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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments were fully considered and are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17of U.S. Patent No 12231456. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (hereinafter Anderson) US Publication No 20130282739 in view of Dietz et al (hereinafter Dietz) US Publication No 20070245327.
As per claim 1, Anderson teaches:
A method comprising:
parsing one or more data files based on one or more regular expressions, wherein the one or more regular expressions are generated from training data files to learn patterns of characters strings for parsing a plurality of data files of different file formats;
(Abstract and paragraphs [0002]-[0005], [0011])
determining whether coverage of the one or more regular expressions is sufficient to parse the one or more data files;
(Abstract and paragraphs [0002]-[0005], [0011], wherein the regular expression capability is the sufficiency)
Anderson does not explicitly teach generating one or more parsed data files that include entities and associated relationships expressed in the one or more data files, however in analogous art of Dietz teaches:
in response to the coverage being sufficient, generating one or more parsed data files that include entities and associated relationships expressed in the one or more data files;
(Fig. 1, 5 and paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0064]-[0075]. Wherein the output of the parsing/relation determination is the file)
and generating one or more graphs from the entities and associated relationships of the one or more parsed data files.
(Fig. 1, 5 and paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0064]-[0075], wherein the tree structure model of the process flow is the graph)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Anderson and Dietz by incorporating the teaching of Dietz into the method of Anderson. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Dietz into the system of Anderson for the purpose of reviewing parser output and improving the generation of element tree representation.
As per claim 3, Anderson and Dietz teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to the coverage of the one or more regular expressions not being sufficient, updating the one or more regular expressions using additional training data files.
(Fig. 2A and 2B and paragraph [0033])( Anderson)
As per claim 4, Anderson and Dietz teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether coverage of the one or more regular expressions is sufficient to parse the one or more data files is based on one or more metrics.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0002]-[0005], [0011], wherein tracking the match is the metric)( Anderson)
As per claim 5, Anderson and Dietz teach:
The method of claim 4, wherein the one or more metrics includes at least a percentage of characters in the one or more data files that matched the one or more regular expressions or a threshold number of characters in the one or more data files that matched the one or more regular expressions.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0002]-[0005], [0011], wherein tracking the match is the metric)( Anderson)
As per claim 7, Anderson and Dietz teach:
The method of claim 1, where in the one or more data files include at least a log file.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0002]-[0005], [0011])( Anderson)
As per claim 9, Anderson and Dietz teach:
The method of claim 1, where in the one or more data files includes at least structured data.
(Paragraphs [0002], [0012]-[0013] and [0021])(Anderson)
Claims 16 and 18 are system claims respectively corresponding to method claims 1, 9 and they are rejected under the same rational as claims 1, 9.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson and Dietz view of VarGhese et al (hereinafter VarGhese) US Publication No 20220309335.
As per claim 2, Anderson and Dietz do not explicitly teach regular expressions are generated using a Large Language Model (LLM), however in analogous art of content management, Varghese teaches:
one or more regular expressions are generated using a Large Language Model (LLM).
(Paragraphs [0003], [0021] and [0031])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Anderson and Dietz and VarGhese by incorporating the teaching of VarGhese into the method of Anderson and Dietz. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of VarGhese into the system of Anderson and Dietz for the purpose of optimizing regular expression.
Claim 17 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 2 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson and Dietz view of Armstrong et al (hereinafter Armstrong) US Publication No 20060136194.
As per claim 6, Anderson and Dietz do not explicitly teach one or more parsed data files are each in an ontology format of a plurality of ontology formats, however in analogous art of content management, Armstrong teaches:
one or more parsed data files are each in an ontology format of a plurality of ontology formats.
(abstract paragraphs [0026], [0059]-[0060] and [0064]-[0065])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Anderson and Dietz and Armstrong by incorporating the teaching of Dietz into the method of Anderson and Dietz. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Dietz into the system of Anderson and Dietz for the purpose of determining pattern matching based on ontology data.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson and Dietz view of Pathak et al (hereinafter Pathak) US Patent No 12038926.
As per claim 8, Anderson and Dietz do not explicitly teach one or more data files includes at least unstructured data, however in analogous art of data management, Pathak teaches:
one or more data files includes at least unstructured data.
(Column 10, lines 34-40 and column 20, lines 41-53 and column 33, lines 28-47)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Anderson and Dietz and Pathak by incorporating the teaching of Pathak into the method of Anderson and Dietz. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Pathak into the system of Anderson and Dietz for the purpose of processing data coming from different sources.
Claim 10-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson and Dietz view of Weiyu Li (hereinafter LI) US Publication No 20240256951.
As per claim 10, Anderson and Dietz do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more graphs include a plurality of nodes, each of the plurality of nodes is mapped to an entity, however in analogous art of data management, Li teaches:
wherein the one or more graphs include a plurality of nodes, each of the plurality of nodes is mapped to an entity.
(Paragraphs [0184] and [0191]-[0194])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Anderson and Dietz and Li by incorporating the teaching of Li into the method of Anderson and Dietz. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Li into the system of Anderson and Dietz for the purpose of visualizing node relationship and enabling walk based on predefined number of hops.
As per claim 11, Anderson and Dietz and Li teach:
The method of claim 10, wherein the one or more graphs include a plurality of edges between one or more of the plurality of nodes, each edge of the plurality of edges is mapped to a relationship.
(Paragraphs [0184] and [0191]-[0194])(Li)
As per claim 13, Anderson and Dietz and Li teach:
The method of claim 11, wherein a directed edge of the plurality of edges between one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes in the one or more graphs represent a non-commutative relationship.
(Paragraphs [0184] and [0191]-[0194])(Li)
As per claim 14, Anderson and Dietz and Li teach:
The method of claim 13, wherein the directed edge represents a relationship type including a fork, has, read, modified, created, part of, deleted, connected, or opened.
(Paragraphs [0184] and [0191]-[0194])(Li)
As per claim 15, Anderson and Dietz and Li teach:
The method of claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of nodes represent a command line call, registry, processes, executable binary, applications, network flow, mutual exclusion (mutex) calls, atoms, or files.
(Paragraphs [0184] and [0191]-[0194])(Li)
Claim 19 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 11 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 11.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson and Dietz view of Paulson et al (hereinafter Paulson) US Publication No 20220138492.
As per claim 12, Anderson and Dietz and Li do not explicitly teach undirected edge of the plurality of edges between one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes in the one or more graphs represent a commutative relationship, however in analogous art of data management, Paulson teaches:
undirected edge of the plurality of edges between one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes in the one or more graphs represent a commutative relationship.
(Paragraph [0100])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Anderson and Dietz and Li and Paulson by incorporating the teaching of Paulson into the method of Anderson and Dietz and Li. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Paulson into the system of Anderson and Dietz and Li for the purpose of managing entities association with graph structure.
As per claim 20, Anderson and Dietz and Li teach:
The system of claim 19, wherein an undirected edge of the plurality of edges between one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes in the one or more graphs represent a commutative relationship and a directed edge of the plurality of edges between one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes in the one or more graphs represent a non-commutative relationship
(Paragraphs [0184] and [0191]-[0194])(Li)
Anderson and Dietz and Li do not explicitly teach undirected edge of the plurality of edges between one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes in the one or more graphs represent a commutative relationship, however in analogous art of data management, Paulson teaches:
wherein an undirected edge of the plurality of edges between one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes in the one or more graphs represent a commutative relationship
(Paragraph [0100])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Anderson and Dietz and Li and Paulson by incorporating the teaching of Paulson into the method of Anderson and Dietz and Li. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Paulson into the system of Anderson and Dietz and Li for the purpose of managing entities association with graph structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 3/4/2026