, machine learning model 315 can take a number different forms. For example, machine learning model 315 can be a recurrent neural network (RNN), long short-term memory (LSTM), a convolutional neural network (CNN), a transformer model, or other suitable types of machine learning models that can be trained to predict relationships between log messages.” Additionally, the portion of Chan that is cited for teaching “the hierarchical structure limitation” recited in claim 1 is repeated here to illustrate that Chan does not rely on probabilities but rather on a determination of a semantic, statistical, or functional relationship between the log messages: “The message graph construction unit 102 can construct the knowledge graph by writing in pointer to the system log to point a first log message to a second log message based on a semantic, statistical, or functional relationship between the log messages. The direction of the pointer is based on the second lob message being written after the first log message.”
35. Regarding the combinability of the cited references, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
36. 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.
37. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat C Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/WILLIAM C WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights