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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-10 are rejected as being anticipated by US Patent 11,539,601, hereafter patent’601.
Regarding claim 1 of instant application, claim 1 of patent’601 discloses
A method comprising: (see claim 1 line 1)
accessing, by an application platform, a first set of records in internal log information that describe logged events attributed to at least a first internal identifier of the application platform and a second internal identifier of the application platform; (see claim 1 lines 7-10)
generating, by the application platform, sanitized log information by modifying the first set of records to describe the logged events as being attributed to a public identifier rather than the first internal identifier and the second internal identifier; and (see claim 1 lines 11-14)
returning, by the application platform, the sanitized log information in a response to a request (see claim 1 line 15)
Claims 2-10 of instant application recite similar limitations of claims 2-10 of patent’601 respectively.
Claims 1-10 are rejected as being anticipated by US Patent 12,166,651, hereafter patent’651.
Regarding claim 1 of instant application, claim 1 of patent’611 discloses
A method comprising: (see claim 1 line 1)
accessing, by an application platform, a first set of records in internal log information that describe logged events attributed to at least a first internal identifier of the application platform and a second internal identifier of the application platform; (see claim 1 lines 7-10)
generating, by the application platform, sanitized log information by modifying the first set of records to describe the logged events as being attributed to a public identifier rather than the first internal identifier and the second internal identifier; and (see claim 1 lines 11-14)
returning, by the application platform, the sanitized log information in a response to a request (see claim 1 line 15)
Claims 2-10 of instant application recite similar limitations of claims 2-10 of patent’651 respectively.
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3-8, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (USPN 20110276541) in view of Samdadiya et al (USPN 2012/0265805).
Regarding claim 11, Ono discloses
accessing a first set of records in internal log information that describe logged events (log converting unit, FIG. 2 #12, reading a long comprising logged events [0007, 0017, 0041, 0050-0052], FIG. 10
generating sanitized log information by modifying the first of records to describe the logged events attributed to at least a first internal identifier of the application platform and a second internal identifier of the application platform (log converting unit, FIG. 2 #12, generating sanitized log information by converting logged events, FIG. 10 Yamada Taroh and ServerMachine1, into irrecoverable and unique character string, FIG. 10 787e0dcb974 and adaa36b5294, [0042, 0078-0080, 0089], FIG. 10
returning the sanitized log information in a response to a request (returning sanitized log information in response to request [0101-0103], FIG. 12
Ono does not expressly disclose an application platform comprising; one or more computer processors; and one or more computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the application platform to perform operations comprising:; logged events as being attributed to a public identifier rather than the first internal identifier and the second internal identifier
Samdadiya discloses an application platform comprising: (combined application host system and remote event management system (FIG. 1 #102, 122, 126) executing a hosted application (e.g. FIG. 1 #104) using its hardware resources on behalf of a single user or enterprise user having an account with the application host system [0021-0025], FIG. 1)
one or more computer processors; and one or more computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the application platform to perform operations comprising: (memory comprising instructions executed by processor to perform [0079-0099], FIG. 8
logged events as being attributed to a public identifier rather than the first internal identifier and the second internal identifier (store events, FIG. 4 #412 416, under an enterprise or domain identifier and puts an encrypted user identifier into event data or aggregate events and display aggregated events in graphs [0029, 0030, 0070-0073], FIG. 7
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “an application platform comprising; one or more computer processors; and one or more computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the application platform to perform operations comprising:; logged events as being attributed to a public identifier rather than the first internal identifier and the second internal identifier” as taught by Samdadiya into Ono’s system with the motivation to enable another way to identify internal information/identifiers by linking to domain/enterprise identifiers (Samdadiya, paragraph [0029, 0030])
Claim 1 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, Ono discloses
accessing a first set of records in internal log information that describe logged events (log converting unit, FIG. 2 #12, reading a long comprising logged events [0007, 0017, 0041, 0050-0052], FIG. 10
generating sanitized log information by modifying the first of records to describe the logged events attributed to at least a first internal identifier of the application platform and a second internal identifier of the application platform (log converting unit, FIG. 2 #12, generating sanitized log information by converting logged events, FIG. 10 Yamada Taroh and ServerMachine1, into irrecoverable and unique character string, FIG. 10 787e0dcb974 and adaa36b5294, [0042, 0078-0080, 0089], FIG. 10
returning the sanitized log information in a response to a request (returning sanitized log information in response to request [0101-0103], FIG. 12
Ono does not expressly disclose a non-transitory-computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an application platform, cause the application form to to perform operations comprising:; logged events as being attributed to a public identifier rather than the first internal identifier and the second internal identifier
Samdadiya discloses a non-transitory-computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an application platform, cause the application form to to perform operations comprising: (memory comprising instructions executed by processor of an application platform, combined application host system and remote event management system (FIG. 1 #102, 122, 126) executing a hosted application (e.g. FIG. 1 #104), to perform [0079-0099, 0021-0025], FIG. 8
logged events as being attributed to a public identifier rather than the first internal identifier and the second internal identifier (store events, FIG. 4 #412 416, under an enterprise or domain identifier and puts an encrypted user identifier into event data or aggregate events and display aggregated events in graphs [0029, 0030, 0070-0073], FIG. 7
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “a non-transitory-computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an application platform, cause the application form to to perform operations comprising:; logged events as being attributed to a public identifier rather than the first internal identifier and the second internal identifier” as taught by Samdadiya into Ono’s system with the motivation to enable another way to identify internal information/identifiers by linking to domain/enterprise identifiers (Samdadiya, paragraph [0029, 0030])
Regarding claims 2, 12, Ono discloses “executing a first process using the first internal identifier; and executing a second process using the second internal identifier” user’s login and print job run through ServerMachine1 and ServerMachine2 [0089, 0090], FIG. 10
Ono does not expressly disclose on behalf of a first account, on behalf of the first account; application platform
Samdadiya discloses supplying execution for a tenant or user across multiple hosts [0034]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement on behalf of a first account, on behalf of the first account; application platform” as taught by Samdadiya into Ono’s system with the motivation to centralize server/applications to be more economic.
Regarding claims 3, 13, Ono discloses “generating a first record in the internal log information that indicates the execution of the first process using the first internal identifier; and generating a second record in the internal log information that indicates the execution of the second process using the second internal identifier”
log line generated with HOST for FIG. 10 Yamada Taroh and ServerMachine1 and Suzuki Hanako and ServerMachine2 [0041, 0089]
Regarding claims 4, 14, Ono discloses “modifying the first record in the internal log information to attribute the execution of the first process to the public identifier; and modifying the second record in the internal log information to attribute the execution of the second process to the public identifier” FIG. 10 Yamada Taroh and ServerMachine1 and Suzuki Hanako and ServerMachine2 are replaced with respective anonymized characters [0080, 0089]
Regarding claims 5, 15, Ono does not expressly disclose “detecting and classifying an error in the sanitized log information”
Samdadiya discloses detecting “disk_qouta_exceeded” event as an alert condition, sanitization and error checking [0039, 0040, 0052-0055, 0043]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement detecting and classifying an error in the sanitized log information” as taught by Samdadiya into Ono’s system with the motivation to enable another way to speed trouble shooting.
Regarding claims 6, 16, Ono does not expressly disclose “detecting and classifying an error in the sanitized log information”
Samdadiya discloses aggregation and summary information, alert summarizing or detailing operations, aggregate graphs of events [0021, 0043, 0073]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement detecting and classifying an error in the sanitized log information” as taught by Samdadiya into Ono’s system with the motivation to enable easy viewing.
Regarding claim 7, Ono discloses “modifying the first set of records by removing a reference to the first internal identifier” original string replaced, personal and confidential information excluded from the log [0080, 0108], FIG. 10
Regarding claims 8, 18, Ono does not expressly disclose “transmitting a communication to a configured destination for at least one error classification, the communication being embedded with a link to the sanitized log information”
Samdadiya discloses sending alerts per alert type to user-registered email, SMS or URI destinations for disk_quota_exceeded classification [0048, 0077, 0078, 0031, 0039]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement transmitting a communication to a configured destination for at least one error classification, the communication being embedded with a link to the sanitized log information” as taught by Samdadiya into Ono’s system with the motivation to enable notification and fast review of data
Claims 9, 19, 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Samdadiya as applied in claims 1, 17 and in further view of Fedtke (USPN 2009/0282036)
Regarding claims 9, 19, combined system of Ono and Samdadiya does not expressly disclose “annotating the sanitized lo information with supplemental information, the supplemental information including a recommended resolution to a detected error”
Fedtke discloses sanitized log file contains supplemental information such as encryption information and instructions on how to decrypt [0068-0079], FIGs. 3-7
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “annotating the sanitized lo information with supplemental information, the supplemental information including a recommended resolution to a detected error” as taught by Fedtke into combined system of Ono and Samdadiya with the motivation to perform anonymizing sensitive information (Fedtke, paragraph [0039-0051], FIGs. 3, 4)
Regarding claims 10, 20, combined system of Ono and Samdadiya does not expressly disclose “indexing properties of the internal log information…a search query” and “…search query”
Fedtke discloses parsing through log in to create File Anonymization Orders (FAOs) based on search provided by user [0052-0063], FIGs. 4, 5
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “indexing properties of the internal log information…a search query” and “…search query” as taught by Fedtke into combined system of Ono and Samdadiya with the motivation to perform anonymizing sensitive information (Fedtke, paragraph [0039-0051], FIGs. 3, 4)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanson (USPN 2011/0277034) FIGs. 2-4
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
