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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Claims 6 – 8, 14 – 16 have been cancelled. Claims 1 – 5, 9 – 14, 17 - 20 are currently pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 9 – 13, 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al (U.S. 2007/0220036 A1) in view of Singamneni et al (U.S. 11,644,955 B1), [previously provided].
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 1, 9, 17,
Das discloses a method, system (Fig. 1 – 3) for live processing of data, the method comprising:
“receiving, by a computing system, data from a data source, wherein the data includes notification of a failure in the computing system” See abstract, Para. 22, 0041 of Das wherein “notice of failure” is equivalent to “incident report” from a “client device” (data source), [“As part of a support service for computer hardware or software (or other service), a determination is made based on an incident report that additional data is needed to diagnose a problem with a computing device (or other device)”].
“storing, by the computing system, the data in an in-memory database, wherein the in-memory database allows faster access to the data than the data source” See Para. 0035, 0042 of Das wherein the collected data is stored in collection data store 42, [“In step 208, the customized data collection is performed and the data obtained is delivered to Collection Server 40. In step 210, the collected data is stored in the Collected Data Store 42”].
“automatically selecting, by the computing system, one or more selectable query fields, to thereby automatically generate a custom schema associated with the notification of the failure in the computing system, wherein the selection of the one of more selectable query fields and the generation of the custom schema by the computing system prevents over-fetching and under-fetching of the data” See Fig. 3, Para. 0041 – 0042, 0044 0045 of Das wherein a customized template is created by using “a software program” to collect data and only the data needed are collected, [“the support professional customizing a manifest template for the particular problem being investigated”, “Manifest templates can be created by typing in an XML document manually or by using a software program with a user interface that aids a support professional to create a manifest template”, “Exact data would be configured according to the support professional”].
According to MPEP, 2144.04, subsection III, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
“retrieving, by the computing system, the data from the in-memory database according to the custom schema, in response to a request from a user interface, thereby avoiding over-fetching or under-fetching the data” See abstract, Para. 0029, 0041, 0042 of Das wherein only data needed for the problem is retrieved using customized template, thereby avoiding over-fetching or under fetching data, [“that chosen first template is customized for the particular incident to create a data collection plan… Data is then collected for the selected data collection items”, “the support professional customizing a manifest template for the particular problem being investigated … Essentially the system allows for relevant data to be collected before hand to reduce support time”, “the data is analyzed by the various diagnostic engines 44. In step 214, Support Professional 30 uses Viewer 46 to access the raw data and the results of diagnostic engines 44 in order to determine what the problem is and how to solve that problem”.
“and transmitting, by the computing system, the data to a web client, in accordance with the automatically generated custom schema” See Para. 0025 (web portal), 0041 - 0042 of Das wherein “the data is analyzed by the various diagnostic engines 44. In step 214, Support Professional 30 uses Viewer 46 to access the raw data and the results of diagnostic engines 44 in order to determine what the problem is and how to solve that problem”.
Das teaches various memory types can be used including RAM that are immediately accessible to processing unit (Para. 0035). Further, “Once the support professional has access to the uploaded data, that data can be used to run various diagnostic engines 44 and be viewed directly by the support professional in order to diagnose the problem on the remote computer” (Para. 0058). Therefore, the “RAM” in this case corresponds to “in-memory” in the claim invention.
In case the Applicant disagrees that Das discloses “in-memory” to store data for faster access, the Examiner provides another example.
Singamneni discloses a method system (Fig. 1 – 5) for live processing of data, the method comprising:
“receiving, by a computing system, data from a data source” See Fig. 2, data Source 202, col. 18 lines 34 – 49 of Singamneni wherein “the data sources 202 can communicate the data to the intake system 210 via the network 206 using the gateway 215”.
“storing, by the computing system, the data in an in-memory database” See col. 80 lines 11 – 33 of Singamneni wherein “the query acceleration data store 222 can be used to store query results or datasets for accelerated access, and can be implemented as, a distributed in-memory database system… the datasets can be stored in-memory (non-limiting examples: RAM or volatile memory)”.
“and transmitting, by the computing system, the data to a web client” See Fig. 16, col. 189 lines 19 - 33 of Singamneni for client browser and results (“The client browser 1604 can render user interface data that causes the one or more computing devices running the client browser 1604 to display a GUI depicting a graphical representation of a workbook… query results”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to apply the teaching of Singamneni (if not already taught by Das) since both inventions were available and the combination would provide the user with more desirable results and reduce the time searching for information.
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 2, 10, 18,
“wherein the data is associated with a presentation layer of the user interface” See col. 166 lines 6 – 13 of Singamneni wherein “query results may include a set of one or more events, a set of one or more values obtained from the events, a subset of the values, statistics calculated based on the values, a report containing the values, a visualization (e.g., a graph or chart) generated from the values, and the like”.
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 3, 11, 19,
“wherein the request from the user is transmitted to a data query system via a web server” See Para. 0025 (web portal), 0041 - 0042 of Das. Also See col. 10 lines 32 - 41 of Singamneni wherein “Each host device 106 may comprise, for example, one or more of a network device, a web server, an application server, a database server, etc. … a provider of a network-based service may configure one or more host devices 106 and host applications 114 (e.g., one or more web servers, application servers, database servers, etc.) to collectively implement the network-based application”.
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 4, 12, 20,
“wherein the data comprises analyzed data from a plurality of computing incidents” See abstract, Para. 22, 0041 of Das wherein “notice of failure” is equivalent to “incident report” from a “client device” (data source), [“As part of a support service for computer hardware or software (or other service), a determination is made based on an incident report that additional data is needed to diagnose a problem with a computing device (or other device)”]. See Col. 221 lines 36 – 45 of Singamneni, wherein “the panel maintains its relevance to the incident. Similar procedures may be carried out for IT operations incidents, other types of incidents”.
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 5, 13,
“wherein the request from the user is transmitted via an application programming interface (API)” See Para. 0059, 0062 of Das wherein “PLA 614 will include an Application Program Interface (API) that can be used to access various data values associated with the system, including registry values and other computing system values”. Also See Col. 24 lines 25 – 30, col. 26 lines 3 - 5 of Singamneni wherein “one or more components of the data intake and query system 108 can include their own API”, “the system 108 receives the request via an API. For example, a user can request access by entering a command that issues an API call to the system 108”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited arts fail to disclose “automatically selecting, by the computing system, one or more selectable query fields, to thereby automatically generate a custom schema associated with the notification of the failure in the computing system, wherein the selection of the one of more selectable query fields and the generation of the custom schema by the computing system prevents over-fetching and under-fetching of the data”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, Das does teach in Fig. 3, Para. 0041 – 0042, 0044, 0045, wherein a customized template is created by using “a software program” to collect data and only the data needed are collected, [“the support professional customizing a manifest template for the particular problem being investigated”, “Manifest templates can be created by typing in an XML document manually or by using a software program with a user interface that aids a support professional to create a manifest template”, “Exact data would be configured according to the support professional”].
By using “a software program” the system would be able to “automatically selecting…” and created a customized template to collect “exact data” that needed to configured. Therefore, the computing system prevents over-fetching and under-fetching of the data.
Further, the “automatically selecting…” data and “manual” (if not already taught by Das) selecting, both accomplished the same result (create customized template) which is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, according to MPEP, 2144.04, subsection III, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
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- 4024. 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