DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Regarding U.S. Provisional App. No. 63/119,500 (filed 11/30/2020) and U.S. Patent App. No. 17/183,746 (filed 2/24/2021), Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/19/2023 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, “the at least dictionary” should read “the at least one dictionary”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the interactive interface includes a filter for inputting one or more keyword tokens; wherein the instructions further cause: receiving, by the filter, one or more keyword tokens in the at least one dictionary.” However, the specification does not explain how a filter can be used to input or “receive” “one or more keyword tokens.”
Para. 0030 of the instant specification explains that different user interface elements can be used to receive input, such as “checkboxes, radio buttons, dropdown lists, list boxes, buttons, toggles, text fields, date and time selectors, command lines, sliders, pages, and forms”, but “filter” is not a listed option. Nor would one of ordinary skill in the art understand a filter to be an interface element for receiving an input.
The examiner suggests amending claim 2 to recite a “field” or a “user interface element” instead of reciting a “filter.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first subset of log records” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation was meant to refer to “the first cluster” or “a first subset of the log records.” For purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “a first subset of the log records.”
Claims 2-18 depend from claim 1, do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the set of log records" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the set of log records” is supposed to refer to the “group[ed] log records” as set forth in claim 1, line 3, or the “the first subset of log records” as set forth in claim 1, line 10, or if the limitation is merely referring to “the log records”. For purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “the log records.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the set of log records" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the set of log records” is supposed to refer to the “group[ed] log records” as set forth in claim 1, line 3, or the “the first subset of log records” as set forth in claim 1, line 10, or if the limitation is merely referring to “the log records”. For purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “the log records.”
Claim 13 depends from claim 12, does not remedy the deficiencies of claim 12, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 12.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the subset of log records" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the subset of log records” is supposed to refer to the “group[ed] log records” as set forth in claim 1, line 3, or the “the first subset of log records” as set forth in claim 1, line 10. For purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “the first subset of log records.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the first subset of log records” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation was meant to refer to “the first cluster” or “a first subset of the log records.” For purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “a first subset of the log records.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the first subset of log records” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation was meant to refer to “the first cluster” or “a first subset of the log records.” For purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “a first subset of the log records.”
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 Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, Claims 1-18 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (an article of manufacture), Claim 19 is directed to a method (a process), and Claim 20 is directed to a system (a machine), which each fall within one of the four statutory categories of inventions.
Regarding Claim 1
Step 2A, prong 1 (Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “one or more hardware processors”, “interactive interface”).
generating a set of clusters that group log records from one or more domains; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human such as an IT specialist, can review log records from one or more domains, such as log records from a set of servers relating to the Legal department, and mentally (or using pencil and paper) generate a set of clusters that groups the log records, e.g., log records related to printer errors, or access control violations, etc.)
mapping each cluster in the set of clusters to a different set of one or more keywords from at least one dictionary associated with the one or more domains, wherein a first cluster is mapped to a combination of two or more different keyword tokens in the at least dictionary that is unique to the first cluster relative to other clusters in the set of clusters, wherein the two or more different keyword tokens are selected to represent the first cluster based at least in part on occurrences of different keywords corresponding to the two or more different keyword tokens in the first subset of the log records and an association of the different keyword tokens with a performance of at least one computing resource of the different keywords corresponding to the two or more different keyword tokens; and (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human such as an IT specialist, can map each of the clusters (which could be as few as 2 clusters), to first and second sets of keywords from at least one dictionary associated with the domain, where two or more different keyword tokens (such as “printer” and “ink” for the printer errors clusters, and “access” and “denied” for the access control violations cluster), are used to represent the first and second clusters because those terms most frequently occur in the log records and are associated with computing resources)
generating ...a visual representation of each cluster in the set of clusters and a cluster summary that identifies how logs within the cluster relate to the performance of the at least one computing resource, wherein the cluster summary is generated using the set of one or more keywords assigned to the cluster. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human such as an IT specialist, can draw on a piece of paper, a visual representation of each cluster and can write a cluster summary)
Step 2A, prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding the “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “one or more hardware processors” limitations, such limitations are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “an interactive interface that includes” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of an interactive interface. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (an interactive interface). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, such limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?)
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding the “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “one or more hardware processors” limitations, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “an interactive interface that includes” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, this limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Accordingly, at Step 2B after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 2
Step 2A, Prong 1
removing at least one cluster ... that is not mapped to the one or more keyword tokens (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally remove (or remove from a drawing on paper) at least one cluster from the visually represented clusters if a cluster is not mapped to the one or more keyword tokens)
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the interactive interface includes a filter for inputting one or more keyword tokens” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of an interactive interface. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (an interactive interface). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, such limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “receiving, by the filter, one or more keyword tokens in the at least one dictionary” limitation, such additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “from the interactive interface” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of an interactive interface. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (an interactive interface). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, such limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the interactive interface includes a filter for inputting one or more keyword tokens” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, this limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Regarding the “receiving, by the filter, one or more keyword tokens in the at least one dictionary” limitation, as discussed above, the additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “from the interactive interface” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, this limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Regarding Claim 3
Step 2A, Prong 1
selecting one or more visual attributes for the visual representation for the first cluster based at least in part on the two or more different keyword tokens selected to represent the first cluster (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally select one or more visual attributes, such as a different color or line thickness, based at least in part on the two or more different keyword tokens, e.g., longer keyword tokens are black, shorter keyword tokens are white)
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein generating the interactive interface includes” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of an interactive interface. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (an interactive interface). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, such limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein generating the interactive interface includes” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, this limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Regarding Claim 4
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the one or more visual attributes include a color for the visual representation of the first cluster. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can select a visual attribute in the visual representation to be a different color)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the one or more visual attributes for the visual representation for the first cluster are further selected based at least in part on how many log records are assigned to the first cluster. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can select a visual attribute in the visual representation based on how many log records are assigned to the first cluster, for example, the cluster line thickness can be thicker if there are more log records)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the cluster summary for the first cluster includes the two or more different keyword tokens that represent the first cluster. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally generate a cluster summary that includes two or more different keyword tokens that represent the first cluster)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the cluster summary for the first cluster further includes a start time corresponding to a first chronological log message and an end time corresponding to a last chronological log message in the first cluster. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally generate a cluster summary that includes a start time and end time as recited in this limitation)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8
Step 2A, Prong 1
responsive to receiving the request, updating the set of clusters that are presented (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally (or to a drawing on paper), update the set of clusters that are represented based on the different dictionary selected)
wherein the updated set of clusters are represented by a different set of keyword tokens from the dictionary that is tailored to analyze log records for a different set of performance problems (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally (or to a drawing on paper), update the set of clusters to be represented by a different set of keyword tokens as specified in this limitation)
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “receiving, through the interactive interface, a request to change the at least one dictionary to a different dictionary that is tailored to analyze log records for a different set of performance problems” limitation, such additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “in the interactive interface” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, this limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Step 2B
Regarding the “receiving, through the interactive interface, a request to change the at least one dictionary to a different dictionary that is tailored to analyze log records for a different set of performance problems” limitation, as discussed above, the additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “in the interactive interface” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, this limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Regarding Claim 9
Step 2A, Prong 1
selecting up to a threshold number of keyword tokens from the at least one dictionary to represent each cluster in the set of clusters, wherein keyword tokens are selected based at least in part on token weights that indicate how strongly the keyword tokens correlate to the performance of the at least one computing resource. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally select up to a threshold number of keyword tokens from the at least one dictionary, such as selecting up to 2 keyword tokens, where keyword tokens are selected using the criteria set forth in this limitation)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10
Step 2A, Prong 1
determining at least one action associated with addressing at least one performance issue of the at least one computing resource based at least in part on the two or more different keyword tokens mapped to the first cluster, wherein the at least one action is mapped to the two or more different keyword tokens; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally determine at least one action associated with addressing the at least one performance issue of the at least one computing resource based on the criteria of this limitation, and then mentally (or to a drawing on paper), map the action to the two or more different keyword tokens by associating a label for the action with the tokens)
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “performing the at least one action associated with addressing the performance issue of the at least one computing resource based on at least the first cluster in the set of one or more clusters” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “performing the at least one action associated with addressing the performance issue of the at least one computing resource based on at least the first cluster in the set of one or more clusters” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 11
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the at least one dictionary includes keyword tokens and token weights specific to the particular application domain (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally generate (or using paper and pencil), a dictionary that associates keyword tokens with token weights specific to a particular application domain for that dictionary)
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the set of log records were generated by an application in a particular application domain” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of a software application. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a generic software application). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the set of log records were generated by an application in a particular application domain” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 12
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the at least one dictionary includes keyword tokens and token weights specific to the database application (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally generate (or using paper and pencil), a dictionary that associates keyword tokens with token weights specific to a particular database application)
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the set of log records were generated by a database application,” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of a database application. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a generic database application). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the set of log records were generated by a database application” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 13
Step 2A, Prong 1
generating the at least one dictionary based on historical log records from the database application; wherein generating the at least one dictionary includes extracting keyword tokens from the historical log records; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally generate a dictionary (or write down a dictionary on paper) based on the historical records by extracting keyword tokens from the historical log records and mentally assigning weights to such extracted keyword tokens)
determining whether the extracted keyword tokens satisfy a set of criteria; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally evaluate whether the extracted keyword tokens satisfy a particular set of criteria)
adding only the extracted keyword tokens that satisfy the set of criteria to a dictionary for clustering database log records. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally add (or add to a dictionary written on paper), only those extracted keyword tokens that satisfy the set of criteria)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 14
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the at least one dictionary includes a hierarchical set of dictionaries including a parent dictionary and a plurality of child dictionaries associated with different domains. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally (or using pencil and paper) generate a dictionary to have a hierarchy of parent and child dictionaries associated with different domains)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 15
Step 2A, Prong 1
mapping the two or more different keyword tokens representing the first cluster to at least one descriptive label that describes at least one behavior represented by the first cluster. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally map the two or more different keyword tokens representing the first cluster to at least one label that describes at least one behavior, such as a label that “printer is out of ink”)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 16
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein at least one log record assigned to the first cluster does not include an exact match to the two or more different keyword tokens representing the first cluster; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally assign log records to the first cluster based on the criteria set forth in this limitation)
wherein the at least one log record is included in the subset of log records based on a similarity between an extracted keyword and at least one keyword of the two or more different keyword tokens. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally include a log record in a subset of log records based on the criteria set forth in this limitation)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 17
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the set of clusters is generated using the at least one dictionary based at least in part on similarities between dictionary tokens included in the log records. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally (or using pencil and paper) generate the set of clusters using the at least one dictionary based on the criteria set forth in this limitation)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 18
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the at least one dictionary defines a set of rules; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally (or using pencil and paper) generate a dictionary that defines a set of rules)
wherein a clustering process evaluates the set of rules to map record content to dictionary tokens, compute token weights, determine record similarity, and assign records to groups. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally evaluate the set of rules to map record content as set forth in this limitation)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 19
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 19 recites a method that corresponds to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 with respect to claim 1 also applies to this claim 19. While claim 19 recites additional generic computing components (“interactive interface”), such additional generic computing components do not change the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 19 recites a method that corresponds to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2 with respect to claim 1 also applies to this claim 19. While claim 19 recites additional generic computing components (“interactive interface”), such additional generic computing components do not change the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B
Claim 19 recites a method that corresponds to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2B with respect to claim 1 also applies to this claim 19. While claim 19 recites additional generic computing components (“interactive interface”), such additional generic computing components do not change the analysis under Step 2B.
Regarding Claim 20
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 20 recites a system that corresponds to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 with respect to claim 1 also applies to this claim 20. While claim 20 recites additional generic computing components (“one or more hardware processors”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”, “interactive interface”), such additional generic computing components do not change the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 20 recites a system that corresponds to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2 with respect to claim 1 also applies to this claim 20. While claim 20 recites additional generic computing components (“one or more hardware processors”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”, “interactive interface”), such additional generic computing components do not change the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B
Claim 20 recites a system that corresponds to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2B with respect to claim 1 also applies to this claim 20. While claim 20 recites additional generic computing components (“one or more hardware processors”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”, “interactive interface”), such additional generic computing components do not change the analysis under Step 2B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowed, provided that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b), as applicable, are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are considered allowable over the prior art because none of the references of record either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims, including at least:
wherein a first cluster is mapped to a combination of two or more different keyword tokens in the at least dictionary that is unique to the first cluster relative to other clusters in the set of clusters, wherein the two or more different keyword tokens are selected to represent the first cluster based at least in part on occurrences of different keywords corresponding to the two or more different keyword tokens in the first subset of the log records and an association of the different keyword tokens with a performance of at least one computing resource of the different keywords corresponding to the two or more different keyword tokens
The closest prior art of record discloses:
US 20170169080 A1 (PARTHASARATHY) discloses that IT professionals and DevOps professionals can employ log clustering techniques to cluster log files for troubleshooting/root cause diagnosis. (paras. 0002-0003, 0029-0030). Discloses the use of a dictionary that uses tokens as keys. (paras. 0032-0037). Fig. 1D and 1E disclose user interfaces that provide visual representations of the clusters. (paras. 0019, 0048).
Guha, Sudipto, et al. "CURE: An efficient clustering algorithm for large databases." ACM Sigmod record 27.2 (1998): 73-84, hereinafter referenced as GUHA discloses representing a cluster with multiple points instead of a single centroid. (p. 79, section 4.3)
US 20210142124 A1 (OLLIKAINEN) discloses selecting “two seed centroids, preferably two tokens, in random” with respect to clustering tokens (see paras. 0094-0095).
However, the examiner has found that the distinct feature of the Applicant's claimed invention over the prior art is the explicit claiming of the aforementioned limitations in combination with all the other limitations as specified in independent claims 1, 19, and 20. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to select “two or more” tokens to represent the cluster “based at least in part on occurrences of different keywords corresponding to the two or more different keyword tokens in the first subset of the log records and the association with the performance of the at least one computing resource of the different keywords corresponding to the two or more different keyword tokens” as required by the independent claims, without the hindsight aid of Applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, because the prior art of record does not anticipate nor make obvious the limitations recited in the independent claims, such independent claims would be allowed over the prior art, provided that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) (as applicable) are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00 pm - 8:00 pm ET.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/MICHAEL C. LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights