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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on July 20, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 3, 10, and 17 were previously cancelled and claims 21-23 have been cancelled. New claims 24-26 have been added. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20, and 24-26 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 20, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated April 20, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, in page 11 of the Remarks, “Accordingly, even though Kesarwani may associate templates with an application executable, Kesarwani fails to disclose:" each independently deployable microservice maintaining only its own template identifiers; " template identifiers corresponding exclusively to log events generated by one microservice; . preventing sharing of template identifier ownership among independently deployed services; " distributed ownership of template mappings among multiple log agents. Instead, Kesarwani disclosed centralized management of template mappings. In contrast, the present invention deliberately avoids that architecture.”
In response, Kesarwani discloses template identifiers corresponding to log event generated by an application. Rajagopalan discloses plurality of independently deployable microservices each with a logging agent. Combining Rajagopalan with Kesarwani would modify template identifiers corresponding to log event generated by an application as each independently deployable microservice maintaining only its own template identifiers; template identifiers corresponding exclusively to log events generated by one microservice. Kesarwani’s invention is described with respect to one application. Nothing prevent Kesarwani to extend the same for plurality of application.
Applicant argues, , in pages 11-12 of the Remarks, “However, Rajagopalan fails to disclose the claimed template identifier architecture. Specifically, Rajagopalan fails to disclose: " template identifiers; " template registration;" dynamic template identifier creation; " template lookup; " template identifier mappings; " local ownership of template identifiers; microservice-specific template repositories.”
In response, Rajagopalan is not applied to discloses those as primary art Kesarwani discloses those with respect to one application. Rajagopalan discloses plurality of independently deployable microservices each with a logging agent. By combining Rajagopalan with Kesarwani, one of the ordinary skills in the art can use inference and creative steps have those for plurality of microservice. A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Applicant argues, in page 12 of the Remarks, “Instead, Rajagopalan merely provides distributed logging agents that collect logging information. Therefore, Rajagopalan discloses only the environment of microservices, but not the claimed distributed template management performed by each microservice. The Office Action, in general, improperly reconstructs the present invention using hindsight. Kesarwani achieves efficient logging by centralizing template extraction, lookup, and mapping. Replacing Kesarwani's centralized lookup tables with independently managed template spaces fundamentally alters Kesarwani's operating principles. Such modification is neither suggested nor motivated by Rajagopalan. Rajagopalan merely discloses that microservices may execute independently. Nothing suggests replacing centralized template management with distributed ownership among independently deployed services.”.
In response, Kesarwani disclose the template identifier architecture with respect to one application. Kesarwani does not create any dependency between plurality of applications for which such template identifier architecture can not be extended to plurality of applications.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
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, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kesarwani (US Patent No. 10235372), hereinafter, Kesarwani, in view of Rajagopalan et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20180039567 A1), hereinafter, Rajagopalan.
Regarding claim 1:
Kesarwani teaches:
A method of generating log messages from [[a plurality of microservices, each of the microservices having a corresponding different log agent and deployed on a cloud infrastructure]], the method comprising (Fig. 5C):
receiving a first log event at a first log agent corresponding to a first microservice of the plurality of microservices, wherein the first microservice independently stores a plurality of template identifiers, that corresponding only to log events generated by the first microservice and are unavailable to any other of the plurality of microservices (Col. 12, lines 33-36, discloses receiving a log message as stated “Illustratively, the log message may be received from a computer program or computer system, or may be processed from a log message archive.”. Col. Lines 59-66, discloses log message corresponds event as stated “In another example, a log message output by an application 124 may be formatted as a non-delimited string. For example, the log message may comprise a statement with integrated log data values. As an illustration, the log message may comprise “Could not open file foo.txt because the data_production service timed out in 5 seconds”. The log message may be parsed into logical syntactic components to separate the log template from the log data values”. Fig. 1A shows each application is deployed as a package with log template corresponding to the application only as further explained Col. 7, lines 52-61, “ In one example, the log template data store 306 may be utilized by a logging system associated with a particular computer program. For example, archived log messages associated with a particular computer program may be processed using the log archival service 302 to extract log templates from the log messages, and a log template data store 306 may be constructed using the log templates extracted from the log messages. As a result, the log templates contained in the log template data store 306 may be specific log messages output by the computer program.”. Fig. 5A shows a process plurality of template identifiers for various events of a particular application);
at the first microservice, the first log agent retrieving a first template identifier corresponding to the first log event; at the first microservice, when the first template identifier is previously registered, the first log agent identifying a log message template corresponding to the first template identifier, the log message template comprising zero or more required parameters (Col. 12, lines 36-38, discloses identifying log template (log message template) and log data value (zero or more required parameters) as stated “Starting in block 522, the text of a log message may be parsed to identify a log template and log data values included in the log message.”. Col. 12, lines 53-57, discloses log template identifier as stated “As in block 528, the template identifier may be used to determine whether the log template associated with the template identifier exists in a lookup table containing template identifiers for log templates that are stored in a template data store.”. Also see Col. 2, lines 5-14, stating “A log statement may include a log template that includes template value placeholders for log data values. The log statement may generate a log message that includes the log data values. For example, a log template may include a statement (e.g., “Error in opening the file [filename]”) that provides context for a log data value (e.g., a file name) included with the statement. For example, the log message “Error in opening the file foo.txt” output by a logging system may contain both the log template “Error in opening the file” and the log data value “foo.txt”.”);
generating a first log message comprising the first template identifier and the zero or more parameters (Col. 12, lines 44-52, discloses generating hash value (log message) as stated “For example, the log template may be input to the hash function and the resulting hash value may be used to uniquely identify the log template. As an illustration, the example log template “Error occurred launching the % service” may be input into a hash function (e.g., a Cyclic Redundancy Code hash function) that generates the hash value “47a32736”, and the hash value may be used as a template identifier for the log template.”);
transmitting the first log message to a logging server (Fig. 1B shows log data store 128 (logging server). Fig. 7 shows implementing the computing instance 704 and logging system 714 in the cloud. Therefore, the hash value comprising log data value and template identifier is transmitted to the data store);
at the first microservice, when the first template identifier is not previously registered, the first log agent dynamically creating the first template identifier within the first microservice; maintaining, by the first log agent at the first microservice, a mapping between the first template identifier and the log message template defined in source code of the first microservice; wherein the log message template was previously defined in a code of the first microservice (see Fig. 5C, steps 528, 530, 534, showing when log template identifier is not present in the lookup table, adding the template identifier to the lookup table and mapping the template identifier to log template and storing the mapping in a data store. Figs. 1A and 1B show log template is associated with the application source code as further explained in Col. 11, line 67, and Col. 12, lines 1-7, “As in block 508, the log template and the template identifier may be packaged into an application executable for use by a logging utility, associated with the application executable, which identifies the log template in a log message output by the application and substitutes the log template with the template identifier and stores the template identifier with log data values included in the original log message);
[[wherein each of the microservices independently deployable without requiring deployment of any other microservice]].
Kesarwani does not explicitly teach a plurality of microservices, each of the microservices having a corresponding different log agent and deployed on a cloud infrastructure; wherein each of the microservices independently deployable without requiring deployment of any other microservice.
Rajagopalan teaches:
a plurality of microservices, each of the microservices having a corresponding different log agent and deployed on a cloud infrastructure (paragraph 0049 discloses plurality of microservices each with a logging agent as shown in Fig. 5);
wherein each of the microservices independently deployable without requiring deployment of any other microservice (paragraph 0027 discloses each of the microservices are deployed independently as stated “Each microservice of a microservice-based application is developed, deployed and managed independent of other constituent microservices of the microservice-based application.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kesarwani to incorporate the teaching of Rajagopalan about plurality of independently deployable microservices with respective logging agents. One would be motivated to do that to enhance agility of the system by using microservice architecture and improve the performance of the system by independently updating each of microservices without affecting other microservices as it is required in a rapidly evolving heterogenous system (see paragraph 0027 of Rajagopalan).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kesarwani in view of Rajagopalan all the limitations of claim 1.
Kesarwani further teaches the transmitted first log message consisting of the identifier and the zero or more required parameters (also see Col. 17, lines 62-67, discloses template identifier and log data value as stated “As in block 534, the log data values and the template identifier may be stored to a log data store where the template identifier may be used to identify and retrieve the log template from the template data store in the event that the log message is reconstructed using the log template and the log data values.”).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kesarwani in view of Rajagopalan teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kesarwani further teaches further comprising: in response to a request to retrieve log messages, regenerating each log message by retrieving stored log templates and fitting parameters within each retrieved log templates (Col. 12, lines 62-67, discloses reconstruing the log message bases on the log template identifier and log data value as stated “As in block 534, the log data values and the template identifier may be stored to a log data store where the template identifier may be used to identify and retrieve the log template from the template data store in the event that the log message is reconstructed using the log template and the log data values.” ).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kesarwani in view of Rajagopalan teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kesarwani further teaches wherein the first log agent is implicit within the first microservice, the mapping between the first template identifier and the log message template is maintained within the first microservice, and the log message template was previously defined in code of the first microservice (Figs. 1A and 1B shows logging utility is associated with the application as further explained in Col. 11, line 67, and Col. 12, lines 1-7, “As in block 508, the log template and the template identifier may be packaged into an application executable for use by a logging utility, associated with the application executable, which identifies the log template in a log message output by the application and substitutes the log template with the template identifier and stores the template identifier with log data values included in the original log message. Fig. 5C , step 530, shows dynamically adding new template identifier for new log message).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kesarwani in view of Rajagopalan teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kesarwani further teaches wherein the first log agent comprises a sidecar process executing with the first microservice and configured to maintain the mapping between the first template identifier and the corresponding log message template for the first microservice.is a sidecar of the first microservice. ( Fig. 1A, step (3), shows the template ID in maintained in the application).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kesarwani in view of Rajagopalan teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kesarwani further teaches wherein the log event comprises one of an audit log or a service log (Col. 4, lines 31-32, discloses log of an application as stated “The logging utility 122 may receive log output from the application 124.”).
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 is directed towards a computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to perform the method of claim 1 (Fig. 9 shows the detail of computing device 910). Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9 is directed towards a computer readable medium performing the method of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 is directed towards a computer readable medium performing the method of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 is directed towards a computer readable medium performing the method of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is directed towards a computer readable medium performing the method of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 is directed towards a computer readable medium performing the method of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed towards a cloud based logging framework comprising: one or more processors configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Fig. 9 shows the detail of computing device 910). Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is directed towards a cloud based logging framework performing the method of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 is directed towards a cloud based logging framework performing the method of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is directed towards a cloud based logging framework performing the method of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 is directed towards a cloud based logging framework performing the method of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 24, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kesarwani in view of Rajagopalan teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kesarwani further teaches wherein the first template identifier is created without updating template identifier mappings maintained by any other microservice (Fig. 5A shows creation to template identifier for a particular application with interference from other application ).
As to claim 25, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kesarwani in view of Rajagopalan teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kesarwani further teaches wherein the first log agent maintains the mapping between template identifiers and log message templates locally for the first microservice throughout execution of the first microservice (Fig. 1A, step (3), shows template ID is maintained in the application).
As to claim 26, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Kesarwani in view of Rajagopalan teach all the limitations of claim 15.
Kesarwani further teaches wherein each log agent maintains template identifier mappings independently from log agents corresponding to the remaining microservices (Fig. 1A, step (3), shows template ID is maintained in a particular application independent of other application ).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
July 29, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights