DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 14 October 2025. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because it depends off of canceled claim 8; for examination purposes, it is understood as depending off of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not currently relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20170031742
Par. 34
“A time-series converter (204, FIG. 2) converts the logs to a time-series. To do so, the time-series converter uses the timestamps within the data logs to determine a time scale for each data log.”
US 20160086097
Pars. 9-10
A logs-to-time-series conversion by transforming a plurality of heterogeneous logs into a set of time series
US 20210250260
Pars. 71, 93
“converts time-series accumulated data included in the host log into data per unit time”
US 20140359771
Par. 23
Grouping log data based on time dimension
US 20200134074
Par. 109, 146
“text summarization AI system to generate a relatively concise summary of entire log”
US 20140188860
Pars. 47-56
Displaying time filtered log data
US 20160224402
Abstract
“a plurality of events which are contiguous in time series is extracted from the plurality of log groups, and the patterns are associated with frequency information”
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 1-7, 9-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al., Pub. No.: US 20140344622, hereinafter Huang, in view of Davraev et al., Pub. No.: US 20250088517 A1, hereinafter Davraev.
As per claim 1, Huang discloses A method for generating summaries, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of event logs, at least one event log of the plurality of event logs including unstructured data and a corresponding event time (pars. 3, 11, 13, 27, 42);
generating a series of generated event logs according to one or more event times of the plurality of event logs (par. 15 discloses grouping together log messages based on their occurrence close in time in a sequence; note: the published specification at par. 39 describes that the generating is merely a kind of sequential sorting, arranging, or organizing of the received logs);
receiving a time window of interest corresponding to one or more generated event logs in the series of generated event logs (par. 24, 57, 64 wherein per hour and given time period are two distinct time windows of interest provided as part of user-configurable threshold-based search criteria/queries);
extracting the one or more generated event logs from the series of the generated event logs using the time window of interest (see rejection of above limitations including at least pars. 15, 19, 57 wherein grouping, sketching, filtering, search results, aggregating, etc. all correspond to types of extracting as claimed);
generating a text summary for the time window of interest […] by at least: generating a time series of structured data based on the plurality of event logs (see Huang’s discussion of at least clustering, content similarity, sketching, and grouping that begins in pars. 15, 21-23, each of which separately incorporates sequential nature / time elements of unstructured log data and are used to create sequential/time series structured data); extracting unstructured data corresponding to the one or more generated event logs in the time window of interest (see above-cited pars. including at least pars. 57, 59); and
Huang does not explicitly disclose, however Davraev, in the related field of endeavor of log analytics discloses summarizing by using a language model and generating the text summary by using the language model on the time series of structured data and the unstructured data corresponding to the one or more generated event logs (Davraev fig. 6, par. 83-89 disclose an LLM based report (i.e. summary) includes narratives (i.e. unstructured data) as well as data from grouped/correlated alerts/logs (i.e. structured data) all of which correspond to events that occur over an observed time period/timeline, the alerts being logged with respect to timestamps).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Davraev would have allowed Huang to provide LLM generated textual summaries of log content; “… the context-based insight system provides understandable text narratives that provide clear and accurate insights into … incidents including remediation actions to address the … incidents as a whole rather than just reporting individual … alerts…” (Davraev, par. 12).
transmitting the text summary to a computing device, wherein the method is performed using one or more processors (see above-cited pars. of Huang including at least pars. 57, 59 and see Davraev as cited above).
As per claim 20, Huang discloses A method for generating summaries, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of event logs, at least one event log of the plurality of event logs including unstructured data and a corresponding event time (pars. 3, 11, 13, 27, 42);
generating a generated series of event logs according to one or more event times of the plurality of event logs (par. 15 discloses grouping together log messages based on their occurrence close in time in a sequence; note: the published specification at par. 39 describes that the generating is merely a kind of sequential sorting, arranging, or organizing of the received logs);
receiving a time window of interest relating to the plurality of event logs (pars. 24, 57, 64 wherein per hour and given time period are two distinct time windows of interest provided as part of user-configurable threshold-based search criteria/queries);
receiving an entity of interest relating to the plurality of event logs (pars. 3, 11, 13, 24, 57, 64 wherein multiple “entities of interest” are received with at least the logs, and/or as part of user-configurable threshold-based search criteria/queries); and
selecting one or more generated event logs from the series of generated event logs based at least in part on the time window of interest and the entity of interest (see above mapping as well as pars. 24, 57, 64);
extracting the one or more generated event logs from the series of the generated event logs using the time window of interest (see rejection of above limitations including at least pars. 15, 19, 57 wherein grouping, sketching, filtering, search results, aggregating, etc. all correspond to types of extracting as claimed);
generating a text summary for the time window of interest […] by at least: generating a time series of structured data based on the plurality of event logs (see Huang’s discussion of at least clustering, content similarity, sketching, and grouping that begins in pars. 15, 21-23, each of which separately incorporates sequential nature / time elements of unstructured log data and are used to create sequential/time series structured data); extracting unstructured data corresponding to the one or more generated event logs in the time window of interest (see above-cited pars. including at least pars. 57, 59); and
Huang does not explicitly disclose, however Davraev, in the related field of endeavor of log analytics discloses summarizing by using a language model and generating the text summary by using the language model on the time series of structured data and the unstructured data corresponding to the one or more generated event logs (Davraev fig. 6, par. 83-89 disclose an LLM based report (i.e. summary) includes narratives (i.e. unstructured data) as well as data from grouped/correlated alerts/logs (i.e. structured data) all of which correspond to events that occur over an observed time period/timeline, the alerts being logged with respect to timestamps).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Davraev would have allowed Huang to provide LLM generated textual summaries of log content; “… the context-based insight system provides understandable text narratives that provide clear and accurate insights into … incidents including remediation actions to address the … incidents as a whole rather than just reporting individual … alerts…” (Davraev, par. 12).
transmitting the text summary to a computing device (see above-cited pars. of Huang including at least pars. 57, 59 and see Davraev as cited above); wherein the entity of interest is at least one selected from a group consisting of a person, a team, a task, a project, an event, a situation, and an initiative (see rejection of claim including at least Huang par. 64); wherein the method is performed using one or more processors (see Huang as cited above).
As per claim 2, Huang in view of Davraev discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an entity of interest relating to the plurality of event logs (Huang pars. 3, 11, 13, 24, 57, 64 wherein multiple “entities of interest” are received with at least the logs, and/or as part of user-configurable threshold-based search criteria/queries).
As per claim 3, Huang in view of Davraev discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising: selecting the one or more generated event logs from the plurality of event logs based at least in part on the entity of interest (see rejection of claim 2 including at least Huang par. 64).
As per claim 4, Huang in view of Davraev discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the entity of interest is at least one selected from a group consisting of a person, a team, a task, a project, an event, a situation, and an initiative (see rejection of claim including at least Huang par. 64).
As per claim 5, Huang in view of Davraev discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the time window of interest is a first time window of interest, the one or more generated event logs are one or more first event logs, and the text summary is a first text summary, wherein the method further comprises: receiving a second time window of interest different from the first time window of interest (see rejection of claim 1 including Huang, at least par. 24, 57, 64, fig.’s 3A-3B); selecting one or more second event logs from the series of generated event logs based on the second time window of interest (see rejection of claim 1 including Huang, at least par. 24, 57, 64, fig.’s 3A-3B); generating a second text summary by applying the language model to unstructured data corresponding to the one or more second event logs (see Davraev as cited in the rejection of claim 1); and transmitting the second text summary to the computing device (see above-cited pars. of Huang including at least pars. 57, 59 and see Davraev as cited above).
As per claim 6, Huang in view of Davraev discloses The method of claim 5, further comprising: generating a third text summary by applying the language model to the first text summary and the second text summary, wherein the third text summary is shorter than a combination of the first text summary and the second text summary (see Davraev as cited above including at least par. 88); and transmitting the third text summary to the computing device (see above-cited pars. of Huang including at least pars. 57, 59 and Davraev as cited above).
As per claim 7, Huang in view of Davraev discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the generating the series of generated event logs comprises: and generating the series of generated event logs based on the time series of structured data and the plurality of event logs (see Huang’s discussion of at least clustering, content similarity, sketching, and grouping that begins in pars. 15, 21-23, each of which separately incorporates sequential nature / time elements of unstructured log data and are used to create sequential/time series structured data).
As per claim 9, Huang in view of Davraev discloses The method of claim 8, wherein the generating the text summary further comprises: applying a numerical operation to the time series of structured data to generate a numerical result (Davraev, pars. 66, 72, 73, 92, 105).
As per claim 10, Huang in view of Davraev discloses The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more event times indicates a single date and time or a date and time range (see Huang as cited in the rejection of claim 1).
As per claims 12-18, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Davraev as applied above and further in view of Allspaw et al., Pub. No.: US 20220221963, hereinafter Allspaw.
As per claim 11, Huang in view of Davraev discloses The method of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose, however Allspaw in the related field of endeavor of analysis and summarization of logged incident data discloses, wherein the unstructured data includes at least one of audio data or video data (Allspaw, par. 52). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Allspaw would have allowed the combined teaching to “include any set, collection, or aggregation of incident data, in any form, that has been collected, created or provided in relation to an analyzable incident, including … audio or video recordings …” (Allspaw, par. 52).
As per claim 19, Huang in view of Davraev discloses the system of claim 12, wherein at least one of the one or more event times indicates a single date and time or a date and time range (see Huang as cited in the rejection of claim 1). The combination does not explicitly disclose, however Allspaw in the related field of endeavor of analysis and summarization of logged incident data discloses and the unstructured data includes at least one of audio data or video data (Allspaw, par. 52). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Allspaw would have allowed the combined teaching to “include any set, collection, or aggregation of incident data, in any form, that has been collected, created or provided in relation to an analyzable incident, including … audio or video recordings …” (Allspaw, par. 52).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 October 2025 have been considered.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is withdrawn in view of the argument that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a practical application that provides an improvement to a technical field. It is noted that the claims themselves reflect the disclosed improvement. That is, the claims include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
With respect to the prior art rejection, Davraev et al., Pub. No.: US 20250088517 A1, has been applied in response to claim amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (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 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.
/SYED H HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154