DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 of JP Application number 2023-087720, dated 29 May 2023.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a mean or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
- “a log input unit,” “storage unit,” “a pattern matching unit,” and log output unit” are not an algorithm nor a structure, it’s simply a connective and or receiving state. Therefore, regarding claims 1-8 are subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the limitations recite nothing more than a software component performing a list of purely functioning operations without recitation of any corresponding structure in the claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims’ limitations - “a log input unit,” “storage unit,” “a pattern matching unit,” and log output unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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- and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below.
Step 1:
The claimed method (claims), system (claims 8-14), and computer readable storage medium (claims 15-20) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Independent claim 1 (8 and 15) recites the following limitations that can be practically performed in the mind and/or with a pen and a piece of paper:
Receiving a log output from an information processing system
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional elements are:
a storage unit configured to store pattern information and first priority information, the pattern information being patterns of a plurality of logs, the first priority information indicating a first priority for pattern matching corresponding to a log transmission source;
a pattern matching unit configured to, when the log received is a log transmission source corresponding to the first priority information, perform pattern matching between the log and the patterns in the pattern information using a pattern corresponding to the first priority and convert the log into a normalized log using the pattern matched; and
a log output unit configured to output the normalized log converted by the pattern matching unit.
These additional elements are using generic computer functions, e.g. storing, transmitting, matching and conversion, as a tool to perform.
Step 2B:
For Step 2B, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(B) identifies the list of cases in MPEP 2106. 05(d)(II) as available bases. Taking these aforementioned additional elements as an ordered combination, these additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the elements are considered separately.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oprea (US Pat. 9,338,187) in view of Villella (CA 2998634 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oprea discloses a log normalization apparatus for normalizing a log output from an information processing system into a structured log, the log normalization apparatus comprising: a log input unit configured to receive a log output from an information processing system (Fig. 4, “402”, col. 2, collecting log activities);
a storage unit configured to store pattern information and first priority information, the pattern information being patterns of a plurality of logs, the first priority information indicating a first priority for pattern matching corresponding to a log transmission source (col. 2, lines 1-29; matching log activities);
a pattern matching unit configured to, when the log received is a log transmission source corresponding to the first priority information, perform pattern matching between the log and the patterns in the pattern information using a pattern corresponding to the first priority and convert the log into a normalized log using the pattern matched (col. 4, lines 19-29; matching the normalized log activities, also based on the prioritized alerts); and
a log output unit configured to output the normalized log converted by the pattern matching unit (col. 2, lines 10-28, outputting the matching activities/alerts).
Oprea does not explicitly disclose a log transmission source corresponding to the first priority information; however, Villella discloses a log transmission source corresponding to the first priority information (p. 3b, last para.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Villella into Oprea to quickly identify and restore data logs as desired.
Regarding claim 2, Oprea in view of Villella discloses the log normalization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the patterns in the pattern information each include a second priority indicating a priority for pattern matching, and the pattern matching unit performs pattern matching using the second priority when pattern matching based on the first priority finds no matched pattern (Villella, see abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Oprea in view of Villella discloses the log normalization apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the first priority is a priority order defined based on software operating at a log transmission source (p. 10, first para., the log agents are software protocols that are innate to the operating system of a particular computer. For example, the log manager 13 may be communicatively coupled to a computer using the Windows Operating System by Microsoft, Inc.).
Regarding claim 4, Oprea in view of Villella discloses the log normalization apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the first priority includes an instruction to change the second priority associated with the pattern information included in the pattern information (p. 32, compilation of different priority data).
Regarding claim 5, Oprea in view of Villella discloses the log normalization apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the first priority is a priority order defined based on evaluation of software operating at a source code provision source (Villella, p. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Oprea in view of Villella discloses the log normalization apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising an input/output unit configured to receive update information for the second priority and change the second priority included in the pattern information by using the update information received (col. 3, lines 31-40, updating receiving data).
Regarding claim 7, Oprea in view of Villella discloses the log normalization apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a source code of software operating at a log transmission source is received, a pattern is created based on a parameter included in the source code, and the pattern created is registered in the pattern information (col. 2, one or more security parameters).
Regarding claim 8, Oprea in view of Villella discloses the log normalization apparatus according to claim 7, wherein semantic analysis of the source code received is performed, a log message is output from positions and names of a variable and a function included in the source code, a parameter is extracted from the log message output, and a pattern of the pattern information is generated based on the log message output and the parameter extracted (Villella, p. 9, extracting information from logs).
Regarding claims 9-10, see discussion of claims 1-2 above for the same reason of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUANKHANH D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3047. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 10:00am-18:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached on 571-270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
/TUANKHANH D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2154