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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-12, 14-17 and 19-22 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method comprising: generating, by a device, a template for a particular parameter in one or more log files, wherein the template comprises invariant text associated with a variable field corresponding to the particular parameter; using, by the device, a language model to determine a context for the particular parameter by analyzing the invariant text associated with the variable field to determine a semantic meaning of the particular parameter represented by the variable field, wherein the context would be relevant to an administrator and includes a label indicative of the semantic meaning of the particular parameter; generating, by the device, a visualization of the particular parameter based on the context; and providing, by the device, the visualization to a user interface for review by the administrator”.
The limitations of “A method comprising: generating, by Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a device” to perform the claimed steps. The “device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “using, by
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “using, by
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as in claim 1, wherein the template indicates a value field for the particular parameter in the one or more log files”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as in claim 1, wherein the language model comprises a large language model (LLM)”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as in claim 1, wherein the visualization comprises an alert regarding the particular parameter”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as in claim 1, wherein the context indicates additional information that should be presented in conjunction with the particular parameter”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as in claim 5, wherein the context further indicates whether the additional information should be presented as at least one of: a timeseries, a histogram, or an ordered list”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as in claim 1, further comprising:
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as in claim 1, wherein the language model determines the context based in part on a label for the particular parameter indicated by the template”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as in claim 1, wherein the context comprises a textual summary regarding the particular parameter”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as in claim 1, wherein the one or more log files is generated by a router, switch, access point, or gateway of a computer network”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An apparatus, comprising: one or more network interfaces; a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes; and a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor, the process when executed configured to: generate a template for a particular parameter in one or more log files, wherein the template comprises invariant text associated with a variable field corresponding to the particular parameter; use a language model to determine a context for the particular parameter by analyzing the invariant text associated with the variable field to determine a semantic meaning of the particular parameter represented by the variable field, wherein the context would be relevant to an administrator and includes a label indicative of the semantic meaning of the particular parameter; generate a visualization of the particular parameter based on the context; and provide the visualization to a user interface for review by the administrator”.
The limitations of “for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “an apparatus”, “one or more network interfaces”, “a processor” and “a memory” to perform the claimed steps. The “apparatus”, “one or more network interfaces”, “processor” and “memory” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “an apparatus”, “one or more network interfaces”, “a processor” and “a memory” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “use a language model to” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of “provide the visualization to a user interface for review by the administrator” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “an apparatus”, “one or more network interfaces”, “a processor” and “a memory” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “use a language model to” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of “provide the visualization to a user interface for review by the administrator” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The claim also recites the additional elements of “provide the template to the user interface for review” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the context comprises a textual summary regarding the particular parameter”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions that cause a device to execute a process comprising: generating, by the device, a template for a particular parameter in one or more log files, wherein the template comprises invariant text associated with a variable field corresponding to the particular parameter; using, by the device, a language model to determine a context for the particular parameter by analyzing the invariant text associated with the variable field to determine a semantic meaning of the particular parameter represented by the variable field, wherein the context would be relevant to an administrator and includes a label indicative of the semantic meaning of the particular parameter; generating, by the device, a visualization of the particular parameter based on the context; and providing, by the device, the visualization to a user interface for review by the administrator”.
The limitations of “to determine a semantic meaning of the particular parameter represented by the variable field, wherein the context would be relevant to an administrator and includes a label indicative of the semantic meaning of the particular parameter; generating, by
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium” and “a device” to perform the claimed steps. The “tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium” and “device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium” and “a device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “using, by that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of “providing, by
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium” and “a device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “using, by activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as in claim 1, further comprising: determining, by 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as in claim 1, wherein generating the visualization comprises: determining, based on the context, a visualization configuration for the particular parameter; and generating the visualization according to the visualization configuration”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, applicant argues that the claimed invention cannot practically be performed in the human mind because:
“Claim 1 recites a particular computerized log-processing operation in which a device first generates a log template having a defined structural relationship between invariant text and a variable field corresponding to a particular parameter. A language model then analyzes the invariant text associated with that particular variable field to determine the semantic meaning of the parameter represented by that field and produces a contextual label reflecting that semantic meaning. Thus, the amended claim requires the language model to operate on a particular machine-generated representation of log information (the invariant text associated with a variable field of a log template) and to use that particular portion of the template to semantically characterize the corresponding variable parameter.”
(applicant arguments, page 9)
However, the claimed “language model” is not identified an abstract idea in the rejections of record but as the additional element of mere instructions to apply an exception and that the recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The remainder of the claim relating to generating a template and analyzing invariant text associated with a field and determine the semantic meaning of the parameter are observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions that could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, this argument is not convincing.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, applicant argues that “the Specification identifies a specific problem arising in computerized processing of log messages” and further that:
“The identified problem arises from the computer-generated representation of log information. Conventional tokenization or templating identifies portions of a log message as variable, but the resulting variable fields do not necessarily include machine-usable semantic information identifying what those variables represent. Without that contextual information, automated downstream processing and visualization of the tokenized log parameters is impaired. For example, high memory usage or CPU temperature values are appropriately displayed over time, while network addresses may be more appropriately represented by a histogram and failure counts may be appropriately ordered. Thus, merely identifying a value as a variable field is insufficient for the log-processing system to determine the appropriate downstream treatment of that value.
The Specification does not address this problem merely by stating a desired result of "understanding" log information. Rather, the Specification describes a particular mechanism for extracting the missing semantic information from the structure of the log message. As described with respect to FIG. 3, the log templating module extracts parameters, values, and their associated templates. Each template may include invariant/static text and one or more variable fields representing parameter values. For example, the disclosed memory-usage template associates variable fields such as <total_memory>, <used_memory>, and <free_memory> with surrounding invariant text identifying "Memory Usage," units, and whether a particular value represents memory that is "total," "used," or "free." See Specification, para. [0044].
The disclosed context extractor then uses a language model to analyze the language in the static template text and assign contextual labels to the parameters, such as "temperature," "power," "IP," or "count." See Specification, para. [0045]. The resulting context is therefore derived from the invariant language associated with the otherwise variable field, rather than merely from the numerical or other variable value itself. The Specification further explains in paragraph [0046] that the learned context may be used to determine how the corresponding parameter should be processed and visualized.
A specific improvement to computerized log processing is therefore described. The system uses information that conventional templating already identifies as invariant text as machine- analyzable semantic evidence for determining what a corresponding variable field represents. This augments an otherwise semantically incomplete tokenized log representation with machine-determined contextual information that can be used in subsequent computerized processing and visualization.
Amended claim 1 reflects this disclosed technological improvement. As amended, claim 1 recites, in part, generating ... a template for a particular parameter in one or more log files, wherein the template comprises invariant text associated with a variable field corresponding to the particular parameter. Thus, the claim requires the machine-generated log representation that gives rise to, and is used to solve, the technical problem described in the Specification: a tokenized log template having invariant language associated with a variable field. Additionally, claim 1 recites, in part, using ... a language model to determine a context for the particular parameter by analyzing the invariant text associated with the variable field to determine a semantic meaning of the particular parameter represented by the variable field. Thus, claim 1 expressly recites the mechanism identified by the Specification for overcoming the limitation of conventional log templates. The language model analyzes a particular portion of the generated log-template structure and uses that invariant text to determine what the parameter represented by that field semantically means. The determined context includes "a label indicative of the semantic meaning of the particular parameter," thereby producing machine-usable semantic information identifying the otherwise context-deficient variable parameter. Finally, claim 1 requires generating the visualization of the particular parameter based on the context. The claimed semantic context therefore is not generated for its own sake or merely displayed as an end result. It is used by the log-processing system in generating a downstream visualization of the particular parameter.
(applicant arguments, pages 11-12)
However, Step 2A, Prong Two, requires identifying whether the claim recites any additional elements beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). The rejections of record identify some additional elements, but the applicant makes no mention of these additional elements nor how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The applicant focuses on technological improvements, which are a consideration under MPEP § 2106.05(a), but this consideration is only a portion of the requirements for integration into a practical application. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that:
“The ordered combination is precisely the type of analysis that Prong Two requires. The claim specifies what particular machine-generated information the language model analyzes, the structural relationship of that information to the parameter being characterized, and how the resulting context is used by the claimed log-processing workflow. This is materially different from simply reciting that a generic computer perform an otherwise abstract determination without specifying how. The Specification confirms that this relationship represents the disclosed technological advance. The disclosed components "augment the templating of logs" with automatically extracted contextual information, with context for variables derived from the remainder of the log message; the language model analyzes static template language to assign contextual labels; and the resulting learned context is subsequently used in processing and visualization.”
(applicant arguments, pages 12-13)
However, as previously answered, the applicant still does not show how the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as required under Step 2A, Prong Two. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that claim 22 is eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two because “presents a clear integration of any alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two” because “the determination of semantic meaning is used by the claimed system to determine a particular visualization configuration, and the system generates the visualization according to that configuration” (see applicant arguments, page 14). However, as previously answered, the applicant makes no mention of any additional elements nor how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
With respect to Step 2B, applicant argues that:
“Although Applicant respectfully submits that the eligibility inquiry properly concludes at Step 2A, Prong Two, amended claim 1 also satisfies Step 2B if further analysis is undertaken. Amended claim 1 does not merely append generic computer activity to the alleged abstract concept of determining semantic meaning. Considered as an ordered combination, claim 1 requires generating a particular log-template structure containing invariant text associated with a variable field, applying a language model specifically to that associated invariant text to determine the semantic meaning of the parameter represented by that field, generating a contextual label reflecting that semantic meaning, and using the resulting context to generate a visualization of the corresponding parameter.
The Specification identifies this very relationship as the solution to a deficiency in conventional log-templating systems. Thus, even if individual technologies such as log templates, language models, and graphical displays were independently known, that does not establish that the claimed ordered combination and particular use of those technologies was well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Even if amended claim 1 were considered "directed to" an abstract idea notwithstanding the foregoing Prong Two analysis, its additional limitations, considered in their ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception under Step 2B.”
(applicant arguments, page 13)
Step 2B requires the re-evaluation of any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, because if such reevaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than well-understood, routine conventional activity (WURC), this finding may indicate that the additional element is significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05. While the applicant does argue that the ordered combination and particular use of “individual technologies” are not WURC, there is no re-evaluation of why the additional elements would be unconventional of otherwise more than WURC. The identified additional elements in the claim are used in a conventional way and the applicant has not shown how they are otherwise used. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 14-17 and 19-22 are allowable over the prior art but have outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections that must be resolved.
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 JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Jay A Morrison/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
