Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment, filed on 1/27/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 12-20 and 23-27 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Issue: The applicant argues that The combination of Marjai and Kouznetsov does not render independent claim 12 obvious because the combination does not disclose or suggest "the coding module assigns a version identifier of the coding instructions to a header of the encoded log file". Marjai discloses using a dictionary to compress log files. Specifically, as detailed in the flowchart of Fig. 6, templates are created using a template dictionary, parameter dictionary, and a dictionary with all possible parameters for each template based on user-provided data. Marjai does not disclose or suggest that this method assigns a version identifier of the coding instructions. The "dat/engine/ application versions" disclosed by Kouznetsov is not "a version identifier of the coding instructions". Instead, as discussed in paragraph 0217 and illustrated in Table 28 of Kouznetsov the reference to versions is the selection of components for the installation package. This does not relate to coding instructions version identifiers. Because Marjai and Kouznetsov each do not disclose or suggest "the coding module assigns a version identifier of the coding instructions to a header of the encoded log file", the combination does not render independent claim 12 obvious.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Marjai discloses assigning software identifier, including version, that indicates on each line of a log file, log line, and or snippet of log file/entry/working data (p. 4: the example shown in Figure 1 “NPU” and “Software” are constants, while “CXP9029630_4” and “R9D3925” are parameters. With log parsing, we allocate each log entry, e, to its corresponding event type. Formally, a structured log parser assigns each entry in the list, e1,e2,...,eN, of log lines representing the log to a single event type M, where M are unique message types that were created by P distinct processes [8]. While log parsers are powerful instruments in log processing, they cannot be used in all cases; p. 9: For example, if we want to list all the software updates, we only have to look up the ID of the message type “NPU Software ” and decode the parameters that follow the ID. Based on this, it could be said that our algorithm is suited for statistical and analytical use. We created a script that creates log files with the desired distribution of the message templates). Such disclosures of Marjai read on the claim languages of version identifier of the coding instruction to a header of the encoded log file since the claim languages do not specify how it is being instructed, by whom and how, based on what could trigger such assignment. Further, generating an encoded log file or raw log file with a version ID attached to the log file itself does not guarantee or affect any changes to the log file and its version ID until a positive recitation what being done rather than a log file/message/header contains a software version. As such, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “diagnostic datal” on line 8 should be written as “diagnostic data;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a mean or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term (module and unit) used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
- “coding module,” “diagnostic module,” “decoding module,” and “vehicle control unit” are not an algorithm nor a structure, it’s simply a connective state. Therefore, regarding claims 23-27 are subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the limitation “module…” (placeholder) recites nothing more than a software component performing a list of purely functioning operations without recitation of any corresponding structure in the claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims’ limitations “coding module,” “diagnostic module,” “decoding module,” and “vehicle control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marjai (A Novel Dictionary-Based Method to Compress Log Files with Different Message Frequency Distributions. Feb. 2022) in view of Kouznetsov (US Pub. 2003/0233574).
Regarding claim 12, Marjai discloses a method for processing log files with computer-aided data processing systems, the method comprising:
reading coding instructions into a coding module (p. 3, last ¶, loading encoding onto log entry);
performing system monitoring and generating a stream of diagnostic data using a diagnostic module during the system monitoring (p. 1, last ¶, can be used for various purposes, such as anomaly detection, business model mining, or performance monitoring);
reading the stream of diagnostic data into a coding module (p. 3, last ¶, loading encoding onto log entry or anomaly detection);
generating an encoded log file by applying the coding instructions to the stream of diagnostic data through the coding module, wherein the coding module assigns a version identifier of the coding instructions to a header of the encoded log file, [wherein the coding module appends a log entry as a payload to] the encoded log file responsive to the coding module recognizing, in the diagnostic data, a log event affecting a particular log parameter for a first time or that describing a change in the particular log parameter (p. 2, Log entries correspond to various event types, such as different errors, restarts, etc. Template miners are used to retrieve these message types. The templates consist of constant parameters that are the same in each occurrence);
reading the encoded log file into a decoding module (top of p. 9, decoding the parameters);
reading the coding instructions into the decoding module (p. 25, The compressed file is first decompressed with PPMd, then the compressed file is decoded using the Huffman algorithm); and
generating a decoded log file accounting for the coding instructions from the encoded log file through the decoding module, wherein the coding module causes the encoded log file to be saved in a current state during the system monitoring responsive to the coding module having appended a log entry to the encoded log file or responsive to a predefined period of time elapsing without appending a further log entry, and wherein the encoded log file is generated, processed, or at least temporarily stored by the computer-aided data processing system in an encoded format (p. 25, decoding using the Huffman algorithm).
Marjai does not explicitly discloses appending a log entry, but Kouznetsov discloses appending a log entry into a file (¶ 0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kouznetsov into Marjai to match up and combine with the corresponding similar events.
Regarding claim 13, Marjai in view of Kouznetsov discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising: at least temporarily storing a first encoded log file in the computer-aided data processing system after the first encoded log file is generated during a first system monitoring (¶ [0281], extract components to a temporary storage); and
concatenating, by the coding module, the first encoded log file with a second encoded log file when generating the second encoded log file during a second system monitoring (¶ [0087]).
Regarding claim 14, Marjai in view of Kouznetsov discloses the method of claim 12, wherein a plurality of differently versioned coding instructions are stored in a first database (Kouznetsov, ¶ [0250], information like dat/engine/applications versions and log entries and eventually quarantine files).
Regarding claim 15, Marjai in view of Kouznetsov discloses the method of claim 14, wherein a plurality of coding instruction modules are stored in a second database, wherein the computer-aided data processing system reads at least two coding instruction modules from the second database and combines the at least two coding instruction modules to generate a coding instruction.
Regarding claim 16, Marjai in view of Kouznetsov discloses the method of claim 12, wherein when a specific log parameter is mentioned for a first time by a log event, the coding module appends a value of the specific log parameter described by the diagnostic data to the encoded log file as a log entry, before each further appending of a log entry concerning the specific log parameter, the coding module checks whether an actual value of the specific log parameter or a difference of a current value to a previous value results in a smaller file size of the encoded log file, and the coding module appends an entry leading to the smaller file size to the encoded log file as a further log entry (Marjai: encoded log file included specific log parameter; Kouznetsov, ¶ [0087], combined log entries into file).
Regarding claim 17, Marjai in view of Kouznetsov discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the coding module applies a calculation rule to a log entry to be appended to the encoded log file and appends the calculated log entry to the encoded log file (Marjai: encoded log file; Kouznetsov, ¶ [0087], combined log entries into file).
Regarding claim 18, Marjai in view of Kouznetsov discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the coding module checks the log events for existence of a deletion event and, if the deletion event is recognized for log parameters mentioned in the deletion event, the coding module removes all the log entries relating to the respective log parameters from the encoded log file.
Regarding claim 19, Marjai in view of Kouznetsov discloses the method of claim 12, wherein a maximum size is predetermined for the encoded log file and, when the maximum size of the encoded log file is reached, the coding module starts to generate a second encoded log file after a last encoded log file has been saved or does not generate a further log file, at least for this system monitoring (p. 5, first 6 lines; ¶ [0165]).
Regarding claim 20, Marjai in view of Kouznetsov discloses the method of claim 12, wherein a maximum number of log entries for a specific log parameter is predetermined for an encoded log file, wherein when the maximum number for this log parameter is reached, a respective oldest log entry is overwritten by the respective most recent log entry of the log parameter when a respective log entry is re-appended to the encoded log file (¶ [0179], , it may be overwritten with the next entry or de-allocated).
Regarding claim 23, see discussion of claim 12 above for the same reason of rejection.
Regarding claim 24, Marjai in view of Kouznetsov discloses the system of claim 23, wherein the diagnostic module, the coding module, and the decoding modules each components of embedded systems (p. 2, encoded blocks of data).
Regarding claim 25, Marjai in view of Kouznetsov discloses the system of claim 23, wherein the embedded system of the diagnostic module is a vehicle control unit (It’s old and well known to monitor data of a car or a device. E.g. see Pelton ).
Regarding claim 26, Marjai in view of Kouznetsov discloses the system of claim 25, wherein the vehicle control unit is a head unit of the vehicle (it’s old and well known).
Regarding claim 27, Marjai in view of Kouznetsov discloses the system of claim 23, further comprising: a database storing a plurality of differently versioned coding instructions, wherein the coding module is further configured to access the database to obtain coding instructions for a particular one of the differently versioned coding instructions (p. 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pelton discloses a logos communication platform - (US Pub. 2023/0004720).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection (e.g. 35 USC 112) presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TUANKHANH D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3047. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 10:00am-18:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached on 571-270-5626. 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 either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
/TUANKHANH D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2154