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 .
Claims 1-16 are examined.
Claims 1-16 are rejected.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on May 23rd, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-084935 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner will be interpreting the claim language as cited in the “Claim Rejections -- 35 U.S.C. 112” for the analysis below. Claims 2-14 would be allowable if they were amended to overcome 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites:
“…when the error information and the warning information are not retrieved from the observation information group, store only the created formatted log information for the observation information group in the database.”
The most relevant prior art, Bhatnagar, fails to teach the above feature. The aggregation tool from Bhatnagar’s invention teaches searching, analyzing, and combining similar error information in order to prevent the system from freezing when there is a sudden influx of error events. Although it does track different severity levels ([0044]), it doesn’t dive specific on how they are being saved differently based on severity. The Examiner was unable to find the above feature in a prior art or the obvious combination of prior arts and thus the claims 2-14 will be considered allowable if amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections and if they were rewritten to be independent claims.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Log Management System that utilizes selective storing dependent on the error and warning information.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: “to obtain observation information group including observation information that includes a request ID same each other that identifies a series of processing executed in response to a request among pieces of observation information related to processing executed in each microservice, the pieces of the observation information being collected from each microservice of a plurality of the microservices.”
Similar unclear, inexact or verbose language is utilized in the Abstract and requires further amendment.
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 1-16 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 1-16 recites “observation information group,” but what this entails is unclear. The Specification lists what is included in this claim language (“…including observation information that includes a request ID same each other that identifies a series of processing executed…”) but stays moot on the definition. Defining the said claim language with verbiage such as (“…is defined as…”) is suggested in order to provide clarity.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 recites
“…obtain observation information group including observation information that includes a request ID same each other that identifies a series of processing executed in response to a request among pieces of observation information related to processing executed in each microservice, the pieces of the observation information being collected from each microservice of a plurality of the microservices.” The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret this claim language to mean the following: “obtain observation information group, the observation information group being a subset of data also containing the same request ID collected by the microservices’ monitoring unit.” Further amendments to clarify the claim language is necessary.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 recite the limitation “the microservice;” however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation in the claim.
Because claims 2-14 are dependent on claim 1, they inherit the qualities of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-14 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “…wherein the partial information includes first information that indicates transition of the microservices that have operated in response to the request,” but it is unclear what this entails. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret this to mean “…wherein the partial information includes first information that indicates the first microservice to response to the request.” Further amendments to clarify the claim language is necessary.
Claim 7 recites “…wherein the partial information includes second information of the operation of the microservice that has transitioned last,” but it is unclear what this entails. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret this to mean “…wherein the partial information includes second information of the operation of the microservice that was the last to perform as part of the response to the request.” Further amendments to clarify the claim language is necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, an evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The following is an analysis of the claims:
.
Claim 1:
Step 1: The claim recites a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract idea
search the obtained observation information group for error information that indicates occurrence of an error and warning information that indicates occurrence of an event to be a cause of the error;
These limitations, which involves scanning a log for specific keywords, can be conducted in the mind. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 1 additionally recites,
obtain observation information group including observation information that includes a request ID same each other that identifies a series of processing executed in response to a request among pieces of observation information related to processing executed in each microservice, the pieces of the observation information being collected from each microservice of a plurality of the microservices;
This limitation is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
store at least partial information of the observation information group in a database that serves as a storage location according to a search result of the error information and the warning information.
These limitations are steps that merely outputs data. Therefore, this step is a mere data outputting, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
Furthermore, “memory” and “a processor coupled to the memory” are an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and to output the resulting data from the mental process. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
Accordingly, even in combination, these 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(d) and 2106.05(f)(II). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: Significantly more
Claim 1 additionally recites:
obtain observation information group including observation information that includes a request ID same each other that identifies a series of processing executed in response to a request among pieces of observation information related to processing executed in each microservice, the pieces of the observation information being collected from each microservice of a plurality of the microservices;
This limitation is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
store at least partial information of the observation information group in a database that serves as a storage location according to a search result of the error information and the warning information.
These limitations are steps that merely outputs data. Therefore, this step is a mere data outputting, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
Furthermore, “memory” and “a processor coupled to the memory” are an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and to output the resulting data from the mental process. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
Accordingly, even in combination, these 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(d) and 2106.05(f)(II). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15:
Step 1: The claim recites a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract idea
searching the obtained observation information group for error information that indicates occurrence of an error and warning information that indicates occurrence of an event to be a cause of the error; and
These limitations, which involves scanning a log for specific keywords, can be conducted in the mind. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Additionally, merely performing the above steps on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 15 additionally recites,
obtaining observation information group including observation information that includes a request ID same each other that identifies a series of processing executed in response to a request among pieces of observation information related to processing executed in each microservice, the pieces of the observation information being collected from each microservice of a plurality of the microservices;
This limitation is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
storing at least partial information of the observation information group in a database that serves as a storage location according to a search result of the error information and the warning information.
These limitations are steps that merely outputs data. Therefore, this step is a mere data outputting, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and to output the resulting data from the mental process. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
Accordingly, even in combination, these 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(d) and 2106.05(f)(II). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: Significantly more
Claim 15 additionally recites:
obtaining observation information group including observation information that includes a request ID same each other that identifies a series of processing executed in response to a request among pieces of observation information related to processing executed in each microservice, the pieces of the observation information being collected from each microservice of a plurality of the microservices; This limitation is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
storing at least partial information of the observation information group in a database that serves as a storage location according to a search result of the error information and the warning information. These limitations are steps that merely outputs data. Therefore, this step is a mere data outputting, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and to output the resulting data from the mental process. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
Accordingly, even in combination, these 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(d) and 2106.05(f)(II). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16:
Step 1: The claim recites a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract idea
searching the obtained observation information group for error information that indicates occurrence of an error and warning information that indicates occurrence of an event to be a cause of the error. These limitations, which involves scanning a log for specific keywords, can be conducted in the mind. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 16 additionally recites,
obtaining observation information group including observation information that includes a request ID same each other that identifies a series of processing executed in response to a request among pieces of observation information related to processing executed in each microservice, the pieces of the observation information being collected from each microservice of a plurality of the microservices; This limitation is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
storing at least partial information of the observation information group in a database that serves as a storage location according to a search result of the error information and the warning information. These limitations are steps that merely outputs data. Therefore, this step is a mere data outputting, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
Furthermore, “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” and “log management program,” and “computer” are an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and to output the resulting data from the mental process. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
Accordingly, even in combination, these 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(d) and 2106.05(f)(II). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: Significantly more
Claim 16 additionally recites:
obtaining observation information group including observation information that includes a request ID same each other that identifies a series of processing executed in response to a request among pieces of observation information related to processing executed in each microservice, the pieces of the observation information being collected from each microservice of a plurality of the microservices; This limitation is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
storing at least partial information of the observation information group in a database that serves as a storage location according to a search result of the error information and the warning information. These limitations are steps that merely outputs data. Therefore, this step is a mere data outputting, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
Furthermore, “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” and “log management program,” and “computer” are an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and to output the resulting data from the mental process. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(III).
Accordingly, even in combination, these 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(d) and 2106.05(f)(II). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Bhatnagar et al (WO 2025052444 A1) from henceforth referred to as Bhatnagar.
Per claim 1, Bhatnagar teaches
A log management device comprising:
a memory ([0036] a memory); and
a processor coupled to the memory ([0036] a processor) and configured to:
obtain observation information group including observation information that includes a request ID same each other that identifies a series of processing executed in response to a request among pieces of observation information related to processing executed in each microservice ([0042] when an error event is detected, the initiating unit is configured to collect data related to the error event), the pieces of the observation information being collected from each microservice of a plurality of the microservices ([0042] the network continuously observes network operations to obtain the data);
search the obtained observation information group for error information that indicates occurrence of an error and warning information that indicates occurrence of an event to be a cause of the error ([0043] extracting unit is configured to extract a plurality of attributes from the error event; person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this involves searching the data itself. In an embodiment, the extracting unit is “configured to identify an underlying cause of the error”); and
store at least partial information of the observation information group in a database that serves as a storage location according to a search result of the error information and the warning information ([0048] when the mapping unit fails to find the match for the extracted attributes in the database, the creating unit creates a new entry in the database with the attributes of the unmatched error event).
Per claim 15, Bhatnagar teaches
A log management method for causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising:
obtaining observation information group including observation information that includes a request ID same each other that identifies a series of processing executed in response to a request among pieces of observation information related to processing executed in each microservice ([0042] when an error event is detected, the initiating unit is configured to collect data related to the error event), the pieces of the observation information being collected from each microservice of a plurality of the microservices ([0042] the network continuously observes network operations to obtain the data);
searching the obtained observation information group for error information that indicates occurrence of an error and warning information that indicates occurrence of an event to be a cause of the error ([0043] extracting unit is configured to extract a plurality of attributes from the error event; person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this involves searching the data itself. In an embodiment, the extracting unit is “configured to identify an underlying cause of the error”); and
storing at least partial information of the observation information group in a database that serves as a storage location according to a search result of the error information and the warning information ([0048] when the mapping unit fails to find the match for the extracted attributes in the database, the creating unit creates a new entry in the database with the attributes of the unmatched error event).
Per claim 16, Bhatnagar teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a log management program for causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising:
obtaining observation information group including observation information that includes a request ID same each other that identifies a series of processing executed in response to a request among pieces of observation information related to processing executed in each microservice ([0042] when an error event is detected, the initiating unit is configured to collect data related to the error event), the pieces of the observation information being collected from each microservice of a plurality of the microservices ([0042] the network continuously observes network operations to obtain the data);
searching the obtained observation information group for error information that indicates occurrence of an error and warning information that indicates occurrence of an event to be a cause of the error ([0043] extracting unit is configured to extract a plurality of attributes from the error event; person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this involves searching the data itself. In an embodiment, the extracting unit is “configured to identify an underlying cause of the error”); and
storing at least partial information of the observation information group in a database that serves as a storage location according to a search result of the error information and the warning information ([0048] when the mapping unit fails to find the match for the extracted attributes in the database, the creating unit creates a new entry in the database with the attributes of the unmatched error event).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lemberg et al (US 20240176726 A1) teaches utilizing a fault profile which contains telemetry data that typically occurs on the computer system in connection with a particular root cause fault in order to determine the root cause of the error when error is detected.
Danyi et al (US 11789804 B1) teaches traversing the trace in order to find the leaf node that contains the error span.
Additional related prior art can be found in PTO-892.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYO LISA RUSIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/K.L.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/MICHAEL MASKULINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113