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 .
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 01/02/2025.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 - 21 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 7, 9 - 21 are directed to a "device, method, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium", and therefore, directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The independent claims 1, 7, 14, include the following limitations that directed to an abstract idea:
“an acquisition circuitry that acquires log data, the log data describing a user action and one or more attributes associated with the action;” as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. The Act of “acquires log data” is merely a data gathering/collection process, which is categorized as “mental process”. See case FairWarning IP v. Iatric Systems, the court explicitly ruled that collecting and analyzing computer audit logs to detect misuse is an unpatentable abstract idea because it simply automates human data-gathering and tracking concepts.
“a selection circuitry that selects a combination of the attributes of the log data acquired by the acquisition circuitry on a basis of the action of the log data and a number of pieces of unique data in the combination of the attributes associated with the action”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. The core operation involves choosing a combination of attributes based on a mathematical logic count (number of unique pieces of data) is considered as data manipulation. This can be performed entirely by the human mind or with pen and paper. Relying on general functional components like a " selection circuitry" to perform the comparison does not confer patent eligibility. See court case FairWarning IP v. Iatric Systems, and also in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, the court held that gathering, analyzing, and displaying information is inherently abstract.
“an analysis circuitry that analyzes the log data by a predetermined language model using the combination of the attributes of the log data selected by the selection circuitry” as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. The core operation involves selecting specific log attributes is considered routine data gathering/filtering. This can be performed entirely by the human mind or with pen and paper. Relying on general functional components like a "predetermined language model " to perform the analyzing does not confer patent eligibility since it just applies the abstract idea on a generic machine learning models. Relying on general functional components like a " predetermined language model " to perform the analyzes the log data does not confer patent eligibility. See court case FairWarning IP v. Iatric Systems, and also in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, the court held that gathering, analyzing, and displaying information is inherently abstract.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites additional elements such as:
The claim recites the term "acquisition circuitry", “selection circuitry”, “predetermined language model”, are considered as general hardware. Using physical hardware terminology does not automatically save a claim. The "circuitry" is just generic, off-the-shelf computer hardware acting as a tool to execute the abstract concept.
“a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing instructions… executed by a processor”, which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In this case, using a "acquisition circuitry", “selection circuitry”, “predetermined language model”, “a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing instructions executed by processor " are considered conventional or routine computer functions. Because the additional elements amount to nothing more than routine data-gathering and standard computer implementation, they fail to provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not providing significantly more than the
judicial exception. Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and
therefore, the claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims 2, 9, 15 includes “wherein the selection unit estimates the number of pieces of unique data using appeared action contents for each combination of the attributes, and selects the combination of the attributes on a basis of a result of the estimation”, is description of a generic statistical or mathematical algorithm. An estimation followed by a selection is a basic logical decision-making loop. Because it is phrased at a very "high level of generality" (without explaining how it physically or logically improves a computer's operation), it reads like a mental process that a human could theoretically perform with a pen and paper.
The dependent claim 3 – 5, 10 – 12, 16 – 18, includes “wherein the selection circuitry allocates a target number of records in the analysis by the analysis circuitry to each of the actions on a basis of a predetermined rule”, “wherein the selection unit equally divides the target number of records in the analysis by the analysis unit circuitry to each of the actions”, are insignificant extra-solution activity as “mental process” as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. A human could theoretically do this allocation/divides with a pen, paper, and a rulebook.
The dependent claim 6, 13, 19, includes “wherein the selection unit circuitry estimates the number of pieces of unique data in a state where an attribute value of the log data is hashed” is insignificant extra-solution activity as calculating/manipulating of data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Merely using a mathematical function (hashing) to output a statistical estimation is viewed as a mathematical abstraction or a task that can conceptually be performed as a mental process.
The dependent claim 20 - 21 includes “wherein the section circuitry updates a cardinality estimation object with a behavior content for each combination of the attributes” is insignificant extra-solution activity as calculating/manipulating of data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. "Cardinality estimation" is inherently a statistical and mathematical calculation. Simply grouping "attributes" and calculating is a foundational mathematical principle.
Claims 1 – 6, 14 - 19, Applicant claims the abstract idea on a device with general circuitry and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium with instruction to carry-out the method as in claim 7, without adding further limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment (See Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp. (2025)). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to "extracting … identifying…" do not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 9 - 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rezaeian et al (U.S. 2020/0125586 A1).
♦As per claims 1, 7, 14,
Rezaeian discloses a log data analysis device, method, medium storing instruction executed by a processor (Fig. 11) comprising:
“an acquisition circuitry that acquires log data, the log data describing a user action and one or more attributes associated with the action” See Fig. 8, step 810, Para. 0098 of Rezaeian, collecting log records. The system inputs data regarding a user's previous interactions with applications, tracking explicit user actions along with a user profile (“a plurality of log records is stored at one or more servers across a network. The log records may capture user interactions with one or more applications”).
“a selection circuitry that selects a combination of the attributes of the log data acquired by the acquisition circuitry on a basis of the action of the log data and a number of pieces of unique data in the combination of the attributes associated with the action” See Fig. 8, step 830, Para. 0100 of Rezaeian, wherein the system selects and compiles specific features (available tasks, historical success rates, and user configuration elements) to feed into a machine-learning model, (“Each cluster of the one or more clusters may represent one or more users that share a common attribute”).
“an analysis circuitry that analyzes the log data by a predetermined language model using the combination of the attributes of the log data selected by the selection circuitry” See Fig. 8, step 850, Para. 0102 of Rezaeian wherein the system inputs the contextual profile into a trained machine-learning model to output predictions of actionable tasks, (“the learner system may identify a plurality of selection models. Each selection model of the plurality of selection models may be associated with a protocol for selecting one or more tasks from the set of tasks”).
♦As per claims 2, 9, 15,
“wherein the selection unit estimates the number of pieces of unique data using appeared action contents for each combination of the attributes, and selects the combination of the attributes on a basis of a result of the estimation” See Para. 0091 of Rezaeian wherein “Each cluster of users may represent one or more users of the plurality of users, and each of the one or more users may share a common or related attribute from the log records (e.g., all users included in the cluster share a common value of a data field included in the log records)”.
♦As per claims 3 - 5, 10 – 12, 16 – 18,
“wherein the selection circuitry allocates a target number of records in the analysis by the analysis circuitry to each of the actions on a basis of a predetermined rule”, “dividing..”, “allocating…”: See Para. 0037, 0040, 0046, 0131, 0140 of Rezaeian (log rules, allocated, re-allocated of resources).
♦As per claims 6, 13, 19,
“wherein the selection circuitry estimates the number of pieces of unique data in a state where an attribute value of the log data is hashed” See Para. 0042, 0054 of Rezaeian wherein “a hashing technique may be applied to a value of each non-variable component to generate an identifier of the initial cluster”.
♦As per claims 20 – 21,
“wherein the section circuitry updates a cardinality estimation object with a behavior content for each combination of the attributes” See Para. 0071 of Rezaeian wherein “Upon receiving the feedback signal indicating that a particular task was selected, the contextual model is updated for that particular user to indicate a bias towards selection of that particular task”.
The Following is a other related art:
Mersmid (U.S. 2023/0289466 A1) discloses “the server initiates a survey and/or automated data collection of one or more user devices 124 by associating each of one or more survey questions and/or automated data collection definitions 116 with a cardinality estimator data structure such as a HyperLogLog data structure, constructed by probabilistic data structure module 118… the probabilistic cardinality estimator 120 estimates the cardinality or number of elements in the data structure…” (Para. 0023, 0030).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM LINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAM LINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights