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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 2 January 2026.
Claims 21, 33, and 36 are amended.
Claims 21-40 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 2 January 2026:
a. On page 10 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant requests that the double patenting rejections detailed in the previous Office action be held in abeyance.
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. “As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.” MPEP 804, emphasis added. Accordingly, the double patenting rejections detailed in the previous Office action are maintained.
b. Rejections of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
c. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
On pages 11-12 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims. Applicant argues that claim 21 utilizes computing devices and memory and therefore “Various aspects of this claim are not performed as a mental process” (remarks, page 12, first paragraph). Applicant also asserts a practical application without providing any rationale or elaboration (Ibid.).
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. The claimed computing devices and memory are additional elements, beyond the abstract idea, that are analyzed at Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B. As detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claimed computing devices and memory are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For a similar reason, these additional elements cannot be deemed an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 33 and 36 recite limitations similar to those of claim 21 and are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claim 21 is ineligible, as set forth above.
Claims 22-32, 34-35, and 37-40 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claims 21, 33, and 36 are ineligible, as set forth above, and for the additional reasons detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
d. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the pending claims are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection presented hereon, as detailed below.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 33, and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,471 B2 in view of Barsness et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050044063 A1, hereinafter referred to as Barsness).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 of the examined application recites a method analogous to that of claim 1 the U.S. Patent but in broader, more general language. Claim 1 of the cited patent contains all the elements of claim 21 of the instant application except for the features related to the second search query. However, Barsness teaches the features of instant claim 21 related to the second search query, as detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claim 1 of the reference Patent to include the teachings of Barsness because it enables optimizing system resources for re-execution of queries (see Barsness para. 0028-0029 and 0049-0051). Instant claims 33 and 36 recite features analogous to those of instant claim 21, and instant claims 33 and 36 are not patentably distinct from claims 15 and 18 of the reference patent for the same reasons set forth above with regards to instant claim 21. Therefore, the examined application claims would have been obvious over the reference claims.
Claims 21, 33, and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,288,231 B2 in view of Barsness et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050044063 A1, hereinafter referred to as Barsness).
The examined application claims would have been obvious over the reference claims for the same reasons set forth above with regards to U.S. Patent No. 12,169,471 B2.
Claims 21, 33, and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,585,851 B2 in view of Barsness et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050044063 A1, hereinafter referred to as Barsness).
The examined application claims would have been obvious over the reference claims for the same reasons set forth above with regards to U.S. Patent No. 12,169,471 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 21, 33, and 36, these claims recite “determining that the second portion of the dataset, as indicated in the second request, that satisfies the second triggering condition defining the second alert, is not stored in the memory in a manner associating the second portion of the dataset with an instance of the second alert.” The claimed “determining” amounts to no more than an evaluation/judgement, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper. The claimed “memory” serves only to provide generic computer implementation. However, the claimed “determining” has clear analogs outside of a computer. For example, consider the management of paper records held both in an office filing cabinet as well as in an archival warehouse. In this example, the office filing cabinet provides quick access to records that are frequently queried, analogous to a computer memory. The archival warehouse is for long term storage of records that have not been recently queried, analogous to a computer database. When a request for records comes in (analogous to the claimed “second search query”), a records management employee must determine whether the requested data is held in the filing cabinet (analogous to the claimed “memory”). This determination is an evaluation/judgement that the employee can perform in the mind with the aid of pencil and paper (e.g. a list written out on paper of the records held in the filing cabinet and in the archival warehouse). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with a pencil and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These claims also recite “based on the determination that the second portion of the dataset is not stored in the memory, reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query that triggered the instance of the second alert.” This limitation can also be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper. Continuing the filing cabinet and archival warehouse example set forth above, the records management employee may determine that the requested dataset is not stored in the nearby filing cabinet (analogous to the claimed memory) and hence must be reproduced by searching records in the archival warehouse (analogous to a computer database). It this illustrative example, it is fully conceivable that re-executing the second search query (i.e. searching for the dataset in the archival warehouse) is done in view of a time parameter (e.g. find records within the past year), as claimed. In this example, re-executing the second search query involves making a series of judgements/evaluations, i.e. for each record stored in the archival warehouse, does that record both satisfy the search query and satisfy the time parameter? Since it amounts to no more than a series of mentally performable evaluations/judgements, the claimed “reproducing” is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “receiving, from a client computing device, a first request for a first portion of a dataset that satisfies a first triggering condition defining a first alert associated with a first search query”; and “receiving, from the client computing device, a second request for a second portion of the dataset that satisfies a second triggering condition defining a second alert associated with a second search query;”
b) “based on a determination that the first portion of the dataset is stored in memory, providing the first portion of the dataset;” and “providing the reproduced second portion of the dataset;”
c) “a client computing device” (claim 21);
d) “A computer system comprising: a memory; and one or more processor devices, coupled to the memory” (claim 33);
e) “A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium comprising executable instructions” (claim 36).
Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (b) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitations (c) through (e) are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Limitation (b) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Applicant’s specification provides few details about the claimed “providing” or its functions (see para. 0060 and 0073 of Applicant’s published specification). This indicates that this feature is well known in the art. Cf Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (explaining that "a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art"). As a result, the written description adequately supports that additional element (b) is conventional and performs well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) ( explaining that a specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional ( or an equivalent term) or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)). Hence, neither elements (a) nor (b) can provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would recognize element (b) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional1. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional elements (c) through (e) amount to no more than mere field of use limitations and instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 22 and 24, these claim amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (i.e. mere data storage). See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed storing data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, these limitations cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claim 23, this claim recites implementation of a file retention policy. At the high level of generality recited in this claim, the claimed implementation of a file retention policy can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a records management employee can maintain a list of a paper files and their associated dates, and the employee can make the mental judgements/evaluations necessary to decide whether to destroy files that are older than a certain date. The claimed “memory” in this claim serves only to provide generic computer implementation, and hence it cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As to dependent claims 25 and 34, the claimed execution of a search query is mentally performable by a human with the aid of pencil and paper, as detailed above in the records management example discussed in the parent claim. Hence, the claimed executing a search query is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. The claimed “time-stamped events having portions of raw machine data” amounts to no more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to dependent claim 26, the claimed description of the client computing device as a desktop or mobile computing device amounts to no more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to dependent claims 27, 35, and 38, the claimed execution of a search query is mentally performable by a human with the aid of pencil and paper, as detailed above in the records management example discussed in the parent claim. Hence, the claimed executing a search query is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. The claimed application of a late binding schema amounts to no more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to dependent claims 28 and 39, the claimed execution of a search query is mentally performable by a human with the aid of pencil and paper, as detailed above in the records management example discussed in the parent claim. Hence, the claimed executing a search query is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. The claimed “machine data generated by at least one of a server, a database, an application, or a network” amounts to no more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to dependent claim 29, the claimed execution of a search query based on a schedule is mentally performable by a human with the aid of pencil and paper, as detailed above in the records management example discussed in the parent claim. Hence, the claimed executing a search query is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claims 30 and 37, these claims recite a particular type of triggering condition, i.e. a predetermined number of results. Given the high level of generality of this claim, the execution of the search remains mentally performable by a human, for the same reasons set forth above in the parent claims. Hence, these claims remain directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to dependent claim 31, the claimed performance of an action such as sending an email, creating an RSS feed, or executing a script amounts to no more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to dependent claims 32 and 40, the claimed displaying of the first alert in a graphical user interface (GUI) amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 of this title, 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 21, 23-24, 26, 28-29, 31-33, 36, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross, Laurence (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080319991 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ross) in view of Barsness et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050044063 A1, hereinafter referred to as Barsness) and Aubry et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130073586 A1, hereinafter referred to as Aubry).
As to claim 21, Ross teaches a method performed by one or more processing devices, the method comprising:
receiving, from a client computing device, a first request (see Ross paragraph 0105: a user issues a search request; and see Ross paragraph 0053: in the present invention, the user may issue a search request using a mobile device) for a first portion of a dataset (see Ross para. 0109: Sales-Chip Editor element 1200 scans the information source 1015 for an underlying query and returns a result set) that satisfies a first triggering condition defining a first alert associated with a first search query (see Ross paragraph 0114: Relevance Manager element 1400 defines or describes criteria elements for Alert 1000; Note: Ross’ “criteria elements” correspond to the claimed “first triggering condition”);
based on a determination that the first portion of the dataset is stored in memory, providing the first portion of the dataset to the client computing device (see Ross para. 0059-0062: accessing saved searches; and see Ross paragraph 0107: Sales-Chip Relevance Alert is represented by Identifier 1010, and the Identifier encapsulates a plurality of elements; and see Ross paragraph 0109: the Identifier comprises Sales-Chip Editor element 1200, which corresponds to a saved query).
Ross does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving, from the client computing device, a second request for a second portion of the dataset that satisfies a second triggering condition defining a second alert associated with a second search query; reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query that triggered the instance of the second alert; and providing the reproduced second portion of the dataset to the client computing device.
However, Barsness teaches:
receiving, from the client computing device, a second request for a second portion of the dataset (Barsness para. 0046 and Fig. 2: a user/application 210 issues query 212 for execution and against database 250; and see Barsness Fig. 1: the user utilizes client computer system 102 to access the database server) that satisfies a second triggering condition (Barsness para. 0049-0051 and Fig. 2: query 212 has associated trigger) defining a second alert (Barsness para. 0065 and claim 5: notification) associated with a second search query (Barsness para. 0046 and Fig. 2: query 212 for execution and against database 250);
reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query (see Barsness para. 0068: in response to the determination that the data structure maintained for the query has been deleted, the query is re-executed) in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query (see Barsness para. 0054 and Fig. 2: query 212 is executed in view of time parameter 216) that triggered (Barsness para. 0049-0050 and Fig. 2: query 212 has associated trigger) the instance of the second alert (Barsness para. 0065 and claim 5: notification); and
providing the reproduced second portion of the dataset to the client computing device (Barsness para. 0059: query result is returned to the issuing entity).
Both Ross and Barsness related to re-execution of search queries in response to triggers (see Ross para. 0105, 0127, and Fig. 18; and see Barsness para. 0029, 0049-0051, and Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ross to include the teachings of Barsness because it enables optimizing system resources for re-execution of queries (see Barsness para. 0028-0029 and 0049-0051).
Ross as modified by Barsness does not appear to explicitly disclose determining that the second portion of the dataset, as indicated in the second request, that satisfies the second triggering condition defining the second alert is not stored in the memory in a manner associating the second portion of the dataset with an instance of the second alert; based on the determination that the second portion of the dataset is not stored in the memory, reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query that triggered the instance of the second alert.
However, Aubry teaches:
determining that the second portion of the dataset, as indicated in the second request, that satisfies the second triggering condition (Aubry para. 0045-0046: search request has corresponding trigger) defining the second alert is not stored in the memory (Aubry para. 0352 and Fig. 25: cache manager 68 determines whether data has been cached recently) in a manner associating the second portion of the dataset with an instance of the second alert (Aubry para. 0060: search query associated with corresponding notification);
based on the determination that the second portion of the dataset is not stored in the memory, reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query (Aubry para. 0352 and Fig. 25: in response to the cache manager 68 determining that data has not been cached recently, the cache manager requests updated data) in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query(Aubry para. 0352: search request has corresponding time frame) that triggered the instance of the second alert (Aubry para. 0045-0046: search request has corresponding trigger);
providing the reproduced second portion of the dataset to the client computing device (Aubry abstract and para. 0030-0031: query results provided to client).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ross as modified by Barsness to include the teachings of Aubry because it enables maintaining a real-time or near real-time dataset (Aubry para. 0352 and 0356).
As to claim 23, Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry teaches implementing a file retention policy with respect to datasets stored in the memory, wherein the file retention policy requires deleting certain datasets responsive to evaluating corresponding file retention conditions (see Barsness paragraph 0061: the time parameter indicates a point in time when the temporary data structure is to be deleted; and see Barsness paragraph 0059: the temporary data structure is temporary query result data structure 242; Note: Barsness’ temporary query result data structures correspond to the claimed “datasets”, and Barsness’ "time parameters" correspond to the claimed “file retention conditions”).
As to claim 24, Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry teaches further comprising associating an instance of the first alert with an identifier of the first triggering condition (see Ross paragraph 0107: Sales-Chip Relevance Alert is represented by Identifier 1010, and the Identifier encapsulates a plurality of elements; and see Ross paragraph 0114: Relevance Manager element 1400 defines or describes criteria elements for Alert 1000; and see Ross paragraph 0127 and Fig. 18: in an illustrative example, an Alert is triggered when a combination of criteria elements 1420 are satisfied; Note: “criteria elements,” as taught by Ross, correspond to the claimed “triggering condition”).
As to claim 26, Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry teaches wherein the client computing device comprises at least one of: a desktop computing device or a mobile computing device (see Ross paragraph 0053: in the present invention, the user may issue a search request using a desktop computing device or a mobile device).
As to claim 28, Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry teaches further comprising executing a search query on searchable data to produce the dataset (see Ross para. 0109: Sales-Chip Editor element 1200 scans the information source 1015 for an underlying query and returns a result set; Note: information source 1015 corresponds to the claimed “portion of searchable data”; and see Barsness para. 0046, 0056, and Fig. 2: query 212 is executed against database 250 to produce a query result), wherein the searchable data comprises machine data generated by at least one of a server, a database, an application, or a network (see Ross paragraph 0107: information source 1015 corresponds to a website; and see Barsness para. 0046, 0056, and Fig. 2: query 212 is executed against database 250).
As to claim 29, Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry teaches further comprising executing a search query on searchable data to produce the dataset (see Ross para. 0109: Sales-Chip Editor element 1200 scans the information source 1015 for an underlying query and returns a result set; Note: information source 1015 corresponds to the claimed “portion of searchable data”; and see Barsness para. 0046, 0056, and Fig. 2: query 212 is executed against database 250 to produce a query result), wherein the search query is executed based on a schedule that is associated with the first alert or the second alert (see Ross paragraph 0111: Look Back Manager element 1300 allows the user to define a time schedule for execution of the query; and see Barsness para. 0054: time parameter for re-execution of the query).
As to claim 31, Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry teaches further comprising:
preforming an action associated with the first alert, wherein the action comprises at least one of: sending an electronic mail message, creating a Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed, or executing a script (see Ross paragraph 0125: notification alerts are sent as email messages).
As to claim 32, Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry teaches further comprising: causing an instance of the first alert to be displayed via a graphical user interface (GUI) (see Ross paragraph 0127 and Fig. 18: the system provides a graphical user interface (GUI) display of the Alert).
As to claim 33, Ross teaches a computer system comprising: a memory; and one or more processing devices, coupled to the memory (see Ross claim 1: the method of the invention is implemented by a computer), to:
receiving, from a client computing device, a first request (see Ross paragraph 0105: a user issues a search request; and see Ross paragraph 0053: in the present invention, the user may issue a search request using a mobile device) for a first portion of a dataset (see Ross para. 0109: Sales-Chip Editor element 1200 scans the information source 1015 for an underlying query and returns a result set) that satisfies a first triggering condition defining a first alert associated with a first search query (see Ross paragraph 0114: Relevance Manager element 1400 defines or describes criteria elements for Alert 1000; Note: Ross’ “criteria elements” correspond to the claimed “first triggering condition”);
based on a determination that the first portion of the dataset is stored in memory, providing the first portion of the dataset to the client computing device (see Ross para. 0059-0062: accessing saved searches; and see Ross paragraph 0107: Sales-Chip Relevance Alert is represented by Identifier 1010, and the Identifier encapsulates a plurality of elements; and see Ross paragraph 0109: the Identifier comprises Sales-Chip Editor element 1200, which corresponds to a saved query).
Ross does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving, from the client computing device, a second request for a second portion of the dataset that satisfies a second triggering condition defining a second alert associated with a second search query; reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query that triggered the instance of the second alert; and providing the reproduced second portion of the dataset to the client computing device.
However, Barsness teaches:
receiving, from the client computing device, a second request for a second portion of the dataset (Barsness para. 0046 and Fig. 2: a user/application 210 issues query 212 for execution and against database 250; and see Barsness Fig. 1: the user utilizes client computer system 102 to access the database server) that satisfies a second triggering condition (Barsness para. 0049-0051 and Fig. 2: query 212 has associated trigger) defining a second alert (Barsness para. 0065 and claim 5: notification) associated with a second search query (Barsness para. 0046 and Fig. 2: query 212 for execution and against database 250);
reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query (see Barsness para. 0068: in response to the determination that the data structure maintained for the query has been deleted, the query is re-executed) in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query (see Barsness para. 0054 and Fig. 2: query 212 is executed in view of time parameter 216) that triggered (Barsness para. 0049-0050 and Fig. 2: query 212 has associated trigger) the instance of the second alert (Barsness para. 0065 and claim 5: notification); and
providing the reproduced second portion of the dataset to the client computing device (Barsness para. 0059: query result is returned to the issuing entity).
Both Ross and Barsness related to re-execution of search queries in response to triggers (see Ross para. 0105, 0127, and Fig. 18; and see Barsness para. 0029, 0049-0051, and Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ross to include the teachings of Barsness because it enables optimizing system resources for re-execution of queries (see Barsness para. 0028-0029 and 0049-0051).
Ross as modified by Barsness does not appear to explicitly disclose determining that the second portion of the dataset, as indicated in the second request, that satisfies the second triggering condition defining the second alert is not stored in the memory in a manner associating the second portion of the dataset with an instance of the second alert; based on the determination that the second portion of the dataset is not stored in the memory, reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query that triggered the instance of the second alert.
However, Aubry teaches:
determining that the second portion of the dataset, as indicated in the second request, that satisfies the second triggering condition (Aubry para. 0045-0046: search request has corresponding trigger) defining the second alert is not stored in the memory (Aubry para. 0352 and Fig. 25: cache manager 68 determines whether data has been cached recently) in a manner associating the second portion of the dataset with an instance of the second alert (Aubry para. 0060: search query associated with corresponding notification);
based on the determination that the second portion of the dataset is not stored in the memory, reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query (Aubry para. 0352 and Fig. 25: in response to the cache manager 68 determining that data has not been cached recently, the cache manager requests updated data) in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query(Aubry para. 0352: search request has corresponding time frame) that triggered the instance of the second alert (Aubry para. 0045-0046: search request has corresponding trigger);
providing the reproduced second portion of the dataset to the client computing device (Aubry abstract and para. 0030-0031: query results provided to client).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ross as modified by Barsness to include the teachings of Aubry because it enables maintaining a real-time or near real-time dataset (Aubry para. 0352 and 0356).
As to claim 36, Ross teaches a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to (see Ross claim 1: the method of the invention is implemented by a computer):
receiving, from a client computing device, a first request (see Ross paragraph 0105: a user issues a search request; and see Ross paragraph 0053: in the present invention, the user may issue a search request using a mobile device) for a first portion of a dataset (see Ross para. 0109: Sales-Chip Editor element 1200 scans the information source 1015 for an underlying query and returns a result set) that satisfies a first triggering condition defining a first alert associated with a first search query (see Ross paragraph 0114: Relevance Manager element 1400 defines or describes criteria elements for Alert 1000; Note: Ross’ “criteria elements” correspond to the claimed “first triggering condition”);
based on a determination that the first portion of the dataset is stored in memory, providing the first portion of the dataset to the client computing device (see Ross para. 0059-0062: accessing saved searches; and see Ross paragraph 0107: Sales-Chip Relevance Alert is represented by Identifier 1010, and the Identifier encapsulates a plurality of elements; and see Ross paragraph 0109: the Identifier comprises Sales-Chip Editor element 1200, which corresponds to a saved query).
Ross does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving, from the client computing device, a second request for a second portion of the dataset that satisfies a second triggering condition defining a second alert associated with a second search query; reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query that triggered the instance of the second alert; and providing the reproduced second portion of the dataset to the client computing device.
However, Barsness teaches:
receiving, from the client computing device, a second request for a second portion of the dataset (Barsness para. 0046 and Fig. 2: a user/application 210 issues query 212 for execution and against database 250; and see Barsness Fig. 1: the user utilizes client computer system 102 to access the database server) that satisfies a second triggering condition (Barsness para. 0049-0051 and Fig. 2: query 212 has associated trigger) defining a second alert (Barsness para. 0065 and claim 5: notification) associated with a second search query (Barsness para. 0046 and Fig. 2: query 212 for execution and against database 250);
reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query (see Barsness para. 0068: in response to the determination that the data structure maintained for the query has been deleted, the query is re-executed) in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query (see Barsness para. 0054 and Fig. 2: query 212 is executed in view of time parameter 216) that triggered (Barsness para. 0049-0050 and Fig. 2: query 212 has associated trigger) the instance of the second alert (Barsness para. 0065 and claim 5: notification); and
providing the reproduced second portion of the dataset to the client computing device (Barsness para. 0059: query result is returned to the issuing entity).
Both Ross and Barsness related to re-execution of search queries in response to triggers (see Ross para. 0105, 0127, and Fig. 18; and see Barsness para. 0029, 0049-0051, and Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ross to include the teachings of Barsness because it enables optimizing system resources for re-execution of queries (see Barsness para. 0028-0029 and 0049-0051).
Ross as modified by Barsness does not appear to explicitly disclose determining that the second portion of the dataset, as indicated in the second request, that satisfies the second triggering condition defining the second alert is not stored in the memory in a manner associating the second portion of the dataset with an instance of the second alert; based on the determination that the second portion of the dataset is not stored in the memory, reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query that triggered the instance of the second alert.
However, Aubry teaches:
determining that the second portion of the dataset, as indicated in the second request, that satisfies the second triggering condition (Aubry para. 0045-0046: search request has corresponding trigger) defining the second alert is not stored in the memory (Aubry para. 0352 and Fig. 25: cache manager 68 determines whether data has been cached recently) in a manner associating the second portion of the dataset with an instance of the second alert (Aubry para. 0060: search query associated with corresponding notification);
based on the determination that the second portion of the dataset is not stored in the memory, reproducing the second portion of the dataset by re-executing the second search query (Aubry para. 0352 and Fig. 25: in response to the cache manager 68 determining that data has not been cached recently, the cache manager requests updated data) in view of a time parameter associated with the second search query(Aubry para. 0352: search request has corresponding time frame) that triggered the instance of the second alert (Aubry para. 0045-0046: search request has corresponding trigger);
providing the reproduced second portion of the dataset to the client computing device (Aubry abstract and para. 0030-0031: query results provided to client).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ross as modified by Barsness to include the teachings of Aubry because it enables maintaining a real-time or near real-time dataset (Aubry para. 0352 and 0356).
As to claim 39, see the rejection of claim 28 above.
As to claim 40, see the rejection of claim 32 above.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross and Barsness and Aubry as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Rothermel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20060143034 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rothermel).
As to claim 22, Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: storing the first portion of the dataset and an association of the stored portion of the dataset with an instance of the first alert.
However, Rothermel teaches further comprising:
storing the first portion of the dataset and an association of the stored portion of the dataset with an instance of the first alert (see Rothermel para. 0065-0066 and Table 1: alert instances are stored in a data structure that associates the EVT_OBJECT—the triggering data object that triggered the alert).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry to include the teachings of Rothermel because it allows providing the user information about why the alert was triggered, helping to find a resolution for the event that caused the alert (see Rothermel para. 0088 and Fig. 8).
Claims 25 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross and Barsness and Aubry as applied to claims 21 and 33 above, and further in view of Baum et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120117079 A1, hereinafter referred to as Baum).
As to claim 25, Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry teaches further comprising executing a search query on searchable data to produce the dataset (see Ross para. 0109: Sales-Chip Editor element 1200 scans the information source 1015 for an underlying query and returns a result set; Note: information source 1015 corresponds to the claimed “portion of searchable data”; and see Barsness para. 0046, 0056, and Fig. 2: query 212 is executed against database 250 to produce a query result).
Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the searchable data comprises time-stamped events having portions of raw machine data.
However, Baum teaches wherein the searchable data includes time-stamped events having portions of raw machine data (see Baum paragraph 0005: the system searches time series data, which are sequences of time stamped events; and see Baum paragraph 0036: the system processes raw time series data such as raw logs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry to include the teachings of Baum because it would enable the system to search time series data, allowing the user to understand and work with systems that produce such data (see Baum paragraph 0005).
As to claim 34, see the rejection of claim 25 above.
Claims 27, 35, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross and Barsness and Aubry as applied to claims 21, 33, and 36 above, and further in view of Merza, Munawar Monzy (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130318603 A1, hereinafter referred to as Merza) and Klopp, Rob ("Dynamic Late Binding Schemas on Need"; Database Fog Blog; published 3 April 2014; retrieved on 3 September 2016 from https://skylandtech.net/2014104/03/dynamic-late-binding-schemas-on-need/, hereinafter referred to as Klopp).
As to claim 27, Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry teaches further comprising executing a search query on searchable data to produce the dataset (see Ross para. 0109: Sales-Chip Editor element 1200 scans the information source 1015 for an underlying query and returns a result set; Note: information source 1015 corresponds to the claimed “portion of searchable data”; and see Barsness para. 0046, 0056, and Fig. 2: query 212 is executed against database 250 to produce a query result).
Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry does not appear to explicitly disclose applying a late binding schema to the searchable data, the late binding schema associated with one or more extraction rules defining one or more fields.
However, Merza teaches applying a late binding schema to the searchable data, the late binding schema associated with one or more extraction rules defining one or more fields (see Merza paragraph 0049: late binding schema are used to impose structure on data and extract specific field values).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry to include the teachings of Merza because late binding schema limit the time and organizational costs involved with implementing and managing data models (see Klopp page 3).
As to claim 35, see the rejection of claim 27 above.
As to claim 38, see the rejection of claim 27 above.
Claims 30 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross and Barsness and Aubry as applied to claims 21 and 36 above, and further in view of Stanfill et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20110153662 A1, hereinafter referred to as Stanfill).
As to claim 30, Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first triggering condition requires that the first portion of the dataset comprise a predetermined number of results.
However, Stanfill teaches wherein the first triggering condition requires that the first portion of the dataset comprise a predetermined number of results (see Stanfill paragraph 0052: the trigger criterion for notification of the user is based on the number of query results).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ross as modified by Barsness and Aubry to include the teachings of Stanfill because it allows the user to be notified only when a reasonable number of search results are ready for review, saving the user time.
As to claim 37, see the rejection of claim 30 above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571) 272-4078. 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.
/Umar Mian/
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 See the following:
Ross et al.; U.S. PGPub. No. 20080319991 A1; para. 0059-0062, 0096, and Figs. 1-2;
Barsness et al.; U.S. PGPub. No. 20050044063 A1; para. 0059 and Figs. 3-4.