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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Rejections Under 35 USC 101, filed February 25, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1 – 11 and 21 – 23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Although the examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the claimed evaluation, comparison, and production of an action decision are not mental processes, the examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding the action decision on page 13 of the remarks. The term “impacting a count of log messages stored in the storage volume” in claim 1, when taken in view of the Specification and applicant’s arguments, links the claims to a technical improvement. The 101 rejections of claims 1 – 11 and 21 – 23 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Rejections Under 35 USC 101, filed February 25, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 12, 16 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claim 12 has been amended to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The 101 rejections of claims 12, 16 and 18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Rejections over the Prior Art, with respect to the rejection of claims 6 and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 6 and 12 have been amended such that the previous rejection is no longer applicable. The 102 rejection of claims 6 and 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments on page 28 that the Examiner’s interpretation of the threshold of Basak as a system rating is a conclusory recharacterization that does not address a structural distinction raised. Basak performs (i) evaluating a logging system (Paragraph 0063 teaches an example in which “client systems 100a determined that the system log has a small budgeted buffer size or that the system log is approaching an overflow condition”. This is an evaluation made by the client system of the system log, noting that it is missing space; Table 3 shows that the base value of thresholds θ are computed as a function of μ and/or Φ. Paragraphs 0054 and 0055 disclose that μ and/or Φ are reached by analyzing messages already in the log) and (ii) outputting a logging system rating (Paragraph 0063, the final threshold is a product of the multiplier produced after evaluating the logging system’s space with the base value computed after evaluating the messages already stored in the log). The threshold of Basak and the claimed system rating are both produced as a result of an evaluation of the logging system’s ability to take in new messages, and are both used in order to determine which messages should be removed from the logging system. A logging system rating is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, a value assigned to the logging system based on an evaluation of the logging system. When removed from their context, thresholds and ratings are values with no inherent structural properties; a structural distinction between them would arise from the context in which they are calculated and used. As the threshold of Basak is calculated and used in a way that reads on the claimed system rating, there is not a structural distinction.
Regarding the arguments on page 29 regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that Basak is silent on a number of factors listed in the claim 5, and therefore cannot anticipate claim 5. The Examiner respectfully notes that the language of claim 5 does not expressly require every element in the list to be taught for a reference to anticipate claim 5. See MPEP 803.02(III)(A), “Note that where a claim reads on multiple species, only one species needs to be taught or suggested by the prior art in order for the claim to be anticipated or rendered obvious”.
The previous rejections over the prior art are included below, with mapping and cited elements expanded for clarity to address Applicant’s concerns expressed in the Arguments.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Amendments have changed the order of the listed elements. The claims require two distinct options to be chosen from a list of two members, so the “selected from the group consisting of” phrasing is no longer necessary. Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 11 and 20 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Basak.
Regarding claim 1, Basak teaches:
A computer implemented method comprising:
generating log messages from one or more data source (Paragraph 0002, system logs contain messages emitted from modules within a computing system. Paragraphs 0024/0025, logs are generated by client systems or reporting tools);
evaluating one or more log message produced from the generating, and outputting, in dependence on the evaluating the one or more log message, a log message rating of the one or more log message (Paragraph 0027, determining a utility of messages);
evaluating a logging system (Paragraph 0063 teaches a multiplier λ that changes based on if client systems 100a determine that the system log has a small budgeted buffer size or approaches an overflow condition; Table 3 in combination with paragraphs 0054 and 0055 shows a base threshold value θ is derived from the probabilities μ and/or Φ, which are based on analysis of messages in the log system. These are evaluations of the logging system that evaluate the availability of logging space, and the importance of messages already in the system), and outputting, in dependence on the evaluating the logging system, a logging system rating of the logging system (Paragraph 0063 teaches the final threshold utility value is λ* θ, and λ and θ are derived from the state of the logging system as stated above. This threshold utility value reflects the performance of the system log, and is based on the evaluations of the logging system’s buffer size, overflow condition, and existing messages. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the threshold is a value assigned to the logging system, i.e. a rating, where a higher threshold value indicates that the system log is less prepared to accept new messages.), wherein the logging system includes a logging volume for storing log messages (Paragraph 0020, the memory buffers comprising the system log);
comparing the log message rating to the logging system rating (Paragraphs 0028 and 0066, the utility scores of messages / subsequences are compared with the utility threshold value. These are the processes shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3); and
producing an action decision (Paragraph 0022 teaches that the filter makes decisions; Fig. 2 step 203 and 204, and Fig. 3 step 307, 310 and 311 identify and delete messages of low utility value. That is, the processes produces a decision as to which messages have low utility value and should be deleted) impacting a count of log messages stored in the storage volume in dependence on the comparing of the log message rating, and the logging system rating (Paragraphs 0028 – 0030, messages with a lower utility than the threshold are considered to have low utility and are purged; Paragraphs 0065 – 0067, purging the low utility subsequences. This is based on the comparing of the log message rating and logging system rating as they are based on the comparison of each individual log message rating and the threshold. This impacts a count of log messages stored in the storage volume by deleting them).
Regarding claim 2, Basak teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes performing the evaluating the one or more log message, the evaluating the logging system, the comparing and the producing an action decision impacting the count of log messages stored in the logging volume on ingestion of the one or more log message into the logging volume (Paragraph 0028, the log filter may be operable to filter messages before they are stored in the system log, that is, on ingestion; This action decision would impact the count of messages by deciding whether to store the new message into the logging volume).
Regarding claim 3, Basak teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes iteratively performing the evaluating the one or more log message, the evaluating the logging system, the comparing and the producing an action decision impacting the count of log messages stored in the logging volume subsequent to ingestion of the one or more log message into the logging volume (Paragraph 0028, the log filter may be operable to filter messages which are already stored in the system log upon a triggering event; Paragraph 0067, the log filter will continue to store messages with high utility until the process is triggered to begin again. That is, after the process completes, another iteration of the process may occur again in the future).
Claim 4 recites the limitations of claims 2 and 3, which are taught by Basak as described above.
Regarding claim 5, Basak teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating the one or more log message produced from the generating, and outputting, in dependence on the evaluating the one or more log message, the log message rating of the one or more log message, includes evaluating multiple log message importance factors, wherein the first and second ones of the multiple log message importance factors include differentiated factors selected from the group consisting of
(a) a source factor in dependence on a data source generating the one or more log message (Paragraph 0043, the filter may base the predictability of a message based on the device identifier), (b) an age factor in dependence on an age of the one or more log message (Paragraph 0043, the log filter may base the predictability of a message based on time stamps), (c) a log level factor in dependence on the content of the one or more message (Paragraphs 0044/0045, the log filter uses the type of message to determine utility), (d) a redundancy factor in dependence on level of similarity of the one or more log message to a stored log message of the logging volume (Table 3, the prediction probability of a message is based on the probability of the message conditioned on other messages, that is, the probability that a similar message would exist; Paragraph 0066, duplicative messages are filtered out).
Regarding claim 7, Basak teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating the one or more log message produced from the generating, and outputting, in dependence on the evaluating the one or more log message, the log message rating of the one or more log message, includes evaluating multiple log message importance factors and condensing the multiple log message importance factors into the log message rating of the one or more log message (The mathematical expression for a utility value/prediction probability of a message is shown in Table 3. Paragraphs 0043 – 0058 explain the variables in the expression which represent the log message importance factors which are condensed into the final value).
Regarding claim 8, Basak teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating the logging system, and outputting, in dependence on the evaluating the logging system, the logging system rating of the logging system includes evaluating multiple logging system pressure factors and condensing the multiple logging system pressure factors into the logging system rating of the logging system (Paragraph 0063 teaches the mathematical expression of the utility threshold. Table 3, paragraphs 0043 – 0058 and 0063 teach variables in the expression which represent the log message importance factors which are condensed into the final value).
Claim 9 recites the limitations of claims 7 and 8, which are taught by Basak as described above.
Regarding claim 10, Basak teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes providing the logging system rating on a common numerical scale with the log message rating that facilitates the comparing the log message rating to the logging system rating (Table 3, the message’s utility and the threshold are both measured in terms of probability).
Claim 10 otherwise recites the limitations of claims 7, 8 and 9, which are taught by Basak as described above.
Regarding claim 11, Basak teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein evaluating the logging system and outputting, in dependence on the evaluating the logging system, the logging system rating of the logging system includes evaluating multiple logging system pressure factors, wherein first and second ones of the multiple logging system pressure factors include differentiated factors selected from the group consisting of
(a) an ingestion rate factor in dependence on a current rate at which new log messages are being ingested into the logging volume (Paragraph 0063, if the system log is approaching an overflow condition, the filter may be made more sensitive; Paragraph 0064, the sensitivity of the filter is adjusted based on the length of the context window; Paragraph 0068, the system may be reevaluated by the process of Fig. 3 upon an anticipated increase or decrease in log activity) and (c) an availability factor in dependence on current computing resource availability for a computing node defining the logging volume (Paragraph 0063, if the system log has a small budgeted buffer size, the log filter may be made more sensitive).
Claim 11 otherwise recites the limitations of claims 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, which are taught by Basak as described above.
Regarding claim 20, Basak teaches a computer program product comprising:
a computer readable storage medium readable by one or more processing circuit and storing instructions for execution by one or more processor for performing a method (Paragraphs 0018 – 0022 describe convention methods for performing a method by a processor) comprising:
generating log messages from one or more data source (Paragraph 0002, system logs contain messages emitted from modules within a computing system. Paragraphs 0024/0025, logs are generated by client systems or reporting tools);
executing programmed parsing and feature-extraction logic (Paragraph 0021, the log processing logic executed by one or more processors) for evaluating one or more log message produced from the generating, and outputting, in dependence on the evaluating the one or more log message, a log message rating of the one or more log message (Paragraph 0027, determining a utility of messages);
monitoring operating conditions of a logging system via computing resources (Paragraphs 0026/0028, the size and fullness of the log buffer may be actively measured via the client system), and evaluating a logging system (Paragraph 0063 teaches a multiplier λ that changes based on if client systems 100a determine that the system log has a small budgeted buffer size or approaches an overflow condition; Table 3 in combination with paragraphs 0054 and 0055 shows a base threshold value θ is derived from the probabilities μ and/or Φ, which are based on analysis of messages in the log system. These are evaluations of the logging system that evaluate the availability of logging space, and the importance of messages already in the system), and outputting, in dependence on the evaluating the logging system, a logging system rating of the logging system (Paragraph 0063 teaches the final threshold utility value is λ* θ, and λ and θ are derived from the state of the logging system as stated above. This threshold utility value reflects the performance of the system log, and is based on the evaluations of the logging system’s buffer size, overflow condition, and existing messages. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the threshold is a value assigned to the logging system, i.e. a rating, where a higher threshold value indicates that the system log is less prepared to accept new messages), wherein the logging system includes a logging volume for storing log messages (Paragraph 0020, the memory buffers comprising the system log);
comparing the log message rating to the logging system rating (Paragraphs 0028 and 0066, the utility scores of messages / subsequences are compared with the utility threshold value. These are the processes shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) using processor-implemented comparison logic (Paragraphs 0018 – 0021 describe convention methods for performing a method by a processor); and
automatically controlling the logging system to initiate, without human intervention, (Paragraph 0022, the log filter may be an unsupervised filter which makes runtime decisions without human confirmation) an action impacting a count of log messages stored in the logging volume (Paragraphs 0028 – 0030, messages with a lower utility than the threshold are considered to have low utility and are purged; Paragraphs 0065 – 0067, purging the low utility subsequences. This is based on the comparing of the log message rating and logging system rating as they are based on the comparison of each individual log message rating and the threshold. This impacts a count of log messages stored in the storage volume by deleting them), the action comprising at least one of retaining or deleting log messages in dependence on the comparing of the log message rating, and the logging system rating, (Paragraphs 0028 – 0030, messages with a lower utility than the threshold in the comparison are considered to have low utility and are purged; Paragraphs 0065 – 0067, purging the low utility subsequences; The messages are either retained or deleted in dependence on the comparison of the message rating and the threshold), wherein the action physically alters the data maintained in the persistent computer storage (Paragraphs 0018 – 0022, the logs may be stored in memories. Bazak recites ROM, disk memory, optical memory, and flash memory, which are persistent, nonvolatile physical memories. Upon review of the present application’s Specification, support for physical alteration of the data extends to that the storage devices include physical storage devices. Disk memory and optical memory in particular are known to be physical storage devices.).
Regarding claim 21, Basak teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating log messages from one or more data sources includes processor-executed collection operations (Paragraphs 0018 – 0025, the systems that collect and manage system logs are processor-executed) that obtain data through ordinary system interfaces (Paragraph 0018, suitable input/output circuitry) and place the log messages into a memory location accessible to the logging system (Paragraph 0020, the system logs).
Regarding claim 22, Basak teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating log messages from one or more data sources includes processor-executed collection operations (Paragraphs 0018 – 0025, the systems that collect and manage system logs are processor-executed) that obtain data through ordinary system interfaces (Paragraph 0018, suitable input/output circuitry) and place the log messages into a memory location accessible to the logging system (Paragraph 0020, the system logs), wherein comparing the log-message rating to the logging-system rating further includes the use of programmed comparison logic executed by a processor (Paragraphs 0018 – 0025, the logic is performed by a processor), the programmed logic being operable to adjust comparison sensitivity in view of current system resource conditions so that the comparison reflects ongoing operation of the logging system (Paragraphs 0063 and 0064, the sensitivity of the log filter can be adjusted based on the state of the system log).
Regarding claim 23, Basak teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating log messages from one or more data sources includes processor-executed collection operations (Paragraphs 0018 – 0025, the systems that collect and manage system logs are processor-executed) that obtain data through ordinary system interfaces (Paragraph 0018, suitable input/output circuitry) and place the log messages into a memory location accessible to the logging system (Paragraph 0020, the system logs), wherein comparing the log-message rating to the logging-system rating further includes the use of programmed comparison logic executed by a processor (Paragraphs 0018 – 0025, the logic is performed by a processor), the programmed logic being operable to adjust comparison sensitivity in view of current system resource conditions so that the comparison reflects ongoing operation of the logging system (Paragraphs 0063 and 0064, the sensitivity of the log filter can be adjusted based on the state of the system log), further comprising automatically directing the logging system to carry out one or more storage-related actions, without requiring human confirmation (Paragraph 0022, the log filter may be an unsupervised filter which makes runtime decisions without human confirmation), the actions including retaining selected log messages, or removing redundant log messages (Paragraphs 0028 – 0030, messages selected to have with a lower utility than the threshold are considered to have low utility and are purged; Paragraphs 0065 – 0067, purging the low utility subsequences; Paragraphs 0009 and 0010 show that the system of Basak is based on art that deleted redundant messages; The utility of the message is based in part on its similarity from other messages, i.e. how redundant it is), thereby modifying data that is maintained in persistent computer storage (Paragraphs 0018 – 0022, the logs may be stored in memories. Bazak recites ROM, disk memory, optical memory, and flash memory, which are persistent, nonvolatile physical memories).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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, and minor informalities addressed.
Claims 12 and 16 – 19 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The number of members in the group of claim 6 has been reduced such that the evaluated logging system pressure factors must include a contentions factor and a trend factor. The trend factor limits the rating of the logging system by requiring that the logging system keeps a history of ratings, and consider it as a factor in computing future ratings. This further limits the system rating such that the broadest reasonable interpretation presented with respect to claim 1 does not apply to claim 6. A search of the prior art did not find prior art which would, alone or in combination, overcome this distinction while also teaching a contentions factor in combination with the other limitations of claim 1. Therefore claim 6 contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 12 has been amended to recite the contentions factor, and further recites limitations on how the contentions factor is calculated. A search of the prior art did not find prior art which would, alone or in combination, teach or suggest all the limitations of the amended claim 12, including the specific method of evaluating the contentions factor.
Claims 16 – 19 are allowable for being based on an allowable claim.
Claims 17 and 19 were also previously indicated as allowable.
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 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
Prosecution Insights