Ex Parte UMANESAN

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 11, 2019

13890030 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/890,030
98068 7590
Hollingsworth Davis
8000 West 78th Street
Suite 450
05/08/2013
06/13/2019
Minneapolis, MN 55439
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ganesan UMANESAN
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
STX.146.Al 1455
EXAMINER
CHANNA V AJJALA, SRIRAMA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
tdotter@hdpatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GANESAN UMANESAN
Appeal2018-000744
Application 13/890,0301
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, THU A. DANG, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 65-90, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Seagate Technology LLC as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000744
Application 13/890,030
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is directed generally to
"computer program event analysis, more specifically in the field of
clustering computational error logs." Spec. 1: 1-2. 2
Claims 65, 75, and 86 are independent claims. Claim 65 is illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows (with format changes
and paragraph lettering added):
65. A method, comprising:
(a) selecting, via a processor, a plurality of event
messages generated by a computing cluster, the event messages
comprising unstructured logs of the computer cluster;
(b) determining, via the processor, message metric distances
between the event messages based on combining word metric
distances between aligned words of the event messages, determining
the word metric distances involving treating aligned numeric
characters between the aligned words as matching characters
regardless of differences between the aligned numeric characters;
( c) clustering the event messages into event types based on
the message metric distances; and
( d) storing a record of the event types associated with the
event messages, the record used for system diagnostics of the
computer cluster.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App.).
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Jan. 11, 2017
("Final Act."), Appellant's Appeal Brief filed June 29, 2017 ("App. Br.")
and Reply Brief filed Oct. 30, 2017 ("Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer
mailed Aug. 28, 2017 ("Ans."), and the original Specification filed May 8,
2013 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2018-000744
Application 13/890,030
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 65-90 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 8-10.
Claims 65, 69-75, 79-86, and 88-90 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Cohen et al. (US 2011/0185234 Al;
published July 28, 2011) ("Cohen"). Final Act. 11-15.
Claims 66-68, 76-78, and 87 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cohen and Brady, Jr. et al. (US 2005/0125807 Al;
published June 9, 2005) ("Brady"). Final Act. 16-17.
ANALYSIS
I. Section 101 Rejection
A. Applicable Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that "any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof' is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section:
"Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable."
Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories,
the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first
to consider whether the claim is "directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine "the elements of
[the] claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine
whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a
3
Appeal2018-000744
Application 13/890,030
patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)).
That is, we examine the claim for an "inventive concept," "an element or
combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself."' Alice, 573 U.S. at217-18 (alteration in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
The Patent Office recently issued guidance about this framework. See
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) ("Revised Guidance"). Under the Revised Guidance, to
decide whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, we evaluate whether
the claim ( 1) recites one of the abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
("Prong One") and (2) fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a
practical application ("Prong Two"). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
51, 54. If the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as noted above, we then
determine whether the claim has an inventive concept. The Revised
Guidance explains that when making this determination, we should consider
whether the additional claim elements add "a specific limitation or
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field" or "simply append[] well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified
at a high level of generality." Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
With these principles in mind, we first analyze whether claim 65 is
directed to an abstract idea. 3
3 Appellant argues claims 65, 75, and 86 together. See App. Br. 6-10.
4
Appeal2018-000744
Application 13/890,030
B. Abstract Idea
The Examiner finds that "the description in claim[s] 65, 75, and 86 of
processing event message[] logs is an abstract idea." See Final Act. 9. In
particular, the Examiner finds "determining the word metric distances ... is
mere data gathering, manipulation ... " and "organizing information through
mathematical correlations," all of which falls into one of the abstract ideas.
Id.; see also Ans. 6-7 (finding that the claims boil down to "mere
manipulation of event messages of the event logs"). The Examiner also
finds that "[t]here is no indication that the combination of elements improves
the computing functioning of a process or improves any other clustering
event log system technology." Final Act 9-10; see also Ans. 8.
Appellant contends that the claims as a whole are not directed to an
abstract idea, but are instead "directed to a technological improvement in the
processing of records used for system diagnostics, analogous to the self-
referential table model found patent-eligible in Enfish. 4" Reply Br. 6.
Appellant also argues that "the claimed features related to treatment of
aligned numeric characters as matching have a direct improvement in
computing performance when producing the records used for system
diagnostics." App. Br. 8.
1. USPTO Step 2A, Prong One
Beginning with prong one of the first step of Alice, we must determine
"whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts," including the abstract ideas enumerated in the Revised Guidance.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. One of the subject matter groupings identified as an
abstract idea in the Revised Guidance is "mental processes-concepts
4 Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
5
Appeal2018-000744
Application 13/890,030
performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion)." See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53. The
Revised Guidance explains that "mental processes" include acts that people
can perform in their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites
that a generic computer component performs the acts. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14 ("If a claim, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of
generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes
category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind.")
Claim 65 recites limitations (a)-(d), which are reproduced in full
above. The Examiner finds that "determining the word metric distances ...
is mere data gathering, manipulation ... " and "organizing information
through mathematical correlations," all of which falls into one of the abstract
ideas. Final Act. 9. Because people can perform the functions recited in
limitations (a)-(d) using their minds or pen and paper, they are directed to
the abstract idea of "mental processes." For example, limitation (a) recites
the step of "selecting ... a plurality of event messages generated by a
computing cluster, the event messages comprising unstructured logs of the
computing cluster." A person can perform this function by using his or her
judgment to identify, and record using pen and paper, two or more event
messages generated by a computing cluster. Limitation (b) recites
"determining ... message metric distances between the event messages
based on combining word metric distances between aligned words of the
event messages, determining the word metric distances involving treating
aligned numeric characters between the aligned words as matching
characters regardless of differences between the aligned numeric
6
Appeal2018-000744
Application 13/890,030
characters." A person can perform this function by comparing in his or her
mind the aligned numeric characters and assigning a metric distance based
on the comparison while treating aligned numeric characters as matching
even though there are differences between them.
Limitation ( c) recites "clustering the event messages into event types
based on the message metric distances." This clustering function can be
performed in the human mind or with pen and paper by using the determined
metric distances to assign the event messages into event types. Finally,
limitation ( d) recites "storing a record of the event types associated with the
event messages, the record used for system diagnostics of the computing
cluster." This function can be performed by a person using pen and paper to
prepare a list or record of the event types associated with the event messages
and retaining a copy of the list to use for system diagnostics.
Accordingly, we conclude that claim 65 recites "mental processes"-
one of the abstract idea groupings in the Revised Guidance. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, we also conclude that claim 65 recites
an abstract idea.
2. USPTO Step 2A, Prong Two
Because we determine that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we tum to
prong two of the first step of the Alice analysis and consider whether
claim 65 integrates this abstract idea into a practical application. See
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. In doing so, we consider whether
there are any additional elements beyond the abstract idea that, individually
or in combination, "integrate the [ abstract idea] into a practical application,
7
Appeal2018-000744
Application 13/890,030
using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and
the Federal Circuit."5 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
As discussed supra, the Examiner finds that "[t]here is no indication
that the combination of elements improves the computing functioning of a
process or improves any other clustering event log system technology."
Final Act. 9-10; see also Ans. 8. The Examiner also finds that the
"determining" step is merely a routine step of "computing word metric
distances between words and/or numeric characters"). Ans. 8.
We do not agree. Instead, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments
that the recited "determining" step of claim 65-"determining the word
metric distances involving treating aligned numeric characters between the
aligned words as matching characters regardless of differences between the
aligned numeric characters"- integrates the abstract idea into a practical
application, thus improving the underlying technology of error analysis of
computing cluster messages. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 6-7. In regard to
claim 65, as well as claims 75 and 86, Appellant argues, and we agree, as
follows:
Independent claim 65 recites that determining word
metric distances between event messages involves treating
aligned numeric characters between the aligned words as
matching characters regardless of differences between the
aligned numeric characters. Independent claim 75 recites word
metric distances that treat aligned numeric characters
between the aligned words as matching characters. Independent
claim 86 recites word metric distances that treat aligned numeric
5 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under step 2 of Alice ( step 2B of the Revised Guidance). Solely
for purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we
evaluate it under step 1 of Alice (step 2A, prong two, of the Revised
Guidance). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
8
Appeal2018-000744
Application 13/890,030
characters between the aligned words as matching characters
such that at least one of an address and a process identifier
identified by the aligned numeric characters are made irrelevant
to clustering the event messages. In all of these claims, the
metric distances are used to cluster the event messages to create
system diagnostic records.
Note that in all of claims 65, 75, and 86, the event
messages are generated by a computing cluster, which "generate
massive amounts of complex, cryptic, and unstructured content."
(Specification at page 2, lines 1-2). The use of an efficient
metric distance function enables efficient clustering and analysis
of this content, as clustering can otherwise incur a large memory
footprint, leading to slow analysis. (Specification at page 3, lines
16-20; page 13, lines 20-26; and page 14, lines 4-6). In
particular, the inventors realized that numeric and alphanumeric
data do not need to be analyzed to determine similarity for error
analysis (Specification at page 13, line 27 to page 14, line 4).
Therefore, the claimed features related to treatment of aligned
numeric characters as matching have a direct improvement in
computing performance when producing the records used for
system diagnostics.
App. Br. 7-8.
Accordingly, we determine the recited judicial exception is integrated
into a practical application such that the claim, as a whole, is not directed to
the judicial exception. Because we conclude claim 65 is not directed to a
judicial exception, and thus is patent-eligible, this ends the patent-eligibility
inquiry under the Revised Guidance, and we need not proceed to the Step 2B
analysis.
3. Conclusion
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 65, and
dependent claims 66-74, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the same reasons, we
9
Appeal2018-000744
Application 13/890,030
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 75 and 86, and claims 76-
85 and 87-90 that depend from either claim 75 or 86, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
II. Section 102(a)(l) Rejection
The Examiner rejects independent claims 65, 75, and 86, as
well as dependent claims 69-74, 79-85, and 88-90, as being anticipated by
Cohen. Final Act. 11-15. Regarding the claim 65 limitation of
"determining the word metric distances involving treating aligned numeric
characters between the aligned words as matching characters regardless of
differences between the aligned numeric characters," the Examiner finds
"Cohen teaches consistency of cluster, particularly matching messages with
respect to cosine similarity distance, matching different semantics or
frequent parameter values." Final Act. 12 (citing Cohen ,i,i 44-46). The
Examiner also finds that certain portions of Cohen's Specification are
identical to the instant specification and that "Cohen not only teaches event
messages defining the data structure as character string including time field,
but also using cosine similarity distance algorithm in analyzing and
matching event message." Ans. 12-13 (citing Cohen ,i,i 44-46); see also
Ans. 14 ( citing Cohen ,i 40).
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred.
"'A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every
limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference."' See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Appellant
argues, and we agree, that claims 65, 75, and 86 recite using metric distances
that treat aligned numeric characters between aligned words as matching
characters, but Cohen fails to disclose this aspect of the claims. App. Br.
10
Appeal2018-000744
Application 13/890,030
10-11. We have reviewed the portions of Cohen cited by the Examiner and
agree with Appellant that they do not disclose the use of word metric
distances that treat aligned numeric characters between aligned words as
matching characters, as set forth in the "determining" limitations of claims
65, 75, and 86. Reply Br. 7. Regarding paragraphs 38-40 of Cohen,
Appellant argues, and we agree, that they describe "a similarity function that
looks at identical words in the same position between two messages and
provides a measure of similarity between 1 and O," but they do not disclose
that the similarity function treats aligned numeric characters between aligned
words as matching characters. Id. at 11; see also Reply Br. 8.
Regarding paragraphs 44-46 of Cohen, Appellant argues, and we
agree, that they "merely set forth criteria for 'suitable algorithms for
message comparison and cluster generation,"' but do not disclose "an
algorithm itself, and so cannot be considered an enabling disclosure." App.
Br. 10-11. With respect to the Examiner's comparison of portions of
Appellant's Specification to portions of the disclosure of Cohen, we agree
with Appellant's argument that the Examiner "does not address the specific
deficiencies in Cohen noted in the Appeal Brief." Reply Br. 7. Lastly,
Appellant argues, and we agree, that the Examiner's finding that Cohen
"supports log event messages as a string of characters including time field
... [to] maintain high entropy among the members of a cluster in the word
position ... using 'cosine distance"' is unavailing because the Examiner
cannot simply rely on "Cohen's showing of similar-looking messages and a
generic cosine word-distance function" as disclosing the disputed limitations
regarding the treatment of numeric characters. Id. at 8.
11
Appeal2018-000744
Application 13/890,030
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 65,
75, and 86, and dependent claims 69-74, 79-84, and 88-90, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l).
III. Section 103 Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 66-68, 76-78, and 87 for obviousness
over the combination of Cohen and Brady. Final Act. 16-17. The Examiner
finds Cohen does not disclose hexadecimal characters, but Brady teaches
"hexadecimal code representing [the] result of processing the 'event.'" Final
Act. 16 (citing BradyiJ [0003]); see also Ans. 16.
Appellant argues that Brady was cited as teaching the use of
hexadecimal characters and was not relied on to teach or suggest "that the
hexadecimal characters in such codes are treated as matching characters for
any purpose." App. Br. 12. Thus, Appellant argues, and we agree, that
Brady fails to cure the deficiencies of Cohen in regard to the§ 102(a)(l)
rejection of the independent claims from which claims 66-68, 7 6-78, and 87
depend. Id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 66-
68, 76-78, and 87 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 65-90 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 65, 69-75, 79-86, and
88-90 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l).
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 66-68, 76-78, and 87
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
12