Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the claims filed 01/27/2025.
4. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
5. The office action is made Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 03/13/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
7. 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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.
0. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 of U.S Patent No 12277091. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
0. In the table below, the left side is parts of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 in the current application while the right side is the claims and text that conflict with the parts of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20.
19/065,190 (present application)
U.S Patent No 12277091 (18/223,282)
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, an event message at an inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system, wherein the inbound adapter is configured to receive event messages, and wherein the event message is generated by one or more processes for which a hierarchical log of event entries is maintained in a document;
accessing, by the computing device, the document containing the hierarchical log of event entries, wherein the document is stored in a tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system, wherein the tracking repository permits substantially simultaneous access to the document by two or more computing devices; and
adding, by the computing device, an event entry to the hierarchical log in the tracking repository based at least in part on the event message, wherein the event entry comprises information identifying the event message and an execution time for an execution of the one or more process.
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, an asynchronous event message at an inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system, wherein the inbound adapter is configured to receive asynchronous event messages, and wherein the asynchronous event message is generated by an execution of a process of one or more processes for which a hierarchical log of event entries is maintained in a document;
accessing, by the computing device, the document containing the hierarchical log of event entries, wherein the document is stored in a tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system, wherein the tracking repository permits substantially simultaneous access to the document by two or more computing devices, and wherein the hierarchical log of event entries is a record of both a state of the process and logging information for the one or more processes;
adding, by the computing device, an event entry to the hierarchical log in the tracking repository based at least in part on the asynchronous event message, and wherein the event entry comprises information identifying the asynchronous event message, wherein the information includes at least one of a unique identifier (ID) field identifying the asynchronous event message, a process identifier(ID) field identifying the process that caused the asynchronous event message to be generated, a timestamp field comprising an execution time for the event that generated the event message, and a parent identifier {ID) field identifying a parent event entry;
identifying, by the computing device, a corrupted event entry in the hierarchical log;
comparing, by the computing device, the timestamp fields of the event entries in the hierarchical log to the timestamp field of the corrupted event entry;
determining, by the computing device, a parent entry of the corrupted event entry based at least in part on the comparison, wherein the parent event entry immediately precedes the corrupted event entry; and
updating, by the computing device, the parent identifier (ID)field of the corrupted event entry to identify the parent entry.
Claims 3-7
Claims 3-7
Same rejections applied to claims 8, 9-14 (system claims) and 15, 17-20 (non-transitory computer-readable medium claims).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to a non-transitory medium, and claims 15-20 are directed to a system. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea in the following limitations:
adding, by the computing device, an event entry to the hierarchical log in the tracking repository based at least in part on the event message, wherein the event entry comprises information identifying the event message and an execution time for an execution of the one or more process.
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, it can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. One can mentally maintain such a text list in the form of a hierarchical log, and add an entry to such a mental list, wherein the event entry comprises information identifying the event message and an execution time for an execution of the one or more process. Accordingly, under the BRI these limitations recite a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements such as “a computing device, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 1); A non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computer system, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 8); A system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and one or more processors, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 20)”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
The claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the following additional elements, which do not provide integration into a practical application:
The additional elements “a computing device, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 1); A non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computer system, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 8); A system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and one or more processors, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 20)”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the limitations of "receiving, by a computing device, an event message at an inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system, wherein the inbound adapter is configured to receive event messages, and wherein the event message is generated by one or more processes for which a hierarchical log of event entries is maintained in a document; accessing, by the computing device, the document containing the hierarchical log of event entries, wherein the document is stored in a tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system, wherein the tracking repository permits substantially simultaneous access to the document by two or more computing devices".
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “receiving…accessing is using generic computer hardware to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and amount to extra-solution activity of data collecting, see MPEP 2106.05(g), that does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); GIP Techs., Inc. V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Significantly More
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(II) for Step 2B, examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h).
Therefore, the additional elements and the conclusions above under MPEP 2106.05(f) are carried over and these elements do not provide significantly more.
The conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two that additional elements were insignificant extra-solution activity should be re-evaluated in Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
With respect to ““a computing device, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 1); A non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computer system, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 8); A system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and one or more processors, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 20)””
These limitations are described in Applicant's own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Para [0100], [0106-0107], [0110] and [0120]. These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above which fall under well-understood, routine and conventional functions of generic computers.
With respect to the “receiving, by a computing device, an event message at an inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system, wherein the inbound adapter is configured to receive event messages, and wherein the event message is generated by one or more processes for which a hierarchical log of event entries is maintained in a document; accessing, by the computing device, the document containing the hierarchical log of event entries, wherein the document is stored in a tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system, wherein the tracking repository permits substantially simultaneous access to the document by two or more computing devices”
Receiving and accessing data (data gathering, obtaining, or receiving data) is considered insignificant extra-solution activity under 35 U.S.C. 101 when it is merely necessary to initiate a judicial exception (like an abstract idea or law of nature). It is deemed "well-understood, routine, and conventional" activity that does not transform an unpatentable concept into a patent-eligible Thus, this additional element is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity, when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); …”. Thus, this remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Even when considered in combination and viewing the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 merely incorporate additional elements that narrow the abstract idea without yielding an improvement to any technical field, the computer itself, or limitations beyond merely linking the idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 2, 9 &16
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“Identifying, by the computing device, a parent entry for the event entry based at least in part on the execution time.” Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
This is a mental process. One can mentally identify a parent entry-based execution time.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claims 3, 10 &17
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“Wherein accessing the document further comprises creating the document”. Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
This is a mental process. One can mentally creating a document.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claims 4, 11 and 18
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 4 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: Wherein the event entry includes a state of the one or more processes (This amounts to linking the abstract idea to a field of user, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are mere linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are: " Wherein the event entry includes a state of the one or more processes " which amount to linking the abstract idea to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are merely linking the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12 &19
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“Updating, by the computing device, event entry based on a change in the state of the one or more processes”. Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
This is a mental process. One can mentally update an event entry based on a change in the state of the one or more processes.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 &12
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“Querying, by the computing device, the hierarchical log” Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
The additional limitation of”Querying, by the computing device, the hierarchical log” (This is amount to extra-solution activity of data collecting, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of " Querying, by the computing device, the hierarchical log;" amount to data collect or accessing data and is well-understood, routine and conventional and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.06(d)(II)(iv) wherein it cites "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; ".
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claims 7 &14
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“Aggregating, by the computing device, the hierarchical log with one or more additional hierarchical logs”. Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
This is a mental process. One can mentally aggregate plurality of hierarchical logs.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
12. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Dasdan et al (US 11606614 B1) hereinafter as Dasdan in view of Torman et al (US 20150127670 A1) hereinafter as Torman.
13. Regarding claim 1, Dasdan teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, an event message at an inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system, wherein the inbound adapter is configured to receive event messages (Fig 1A, “the application platform 102 (document-based monitoring) comprises event feed service 110 (an inbound adapter) ” col 7, lines 39-42, “The event feed service 110 may generate event feeds, and may send and receive information relating to the event feeds”, col 7, lines 63-67, “receiving user inputs relating to the creation and/or modification of documents, and the like.” , col 8, lines 14-25, “receiving user inputs relating to the creation and/or modification of issue tickets (e.g., changing status, receiving content related to the issue and/or issue resolution, etc.), changes to issue status, changes to user assignments, and the like.”, col 9, lines 5-15, “receive notifications of events (and optionally content associated with the events).”, col 16, lines 32-43, “The event feed service 110 receives the event notifications 120 from content sources (e.g., software applications 112) and the API calls from third-party sources and generates feed items based on the notifications.”), and
wherein the event message is generated by one or more processes for which a hierarchical log of event entries is maintained in a document ([0025], “a parent-child relationship between the records.”) (Fig 1A, “The application services 114-1 (one or more processes) of the collaborative document system” col 7, lines 52-67, “The application services 114-1 may also send to the event feed service 110 notifications of events relating to user-generated documents stored in the data store 116-1”, “Documents may be linked or otherwise related to one another in a document hierarchy (a hierarchical log of event entries). Documents (e.g., user-generated documents) may be stored in the data store 116-1 as files, data structures, or the like.”, col 33, lines 17-33, “documents may be generated, displaying a workspace and/or document hierarchy, etc.).”);
accessing, by the computing device, the document containing the hierarchical log of event entries (col 8, lines 49-67, “The content relationship service 118 may monitor, track, analyze, and/or store information about relationships between and among content items and users of the application platform 102… The CRS 118 may analyze the information to determine links between content items, user-generated documents, users, teams, projects, issues, issue tickets, codebases, and/or other entities of the application platform 102”), wherein the document is stored in a tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Fig 1A, “the data store 116-1 (a tracking repository)”, col 7, lines 52-62, “The collaborative document system may allow users (e.g., via clients 104) to create, modify, view, and/or otherwise interact with documents, which may be stored in the data store 116-1… Documents (e.g., user-generated documents) may be stored in the data store 116-1 as files, data structures, or the like.”), wherein the tracking repository permits substantially simultaneous access to the document by two or more computing devices (Fig 1A, “a collaborative document system”, col 7, lines 52-62, “The collaborative document system may allow users (e.g., via clients 104) to create, modify, view, and/or otherwise interact with documents”, col 6, lines 5-10, “notifications of activities of the other user (e.g., when the other user comments on or edits a documents or changes a status of an issue ticket, etc.)”, col 11, lines 1-16, “the feed source recommendation service 111 may indicate that a finding of relevance between a user and a feed item source is based on a shared attribute in their respective identity data structures (e.g., a user and a document are both associated with a same project, or a user and another user interact with similar documents, etc.).”).
Dasdan did not specifically teach adding, by the computing device, an event entry to the hierarchical log in the tracking repository based at least in part on the event message, wherein the event entry comprises information identifying the event message and an execution time for an execution of the one or more process.
However, Torman teaches adding, by the computing device, an event entry to the hierarchical log in the tracking repository based at least in part on the event message, wherein the event entry comprises information identifying the event message and an execution time for an execution of the one or more process ([0025], “providing a parent-child relationship (hierarchical log) between the records.”, Fig 3A, “event entry with timestamp”, [0039], “Each of the five log entries in log file 310 may also be generated upon a client action by the multi-tenant system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Torman’s system into Dasdan’s and by incorporating Torman into Dasdan because both systems are related to monitoring data would provisioning log file data (abstract, Torman).
14. Regarding claim 3, Dasdan and Torman teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Dasdan further teaches wherein accessing the document further comprises creating the document (Fig 1A, col 7, lines 52-62, “The collaborative document system may allow users (e.g., via clients 104) to create, modify, view, and/or otherwise interact with documents, which may be stored in the data store 116-1. Documents may be user-generated, and may include content such as text, images, graphics, tables, or the like.”).
15. Regarding claim 4, Dasdan and Torman teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Torman further teaches wherein the event entry includes a state of the one or more processes ([0107], “The tracking and reporting of updates to a record stored in a database system”).
16. Regarding claim 5, Dasdan and Torman teach the invention as claimed in claim 4 above and Torman further teaches updating, by the computing device, event entry based on a change in the state of the one or more processes ([0106-0107], “The tracking and reporting of updates to a record stored in a database system”).
17. Regarding claim 6, Dasdan and Torman teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Torman further teaches querying, by the computing device, the hierarchical log ([0023], [0067], [0096-0098]).
18. Regarding claims 8 and 10-13, those claims recite a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction performs the method of claims 1 and 3-6 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
19. Regarding claims 15 and 17-20, those claims recite a system performs the method of claims 1 and 3-6 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
20. Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Dasdan et al (US 11606614 B1) in view of Torman et al (US 20150127670 A1) as claimed in claim 1 above and further in view of Welc et al (US 20100162247 A1) hereinafter as Welc.
21. Regarding claim 2, Dasdan and Torman teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, Dasdan and Torman did not specifically teach identifying, by the computing device, a parent entry for the event entry based at least in part on the execution time.
However, Welc teaches identifying, by the computing device, a parent entry for the event entry based at least in part on the execution time ([0097], “the entry for the parent transaction is updated with a lowest timestamp value associated with the child threads when the entry is enabled again”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Welc’s system into Dasdan and Torman combined system and by incorporating Welc into Dasdan and Torman combined system because all systems are related to monitoring data would executing nested concurrent threads of a transaction (Welc).
22. Regarding claim 9, this claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction performs the method of claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
23. Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a system performs the method of claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
24. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Dasdan et al (US 11606614 B1) in view of Torman et al (US 20150127670 A1) as claimed in claim 1 above and further in view of Agarwal et al (US 20160378881 A1) hereinafter as Agarwal.
25. Regarding claim 7, Dasdan and Torman teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, Dasdan and Torman did not specifically teach identifying, by the computing device, a parent entry for the event entry based at least in part on the execution time.
However, Agarwal teaches aggregating, by the computing device, the hierarchical log with one or more additional hierarchical logs ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Agarwal’s system into Dasdan and Torman combined system and by incorporating Agarwal into Dasdan and Torman combined system because all systems are related to monitoring data would aggregating and summarizing sequences of hierarchical records (Agarwal).
26. Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction performs the method of claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
CONCLUSION
27. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Ananthakrishnan (US 20180189339 A1)
Naicken et al (US 20060190503 A1)
Raghuraman et al (US 20050021708 A1)
Hejlsberg et al (US 8191040 B2)
Alonso (CN 109690529 A)
Smith (WO 8909963 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights