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 .
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite collecting logs, assigning identifiers, organizing the logs and determining correctness of the logs. Such activities constitute managing and organizing information, which fall within the certain method of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation this covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Metal Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements including the mobile terminal and server are described at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions such as acquiring, transmitting, receiving, storing and processing data. The claims do not improve the functioning of the computer, network or other technology, but use generic computer components to implement the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements (acquiring, transmitting, receiving, storing, sorting comparing, filtering…) amount to no more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities. As such the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 recite additional details regarding the generation of device identifiers, startup identifiers, and event identifiers, as well as additional rules for storing, grouping, categorizing and filtering log information. The recited limitations merely further clarify the abstract steps of organizing and evaluating information and do not improve the functioning of the computer or any other technology. As such the dependent claims are abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polychronis (US 2020/0026593).
As to claim 1, Polychronis discloses a log supervision method, comprising:
acquiring, by a mobile terminal, a log generated by an application (¶0019);
adding, by the mobile terminal, a device id, a startup id and an event id to the log to obtain a standardized log (¶0025 & ¶0027);
wherein the device id is used for uniquely identifying the mobile terminal (¶0027);
the startup id is used for identifying a number of times of startup of the application after the application is installed (Figure 5 & ¶0054, a new ID is started at startup or initialization);
the event id is used for identifying a number of times of event occurrence of the application after the application is installed (¶0024-¶0025);
sending, by the mobile terminal, the standardized log to a server (Figure 5.510, ¶0078);
summarizing, by the server, all standardized logs from different mobile terminals, and determining, by the server, whether the standardized logs are incorrect (¶0017-¶0018).
As to claim 9, Polychronis discloses a log supervision method according to claim 1, further comprising: when receiving a filtering instruction comprising the device id or the startup id, obtaining, by the server, logs related to the application by filtering according to the device id, or obtaining, by the server, logs related to one startup of the application by filtering according to the startup id (¶0017- ¶0019 & ¶0027).
As to claim 10, Polychronis discloses a log supervision system, comprising
a mobile terminal and a server (¶0019);
wherein the mobile terminal is configured to: acquire a log generated by an application, and add a device id, a startup id and an event id to the log to obtain a standardized log, wherein the device id is used for uniquely identifying the mobile terminal, the startup id is used for identifying a number of times of startup of the application after the application is installed, and the event id is used for identifying a number of times of event occurrence of the application after the application is installed (¶0019, ¶0025-¶0027); and
send the standardized log to the server (Figure 5.510, ¶0078);
the server is configured to summarize all standardized logs from different mobile terminals and determine whether the standardized logs are incorrect (¶0017-¶0018).
As to claim 18 Polychronis discloses the log supervision system according to claim 10, wherein the server is further configured to: when receiving a filtering instruction comprising the device id or the startup id, obtain logs related to the application by filtering according to the device id, or obtain logs related to one startup of the application by filtering according to the startup id (¶0017- ¶0019 & ¶0027)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polychronis (US 2020/0026593) taken in view of Ortion (US 2010/0048193).
As to claims 2 and 11, Polychronis discloses a log supervision method, comprising: acquiring, by a mobile terminal, a log generated by an application (¶0019) and adding, by the mobile terminal, a device id, a startup id and an event id to the log to obtain a standardized log (¶0025 & ¶0027). Polychronis fails to disclose wherein the device id is obtained by performing a Hash operation on a mobile terminal id of the mobile terminal.
Ortion discloses a method for securely upgrading a mobile device with an individual upgrade software, the individual upgrade software remaining unusable by a mobile device as long as the individual upgrade software has not been activated (Abstract). Ortion does disclose wherein the device id is obtained by performing a Hash operation on a mobile terminal id of the mobile terminal (Ortion: ¶0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time of invention by applicant to implement the device id using Ortions has operation with Polychronis’s mobile terminal id. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because resulting mobile device encryption identity is a signature that is unique to an individual mobile device (Ortion: ¶0030).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art fails to disclose: wherein, the startup id comprises the device id and a first character string; every time the application is started, the first character string is increased by 1; the first character string is initialized to 1, and is set to 1 after overflow. Any and all outstanding rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art Spiegel discloses systems for utilizing and recording, writing, or logging data regarding system events occurring within a computer. These systems and methods define a unique erased value, such as the hexadecimal value 0FFh, that identifies unused memory records in an event log. When the computer system receives notification that an event has occurred, it searches for the next memory record containing the erased value in a memory record field designated as a search byte field (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES EHNE whose telephone number is (571)272-2471. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/CHARLES EHNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights