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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/7/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 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; using, by the device, a language model to determine a context for the particular parameter based on the template that would be relevant to an administrator, wherein the context indicates a semantic meaning of the particular parameter and includes a label indicative of the context for 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 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. 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: (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 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; use a language model to determine a context for the particular parameter based on the template that would be relevant to an administrator, wherein the context indicates a semantic meaning of the particular parameter and includes a label indicative of the context for 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 “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 18 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 “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 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; using, by the device, a language model to determine a context for the particular parameter based on the template that would be relevant to an administrator, wherein the context indicates a semantic meaning of the particular parameter and includes a label indicative of the context for 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 “is, other than reciting “a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium” and “a device”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. 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. 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 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 “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
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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 14-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal et al. (‘Mandal’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11243834) in view of Sadeghi et al. (‘Sadeghi’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240320598) and further in view of Gautam (Publication Number 20260003671).
As per claim 1, Mandal teaches
A method comprising: (see abstract and background)
generating, by a device, a template for a particular parameter in one or more log files; (generate template based on parameters identified in logs, column 4, lines 15-25)
using, by the device, a language model to determine a context for the particular parameter based on the template that would be relevant to an administrator,
Mandal does not explicitly indicate “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”.
However, Sadeghi discloses “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” (context parameters from log files with parameters are displayed with comparison to predicted scores/metrics, paragraphs [0062]-[0063],[0051]-[0053], where displaying with comparison to predicted scores reads on visualization of parameter based on context).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mandal and Sadeghi because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing intelligent tools for assessing performance review and efficiency based on parameters in logged data (see Sadeghi, paragraph [0002]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to have tools that allow more accurate review by managers using log data.
Neither Mandal nor Sadeghi explicitly indicates “wherein the context indicates a semantic meaning of the particular parameter and includes a label indicative of the context for the particular parameter”.
However, Gautam discloses “wherein the context indicates a semantic meaning of the particular parameter and includes a label indicative of the context for the particular parameter” (context parameters where entity tags that correspond to abstractions that semantically classify the subject entity and are representations of contextual attributes, paragraph [0033],[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mandal, Sadeghi and Gautam because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a comprehensive and adaptable system that can automate tasks based on entity attributes, ensuring optimal data security and operational efficiency by leveraging advanced inference techniques and contextual analysis (see Gautam, background). This gives the user the advantage of automating tasks related to entity characterization and sensitivity discovery as the volume and complexity of data continue to grow.
As per claim 2, Mandal teaches
the template indicates a value field for the particular parameter in the one or more log files. (values in parsed log data used in fuzzy matching of parameters, column 6, lines 45-58)
As per claim 4, Mandal teaches
the visualization comprises an alert regarding the particular parameter. (column 4, lines 25-35)
As per claim 5,
Mandal does not explicitly indicate “the context indicates additional information that should be presented in conjunction with the particular parameter”.
However, Sadeghi discloses “the context indicates additional information that should be presented in conjunction with the particular parameter” (context parameters from log files with parameters are displayed with comparison to predicted scores/metrics, paragraphs [0062]-[0063],[0051]-[0053], where predicted scores/metrics reads on additional information presented).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mandal and Sadeghi because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing intelligent tools for assessing performance review and efficiency based on parameters in logged data (see Sadeghi, paragraph [0002]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to have tools that allow more accurate review by managers using log data.
As per claim 6, Mandal teaches
Mandal does not explicitly indicate “the context further indicates whether the additional information should be presented”.
However, Sadeghi discloses “the context further indicates whether the additional information should be presented” (context parameters from log files with parameters are displayed with comparison to predicted scores/metrics, paragraphs [0062]-[0063],[0051]-[0053], where predicted scores/metrics reads on additional information presented).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mandal and Sadeghi because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing intelligent tools for assessing performance review and efficiency based on parameters in logged data (see Sadeghi, paragraph [0002]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to have tools that allow more accurate review by managers using log data.
As per claim 9,
Mandal does not explicitly indicate “the context comprises a textual summary regarding the particular parameter”
However, Sadeghi discloses “the context comprises a textual summary regarding the particular parameter” (remarks, paragraph [0053] & figure 6, #617).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mandal and Sadeghi because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing intelligent tools for assessing performance review and efficiency based on parameters in logged data (see Sadeghi, paragraph [0002]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to have tools that allow more accurate review by managers using log data.
As per claim 10, Mandal teaches
the one or more log files is generated by a router, switch, access point, or gateway of a computer network. (column 1, lines 7-17)
As per claims 11-12, 14-16 and 19
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 1-2, 4-6 and 9, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
As per claim 20
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 21, Mandal teaches
determining, by the device, processing and visualization information for the particular parameter by (i) mapping the label to a knowledge graph, or (ii) evaluating the context using the language model; (natural language processing of log data to identify anomalous events related to parameters identified in the logs, column 4, lines 5-35; identify anomalies or trends based at least in part on identified parameters that are grouped or clustered using fuzzy clustering, column 3, line 35 through column 4, line 4, where clustering of parameters in the log reads on a context for a particular parameter)
Mandal does not explicitly indicate “wherein generating the visualization of the particular parameter is further based on the processing and visualization information”.
However, Sadeghi discloses “wherein generating the visualization of the particular parameter is further based on the processing and visualization information” (context parameters from log files with parameters are displayed with comparison to predicted scores/metrics, paragraphs [0062]-[0063],[0051]-[0053], where predicted scores/metrics reads on additional information presented).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mandal and Sadeghi because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing intelligent tools for assessing performance review and efficiency based on parameters in logged data (see Sadeghi, paragraph [0002]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to have tools that allow more accurate review by managers using log data.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal et al. (‘Mandal’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11243834) in view of Sadeghi et al. (‘Sadeghi’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240320598) and further in view of Gautam (Publication Number 20260003671) and further in view of BETTHAUSER et al. (‘BETTHAUSER’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240370570).
As per claim 3,
Neither Mandal, Sadeghi nor Gautam explicitly indicate “the language model comprises a large language model (LLM)”.
However, BETTHAUSER disclose “the language model comprises a large language model (LLM)” (paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mandal, Sadeghi, Gautam and BETTHAUSER because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing for more accurate parsing or raw data in log files (see BETTHAUSER, background). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal et al. (‘Mandal’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11243834) in view of Sadeghi et al. (‘Sadeghi’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240320598) and further in view of Gautam (Publication Number 20260003671) and further in view of Fernandes et al. (‘Fernandes’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 8126970).
As per claim 7,
Neither Mandal, Sadeghi nor Gautam explicitly indicate “providing the template to the user interface for review”.
However, Fernandes discloses “providing the template to the user interface for review” (column 3, line 65 through column 4, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mandal, Sadeghi, Gautam and Fernandes because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to customize notification templates used in the change process to provide more efficient notifications for customers (see Fernandes, column 1, line 10 through column 2, line 10). This gives the user the advantage of providing better communications with customers so they are kept informed of important changes.
As per claim 17,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal et al. (‘Mandal’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11243834) in view of Sadeghi et al. (‘Sadeghi’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240320598) and further in view of Gautam (Publication Number 20260003671) and further in view of Bergstraesser et al. (‘Bergstraesser’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20030125929).
As per claim 8, Mandal teaches
the language model (natural language processing of log data, column 4, lines 5-35).
Neither Mandal, Sadeghi nor Gautam explicitly indicate “
However, Bergstraesser discloses “
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mandal, Sadeghi, Gautam and Bergstraesser because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by simplifying the processing of reports by having templates that are annotated with smart tags to show the context in which the template is being used (see Bergstraesser, background and paragraph [0052]). This gives the user the advantage of providing for more efficient reporting by a business.
As per claim 18,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments 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 “claim 1 requires using a language model to determine a context for a particular log parameter based on a template, wherein the context indicates a semantic meaning of the particular parameter and includes a label indicative of that context”, that a “language model is a computational system trained on vast corpora of data that performs sophisticated natural language inference operations across high-dimensional embedding spaces” and “[d]etermining a network-specific semantic meaning from log template structure reliably, systematically, and at scale across diverse log formats is not a process a human can practically perform mentally” so therefore claim 1 is eligible under Step 2A, Prong One (applicant arguments, page 7). However, there is nothing in claim 1 regarding a “vast corpora of data” or any “scale across diverse log formats” so this argument is not convincing.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, applicant argues that “amended Claim 1 integrates any such exception into a practical application because the claimed invention constitutes an improvement to log processing technology” by “deploying a language model to analyze the template of a log message and determine the semantic meaning of each parameter (e.g., that a parameter represents a temperature value, an IP address, a power reading, or a packet count), then using that determined context to drive a tailored visualization delivered to the administrator” (applicant arguments, page 8). Applicant further argues that the 2019 PEG "considers the claim as a whole", that "[t]he additional limitations should not be evaluated in a vacuum, completely separate from the recited judicial exception” and that “the integrated chain of limitations from template generation, LLM-based semantic context determination, to context- driven visualization is not a collection of generic steps” (applicant arguments, page 8). However, while the 2019 PEG does require consideration of the claim “as a whole”, it also requires evaluation of any additional elements beyond the judicial exception 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). So, while applicant stresses consideration of the claim “as a whole”, they make no mention of any additional elements, how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor uses any of the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant argues that neither the characterization of the "language model" limitation as "mere instructions to apply an exception" nor the visualization/UI limitations as insignificant extra-solution activity is correct under the 2019 PEG when the claim is considered “as a whole” (applicant arguments, page 8). Applicant further argues that:
The language model is used to perform a specific technical function, inferring the network- domain semantic meaning of a log parameter from template structure. The label then directly controls the generation of the visualization, which is therefore the practical, technology- improving result of the claimed process. An administrator receiving a visualization driven by machine-inferred semantic context about network log parameters is the beneficiary of a concrete technical improvement to network management tooling. The guidance further notes that "the improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements, or by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception." 2019 PEG, pg. 13. Here, the improvement is provided by the combination of the LLM's semantic determination and the visualization system that consumes it integrated whole. This is sufficient to integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and the claim is accordingly patent eligible without need to proceed to Step 2B.
(applicant arguments, pages 8-9)
However, there is no “receiving” step as argued by the applicant, but simply the “providing” the “visualization to a user interface for review by the administrator” (see claim 1). While the applicant is arguing that the characterization of this “visualization/UI” is not correct, this assertion would leave no additional elements to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as required under Step 2A, Prong Two. Further, the applicant also argues that the “improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements” while simultaneously arguing (see above) that the characterization of the “visualization/GUI” limitation is not correct, therefore leaving no additional elements. These assertions cannot be reconciled logically. In fact, as previously answered, the 2019 PEG requires evaluation of any additional elements beyond the judicial exception 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 applicant does further argue that “the improvement is provided by the combination of the LLM's semantic determination and the visualization system that consumes it integrated whole”, which seems to be the consideration required under the 2019 PEG, perhaps improvement to the functioning of a computer under MPEP 2106.05(a). However, even assuming the claim contains additional elements (which the applicant argues against) and that they somehow integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (which is not clearly established by the applicant), the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(a) requires that the specification includes a technical explanation of the asserted improvement and that the claim reflect the particular way of achieving that improvement. Since the applicant has not met these requirements, their arguments are not convincing.
Applicant’s arguments with respect the 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. It is noted that the newly added Gautam reference, in combination with previously cited references, teaches the amended claims as shown above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights