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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15 – 18 of Attorney Docket Number P202100441US01 in REMARKS, filed January 16, 2026, with respect to rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendments to the claims have introduced subject matter not taught by the cited art. The rejections of claims 1, 7 and 13 have been withdrawn. The 102 and 103 rejections of claims which depend on claims 1, 7 and 13 have also been withdrawn.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 have been amended to address their rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12 – 14 of Attorney Docket Number P202100441US01 in REMARKS, filed January 16, 2026, with respect to rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that it would be impossible for the human mind to identify a particular logical container within a particular pod within a particular node within a particular cluster, and subsequently decide which nodes are rolled up higher in the hierarchy based on density, and therefore the claims represent a technical improvement. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regardless of the merits of this assertion, it does not reflect the claims as written. In the claims as written, the IP address and geohash hierarchy are not clearly linked to the claimed invention. The nodes in the abstract hierarchical data structure are claimed to merely represent these values, and the values themselves are human-readable abstractions of real-world properties on computing nodes. The claims do not clearly indicate the values are obtained from, for example, information of an actual computing node. As written the claims are directly to manipulating the records and the lattice of records, which are abstract ideas of rearranging information. The claim should include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant additionally asserts the claimed steps of “wherein encoding the record comprises creating a plurality of spatial groups of records at each node in the lattice representing an IP address and a geohash and each node in the lattice representing a specific rollup level for the IP address and the geohash” and “wherein the plurality of error records is rolled up into at least one of a number of levels in provided hierarchies of error records of the respective temporal group of records based on the IP address and the geohash” are not simply the mental tasks of determination and identification, but involve intricate use of traversing, encoding, and grouping errors in hierarchical structures, and therefore cannot be provided by a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the IP address and geohash are abstract representations of real-world properties of computing nodes, not the computing nodes themselves. In view of the provided example IP address and geohash values (10.0.0.1, 3r0dz), the levels of the hierarchy are clearly tractable in the human mind. A human being would be able to arrange a set of IP addresses into a hierarchy based on the separators in the addresses, and do the same with a set of geohashes, considering a common geohash where each character represents a level of a spatial hierarchy. Furthermore, regardless of its complexity and the intricacy of encoding it, the lattice is a graph, which is an abstract data structure. Traversing, encoding, and grouping errors in the lattice can be performed in the human mind.
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 – 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Below is an evaluation using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claim 1
Step 1:
Claim 1 is to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites
temporally grouping … the plurality of error records using a time series segmentation technique to create temporal groups of records
further grouping … each temporal group of records using spatial grouping techniques to create groups of records that are temporally and spatially grouped
wherein grouping each temporal group comprises materializing a lattice of nodes of a respective temporal group of each temporal group of records by encoding a record of the plurality of error records into at least one node of the lattice
wherein encoding the record comprises creating a plurality of spatial groups of records at each node in the lattice, the plurality of spatial groups of records representing an IP address and a geohash, and each node representing a specifical rollup level for the IP address and the geohash;
wherein the plurality of error records is rolled up into at least one of a number of levels in provided hierarchies of error records of the respective temporal group of records based on the IP address and the geohash;
ranking … the groups of records based on a density of each group of records
selecting … a top N groups of records with highest densities based on the ranking
localizing … an issue causing the plurality of error records based on the top N groups of records and hierarchy levels of the top N groups of records
which are abstract ideas of mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, error records are mere text. Grouping, ranking, selecting, and localizing the error records and groups are the mental process of organizing and interpreting the text. A lattice of nodes of each group is an abstract form of arranging the records. Encoding the records, as indicated by paragraph 0041, encompasses the abstract idea of assigning levels in the hierarchy to the records. Encoding the lattice and rolling up error records is the mental process of constructing a graph from data.
IP addresses and geohashes are human-readable strings representing real-world properties and are tractable in the human mind. The claims as written also state that the nodes “represent” these addresses and geohashes, adding a second level of abstraction from the real-world properties.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 1 recites
A computer-implemented method
… by one or more processors …
which are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Claim 1 further recites
receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of error records
which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). This step is necessary data gathering to perform the abstract idea of record analysis.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 1 recites
A computer-implemented method
… by one or more processors …
which are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
Claim 1 further recites
receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of error records
which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). This step is necessary data gathering to perform the abstract idea of record analysis.
Claim 2
Step 1:
Claim 2 is to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 2 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 2 recites
wherein receiving the plurality of error records comprises receiving temporal and spatial information for each error record of the plurality of error records
which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Temporal and spatial information are necessary to perform the temporal and spatial grouping abstract ideas of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites
wherein receiving the plurality of error records comprises receiving temporal and spatial information for each error record of the plurality of error records
which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Temporal and spatial information are necessary to perform the temporal and spatial grouping abstract ideas of claim 1.
Claim 3
Step 1:
Claim 3 is to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 3 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Claim 3 recites
wherein the time series segmentation technique is regression-based segmentation
which is a continuation of the time series segmentation abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 3 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 3 does not recite additional elements.
Claim 4
Step 1:
Claim 4 is to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 4 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Claim 4 recites
wherein the density of each group of records is a number of error records divided by a size of the group
which is a continuation of the ranking abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 4 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 4 does not recite additional elements.
Claim 5
Step 1:
Claim 5 is to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 5 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Claim 5 recites
creating … a lattice of nodes of a respective group of records based on the number of levels in provided hierarchies of error records of the respective temporal group of records
identifying … the group of records that are temporally and spatially grouped by materializing and traversing the lattice using a bottom-up Breadth First Search (BFS) method that chooses groupings that maximize entropy.
which are abstract ideas of mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A lattice of nodes of each group is an abstract form of arranging the records.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 5 recites
… by one or more processors …
which are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 5 recites
… by one or more processors …
which are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
Claim 6
Step 1:
Claim 6 is to a process
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 6 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 5 by dependency.
Claim 6 recites
computing … the entropy at a node of the lattice as -log(n1 / N) – log (n2 / N ) … - log (nm / N) wherein n1, n2…nm are current group sizes and N = n1+n2+…+nm is a total number of records
which is the abstract idea of a mathematical formula or equation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B).
determining … whether the entropy at the node is greater than a preset entropy threshold
which is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 6 recites
… by one or more processors …
which are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 6 recites
… by one or more processors …
which are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
Claims 7 – 12
Step 1:
As transitory storage media are disavowed in the specification, claims 7 – 12 are to non-transitory computer readable storage media.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claims 7 – 12 recite similar language to claims 1 – 6, and as such recite similar abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 7 recites
one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media
which are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Claims 7 – 12 otherwise recite similar additional elements to claims 1 – 6 which do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 7 recites
one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media
which are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
Claims 7 – 12 otherwise recite similar additional elements to claims 1 – 6 which do not amount to significantly more.
Claims 13 – 18
Step 1:
Claims 13 – 18 are to a machine
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claims 13 – 18 recite similar language to claims 1 – 6, and as such recite similar abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 13 recites
one or more computer processors
one or more computer readable storage media
program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one or more computer processors
which are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Claims 13 – 18 otherwise recite similar additional elements to claims 1 – 6 which do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 13 recites
one or more computer processors
one or more computer readable storage media
program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one or more computer processors
which are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
Claims 13 – 18 otherwise recite similar additional elements to claims 1 – 6 which do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Boukhtouta et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0227014) was found to have many similarities to the claims. It discloses a method for monitoring a network where events are extracted from event logs, and a density-based clustering method is applied to the event logs based on both an IP address and geohash. Boukhtouta also teaches that this clustering may be effective in detecting attacks or failures. However, Boukhtouta does not teach the time-series segmentation limitation of the independent claims; time-series based models are produced from after clustering, rather than before. Boukhtouta is directed to monitoring a system in real-time rather than localizing an error based on historic log information. Many of the individual claim limitations of the present application are well-known parts of a density-based clustering algorithm, however, the combination of the density-based clustering algorithm with the specific preprocessing steps of temporal grouping, followed by grouping by IP address and geohash, with the specific purpose of localizing a root cause of errors in error records, was not found in the prior art. Because of the difference in their approach to time-series data and the scarcity of references utilizing both IP addresses and geohashes in the claimed manner, there was no obvious motivation to combine the methods of Boukhtouta with the methods of other art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN PAI SONG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30 AM - 8:30 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, ASHISH THOMAS can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/B.P.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114