DETAILED ACTION
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 in responsive to communication(s):
RCE filed on 8/18/2025.
Application filed on 6/9/2023 with a priority date of 2/28/2023 based on provisional application 63/487609.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent claims.
In the amendment, claims, 1, 10, 19 have been amended.
Claim 21 has been cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 and cancellation of claim 21 in the amendment filed on 7/15/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are directed to newly amended language which is now rejected in light of newly cited art Kim and newly cited paragraphs from Echeverria.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 8/18/2025, 9/2/2025, 9/29/2025, 10/13/2025, 11/10/2025, 12/10/2025 comply/complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore has/have been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has/have been considered as to the merits.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-15, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echeverria et al. (US Pat 10936585, hereinafter Echeverria), in view of Kim et al. (US Pub 20160070451, hereinafter Kim).
Per claim 1, Echeverria teaches:
A computer-implemented method for displaying time series data, comprising: (abstract : system and method for processing indexed and streaming data);
obtaining, by a processor based on a query over a time window of event data in an discoverable event stream, instances of the event data related to an object and based on a value of a property indicated in the instances of the event data; and (col 14 line 11-35: Fig. 2 shows a data processing environment with various data sources 202 of event data stream; col 114 line 23-67: Fig. 24A shows a search screen 2400 including a search bar 2402 that accept user search strings (query), and a time range picker 2412 (time window), where the resulting events from the search query is displayed based on a value of a property matching the query string; col 115 line 25-34: a data model is composed of one or more data model objects that define a specific set of data; col 117 line 34-38: Fig. 26 shows a list of available data model objects with the selected data model object 2602 (related to an object) as part report generation process shown in Fig. 24);
displaying, via a user interface, multiple stacked visual representations related to the instances of the event data, (col 114 line 40-51, Fig. 24A: after the search is executed, the search screen 2400 shows the result through different tabs 2404 (multiple stacked visual representations), where the currently displayed “Events” tab includes a visual Timeline 2405 and an Events List 2408, the Timeline illustrates the number of events in one hour interval (aggregate function) ) wherein … using a time-series function that is selected, via user interaction with the user interface, from multiple time-series functions, wherein the multiple time-series functions include a compare function for comparing the value of the property indicated in the instances of the event data to a threshold and an aggregate function for aggregating the value of the property over the stances of the event data. (col 130 line 58 – col 131 line 4: Fig. 33D shows filtering menu 3342 comprised of a “aggregated” option (aggregate function) on top of a graph where the average CPU core utilization is shown, where it can be compared to a set “Critical” and “Warning” values (compare function) made available but not specifically selected in the graph; also see Fig. 28 col 118 line 41-61 2805 sum of total sales).
Although Echeverria teaches graphs with different user selectable functions (Fig. 33D aggregate function and comparing to “Critical” or “Warning” value) to be applied to a graph, Echeverria does not explicitly teach user interaction with the interface to select a time-series function to derive a second graph from a first graph; Kim teaches:
… wherein at least one of the multiple stacked visual representations of the event data is derived from at least another one of the multiple stacked visual representations of the event data using a time-series function that is selected, via user interaction with the user interface, from multiple time-series functions, ([0126, 0128, 0130-0131] Fig. 17 shows two stacked bar graphs, where the top bar graph shows aggregated (SUM) of all requested trials per week, and bottom bar graph (derived) shows the SUM of activated trials; Fig. 23 further shows a third row (derived) of bar graph with ratio of “activated trials/requested trials” for each week; where user can directly edit each pills such as 2410 2310 shown in Fig. 24 to select different functions to be applied to the event data) wherein the multiple time-series functions include a compare function for comparing the value of the property indicated in the instances of the event data to a threshold and an aggregate function for aggregating the value of the property over the stances of the event data. ([0128-0131] Fig. 18-24 show a process where user can enter an expression using previous data component to derive a new graph using the same source of data, such as “SUM”, or any mathematical expression such as an existing data field value minus a threshold value (compare), etc.; Fig. 23 shows the user has entered the expression of one data field over another data field to show ratios);
Kim and Echeverria are analogous art because Kim also teaches displaying visualization of multiple graphs from event data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Echeverria and Kim before him/her, to modify Echeverria’s teaching to include Kim teaching so that multiple graphs can be derived from one another using different functions such as aggregation, comparison and other expressions. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide customization to data visualization by enabling user directly entering desired functions to present a derived graph to be shown concurrently, which would help to enhance user understanding of the event data.
Per claim 2, Echeverria-Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the multiple stacked visual representations display a representative sample of the instances of the event data corresponding to the value of the property that are less than all of the instances of the event data corresponding to the value of the property obtained in querying the discoverable event stream. (Echeverria col 114 line 40-51: Fig. 24A shows the first 20/page of returned event list (less than all of the instances) based on the search query (value of the property matching the query) in a table; see also Fig. 33B timeline 3313 is less than the 24 hour window selected).
Per claim 3, Echeverria-Kim teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teach:
wherein at least one of the multiple stacked visual representations displays a value related to triggering events for all instances of the event data obtained in querying the discoverable event stream based on the value of the property. (Echeverria col 114 line 23-39: Fig. 24A shows the search query string (a value related to triggering events) highlighted in the list of returned events; col 118 line 41-66: Fig. 28 shows the price value for the top 10 products that have been sold (triggering events) filtered from all instances of events based on the value of the price property).
Per claim 4, Echeverria-Kim teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teach:
further comprising determining the representative sample of the instances of the event data as having the value of the property that is within a threshold variance of one another. (Echeverria col 124 line 24-40, Fig. 31: the user can search/filter event stream in multiple iterations, where the user first filter for client IP address being “127.0.0.1”, and then add another filtering step of response time greater than “0.0900” microseconds (threshold variance)).
Per claim 5, Echeverria-Kim teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teach:
wherein displaying at least one visual indication of the multiple stacked visual representations includes presenting a layout for the at least one visual indication based on a type of the instances of the event data or an operation performed on the instances of the event data defined for the at least one visual indication. (Kim [0130-0132] Fig. 24 show 3 selectable pills such as 2410, 2310 each representing a row of graphs and showing an operation performed on the instances of the event data; such as “activated trials/requested trials”).
Per claim 6, Echeverria-Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
further comprising displaying, via the user interface, a list of indicators for each of the multiple stacked visual representations, wherein interacting with one of the list of indicators causes display of a corresponding one of the multiple stacked visual representations. (Echeverria col 114 line 40-51: Fig. 24A shows multiple tabs (list of indicators) for each of the stacked visual representations, where interacting with one of the tab causes display of the corresponding content of the stacked visual representations).
Per claim 8, Echeverria-Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
further comprising displaying a recommendation for a modification for modeling of the event data as part of the query. (Echeverria col 154 line 45 – col 155 line 17: Fig. 45 shows a flowchart of providing recommendations in the GUI pipeline creator, such as adding a certain type of node as part of the query; Fig. 46 shows a recommendation 4620 as part of creating the data processing pipeline (modeling event data for querying) which is provided as part of guided builder user interface 4400).
Per claim 10, claim 10 is a system claim with a display device (col 114 line 35-39: Fig. 24B displayed to the user; col 169 line 31-37 computer/tablet), a memory (col 10 line 17-28: computing device with memory), and a processor (col 10 line 17-28: computing device with processor), that includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 11-15, 17, claims 11-15, and 17 include limitations that are substantially the same as claims 2-6, 8 respectively, and are likewise rejected.
Per claim 19, claim 19 is a medium (col 10 line 17-28: computing device with memory) claim that includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 20, claim 20 includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 2, and is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 7, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echeverria, in view of Kim, and ESCHINGER et al. (US Pub 20210191769, hereinafter Eschinger).
Per claim 7, Echeverria-Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach recommendation for an activation event trigger to include in the query; Eschinger teaches:
further comprising displaying a recommendation for an activation event trigger to include in the query for the event data. ([0071-0072] Fig. 5 shows a trigger event editor where a recommendation events section is provided to display recommended trigger events, and to further help user to formulate query based on the recommendation).
Eschinger and Echeverria-Kim are analogous art because Eschinger also teaches creating trigger events to perform associated operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Echeverria-Kim and Eschinger before him/her, to modify Echeverria-Kim’s teaching to include Eschinger’s teaching of providing trigger event recommendations to improve operation of the application. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide recommendations on other trigger events to be included in the query to improve operation of monitored applications/devices.
Per claim 16, claim 16 includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 7, and is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echeverria, in view of Kim, and Bursik et al. (US Pub 20210124786, hereinafter Bursik).
Per claim 9, Echeverria-Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach recommendation for data management policy based on the query for the event data; Bursik teaches:
further comprising displaying a recommendation for modifying a data management policy for the discoverable event stream based on the query for the event data. ([0060] the data event management system may recommend storing data tables in common data structure based on the query made by the users, and display the recommendation to system administrator in real time).
Bursik and Echeverria-Kim are analogous art because Bursik also teaches a managing events via a pipeline processing service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Echeverria-Kim and Bursik before him/her, to modify Echeverria-Kim’s teaching to include Bursik’s teaching of providing data management recommendations based on user query. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide performance improvement on data access, and solve issues with inefficient management of data within an organization ([0013, 0016]).
Per claim 18, claim 18 includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 9, and is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent Application Publications
US 10762097 B1
Porath; Michael et al.
Method for splitting data visualizations using field names perform storing and searching of machine data across data systems involves Receiving data, Determine event timestamp, Identify keyword and store in database, reduces search latency
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179