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 .
Detail Action
2. This office action is response to the application filed on . Claims 1-20 are pending in this communication.
Double Patenting
3. 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,8 and 15 of Application No. 17581068 of Mattsson et al. (US Pat No. 12284280 B2) and claim 1,8 and 15 of Application No. 18970675 of Mattsson et al. (US PUB No. 20250106025 A1)
Regarding claim 1, A method comprising: receiving, at a local computing system, a string of characters representing a date and time; (‘068: claim 1, “A method comprising: receiving, at a local computing system, a string of characters comprising a date portion of characters, a time portion of characters, and a microseconds portion of characters, the string of characters representative of a date and time at a microsecond granularity”) (‘675: claim 1,”A method comprising: receiving, at a local computing system, a string of characters comprising a date portion of characters and a time portion of characters, the string of characters representative of a specific date and time”)
querying, by the local computing system, a token server using a first portion of the string of characters to access a first set of token tables and using a second portion of the string of characters to access a second set of token tables; (‘‘068: claim 1, “querying, by the local computing system, a token server using the date portion of characters to access a first set of token tables, using the time portion of characters to access a second set of token tables, and using the microseconds portion of characters to access a third set of token tables”) (‘675: claim 1,”querying, by the local computing system, a token server using the date portion of characters to access a first set of token tables and using the time portion of characters to access a second set of token tables;)
instantiating, by the local computing system, a first tokenization pipeline configured to use the first set of token tables to perform tokenization operations and a second tokenization pipeline configured to use the second set of token tables to perform tokenization operations, the first tokenization pipeline and the second tokenization pipeline configured to operate in parallel to tokenize the string of characters, wherein the first tokenization pipeline performs a first tokenization operation using a first output of a second tokenization operation from the second tokenization pipeline as input, and wherein the second tokenization pipeline performs a third tokenization operation using a second output of the first tokenization operation from the first tokenization pipeline as input; (‘‘068: claim 1, “instantiating, by the local computing system, a first tokenization pipeline, a second tokenization pipeline, and a third tokenization pipeline configured to operate in parallel to tokenize the string of characters, wherein: the first tokenization pipeline is configured to perform one or more sequential tokenization operations on the date portion of characters using the first set of token tables to produce a tokenized date portion of characters, the second tokenization pipeline is configured to perform one or more sequential tokenization operations on the time portion of characters using the second set of token tables to produce a tokenized time portion of characters, the third tokenization pipe is configured to perform one or more sequential tokenization operations on the microseconds portion of characters using the third set of token tables to produce a tokenized microseconds portion of characters, and each tokenization pipeline is configured to perform a tokenization operation based at least in part of an output of a tokenization operation from a different tokenization pipeline”) (‘675: claim 1,” instantiating, by the local computing system, a first tokenization pipeline configured to use the first set of token tables to perform tokenization operations and a second tokenization pipeline configured to use the second set of token tables to perform tokenization operations, the first tokenization pipeline and the second tokenization pipeline configured to operate in parallel to tokenize the string of characters, wherein the first tokenization pipeline is configured to receive as input a first output of a tokenization operation from the second tokenization pipeline such that the first output is used by both the first tokenization pipeline and the second tokenization pipeline to perform different sequential tokenization operations associated with the first tokenization pipeline and the second tokenization pipeline, and wherein the first tokenization pipeline is configured to provide a second output of at least one sequential tokenization operation associated with the first tokenization pipeline to the second tokenization pipeline such that the second output is used by both the first tokenization pipeline and the second tokenization pipeline to perform different sequential tokenization operations associated with the first tokenization pipeline and the second tokenization pipeline;”)
combining tokenized outputs from the first tokenization pipeline and the second tokenization pipeline produce a combined tokenized string of characters and providing, by the local computing system, the combined tokenized string of characters to a remote computing system. (‘‘068: claim 1,”combining the tokenized date portion of characters, the tokenized time portion of characters, and the tokenized microseconds portion of characters to produce a combined tokenized output and providing, by the local computing system, the combined tokenized output to a remote computing system”) (‘675: claim 1,”combining tokenized outputs from the first tokenization pipeline and the second tokenization pipeline produce a combined tokenized string of characters and providing, by the local computing system, the combined tokenized string of characters to a remote computing system.”)
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2,9 and 16 of Application No. 17581068 of Mattsson et al. (US Pat No. 12284280 B2) and claim 2,9 and 16 of Application No. 18970675 of Mattsson et al. (US PUB No. 20250106025 A1).
.
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1, wherein the first tokenization pipeline is configured to delay the performance of one or more tokenization operations until the second tokenization pipeline completes the performance of a tokenization operation. (‘068: claim 2, “The method of claim 1, wherein the first tokenization pipeline is configured to delay the performance of one or more tokenization operations until the second tokenization pipeline completes the performance of a tokenization operation”) (‘675: claim 2,”The method of claim 1, wherein the first tokenization pipeline is configured to delay the performance of one or more tokenization operations until the second tokenization pipeline completes the performance of a tokenization operation.”)
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3,10 and 17 of Application No. 17581068 of Mattsson et al. (US Pat No. 12284280 B2) and claim 3,10 and 17 of Application No. 18970675 of Mattsson et al. (US PUB No. 20250106025 A1).
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 2, wherein the second tokenization pipeline is configured to delay the performance of one or more tokenization operations until the first tokenization pipeline completes the performance of a tokenization operation. (‘068: claim 3, “The method of claim 2, wherein the second tokenization pipeline is configured to delay the performance of one or more tokenization operations until the first tokenization pipeline completes the performance of a tokenization operation”) (‘675: claim 3,”The method of claim 2, wherein the second tokenization pipeline is configured to delay the performance of one or more tokenization operations until the first tokenization pipeline completes the performance of a tokenization operation”)
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4,11 and 18 of Application No. 17581068 of Mattsson et al. (US Pat No. 12284280 B2) and claim 4,11 and 18 of Application No. 18970675 of Mattsson et al. (US PUB No. 20250106025 A1).
Regarding claim 4, The method of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the string of characters comprises represents a measurement of days and wherein the second portion of the string of characters represents a measurement of seconds. (‘068: claim 4, “The method of claim 1, wherein the date portion of characters comprises four year characters, two month characters, and two day characters; wherein the time portion of characters comprises two hour characters, two minute characters, and two second characters; and wherein the microseconds portion of characters comprises six microsecond characters”) (‘675: claim 4,”The method of claim 1, wherein the date portion of characters comprises four year characters, two month characters, and two day characters; and wherein the time portion of characters comprises two hour characters, two minute characters, and two second characters”)
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5,12 and 19 of Application No. 17581068 of Mattsson et al. (US Pat No. 12284280 B2) and claim 5,12 and 19 of Application No. 18970675 of Mattsson et al. (US PUB No. 20250106025 A1).
Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 1, wherein the token server is located remotely from the local computing system and the remote computing system. (‘068: claim 5, “The method of claim 1, wherein the token server is located remotely from the local computing system and the remote computing system”) (‘675: claim 5, ”The method of claim 1, wherein the token server is located remotely from the local computing system and the remote computing system.”)
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6,13 and 20 of Application No. 17581068 of Mattsson et al. (US Pat No. 12284280 B2) and claim 6,13 and 20 of Application No. 18970675 of Mattsson et al. (US PUB No. 20250106025 A1).
Regarding claim 6, The method of claim 1, wherein each tokenization pipeline is configured to perform a processing operation on a set of characters based on an output from a different tokenization pipeline and prior to performing a tokenization operation on the set of characters. (‘068: claim 6, “The method of claim 1, wherein each tokenization pipeline is configured to perform a processing operation on a set of characters based on an output from a different tokenization pipeline and prior to performing a tokenization operation on the set of characters”) (‘675: claim 6, ”The method of claim 1, wherein each tokenization pipeline is configured to perform a processing operation on a set of characters based on an output from a different tokenization pipeline and prior to performing a tokenization operation on the set of characters.”)
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.
4. Claims 1-3,5-10,12-17,19-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goyal et al (US 11449371 B1) in view of Leighton et. Al (US 10108605 B1) and further in view of Mattsson et. Al (US 20150095252 A1)
Regarding Claim 1:
Goyal discloses:
a. A method (Col.1/line 55-56; “method …illustrates how … indexers perform a search query”) comprising:
b. receiving, at a local computing system, (Col.67/line 57-58; “At block 742, a
query is received by a data intake and query system”) a string of characters
representing a date and time; (Col.55/line 49-51, Col.56/line 18-28; “a user
…pipeline the results … by asking the query search engine to count the number
of events”, “analyze the search results based on the fields in the events of the
search results… based on pre-specified criteria …date_hour, date_mday,
date_minute”)
c. querying, by the local computing system, (Col.6/line 37-39; “the data intake and query system …. performing queries on events”) a token server using a first portion of the string of characters (Col.33/line 40-50, Col.56/line 20-30, Col.49/line 27-32, Col.49/line 62-65; “data intake and query system ….. include one or more servers …. to implement …. search”, “analyze the search results based on the fields in the events of the search results…..”, “a query can start with a search command …. include …. keywords, phrases…..that specify which results should be obtained”, “the search command can allow events to be filtered by keyword ….. For example, a search command can filter out all events containing the word “warning””) to access …..and using a second portion of the string of characters to access ….. (Col.56/line 20-30, Col.49/line 27-32; “analyze the search results based on the fields in the events of the search results….. based on pre-specified criteria ….. date_hour, date_mday, date_minute”, “a query can start with a search command …. include …. times, dates….that specify which results should be obtained”)
d. ….. by the local computing system, a first tokenization pipeline
configured to (Col.32/line 17-18, Col.28/line 28, Col.6/line 25, Col.2/line 35-36; “first indexer is assigned to process a first set of one or more slices of data”, “events generated from one or more slices of data”, “metadata associated with the set of events”, “data intake and query system …. generate and place events”) ….. to perform tokenization operations (Col.21/line 40-44, Col.11/line 25-28; “the indexer … process the ….. decoding encoded events …. sorting the events (e.g., by index), storing the events in slices ……”, “implements ….data pipelines …..to handle …. data to indexers” the first indexer process the events in pipeline as well as decode the encoded events, thus, construed as the first tokenization pipeline configured to perform tokenization operations) and a second tokenization pipeline configured to ……to perform tokenization operations, (Col.93/line 9-14, Col.94/line 45-50; “second indexer …. process the second set of ….. data….”, “second indexer ….. determine information about the set of one or more groups of data …..extract or identify timestamps, associated metadata …. with the set of one or more groups of data”) the first tokenization pipeline and the second tokenization pipeline configured to ….. the string of characters, (Col.60/line 62-65; “a query can be structured such that multiple indexers …. search results from the multiple indexers is performed…….”) wherein the first tokenization pipeline performs a first tokenization operation using a first output of a second tokenization operation from the second tokenization pipeline as input, and wherein the second tokenization pipeline performs a third tokenization operation using a second output of the first tokenization operation from the first tokenization pipeline as input; ( Col.15/line 56-63, Col.16/line 16-22; “one or more pipeline sets to process …..data….. each pipeline …… include one or more ….. events from the incoming data…… to …. store the output of the …. pipelines, and one or more ….output pipelines ….. to prepare data from the queue for communication…..”, “output of the ….. pipelines ….. placed in an output queue for further processing by one or more …..pipelines”) and
e. combining tokenized outputs from the first tokenization pipeline and the second tokenization pipeline produce a combined tokenized string of characters (Col.16/line 43-45, Col.80/line 22-23; “The output queue pipelines or worker can be used to group events from the queue together and/or encode the grouped events.”, “At block 2004, the ingestor 252 encodes the group of events”) and providing, by the local computing system, (Col.80/line 32-33, Col.12/line 23-24; ” At block 2006, the ingestor …..determines … the …. encoded group….”, “the data intake and query system ….. include …. ingestors”) the combined tokenized string of characters to a remote computing system. (Col.80/line 46-47, Col.40/line 19-24; “At block 2008, the ingestor ….. stores the encoded group of events to a remote data store”, “event …. indicated by ….. characters or character strings….. include ….. special characters ….”)
however, Goyal does not explicitly disclose:
c. ……access a first set of token tables and …. access a second set of token tables;
d. instantiating, by the …. system, a first …. pipeline …. use the first set of token tables ….. and a second …pipeline ….. use the second set of token tables ….. the first …. pipeline and the second ….. pipeline configured to operate in parallel to tokenize the string of characters,
In an analogous reference Leighton discloses:
d. …..instantiating, by the …. System……(Col.6, lines 35-40; “root
node …delegate the responsibilities of generating the pipeline or ….data structure to one or more nodes”) the first ….. pipeline (Col.6, lines 45-49; “The first task in pipeline 212, sentence segmentation… executed …” sentence segmentation is construed as first …..pipeline) and the second ….. pipeline (Col.6, lines 49-53; “The next pipeline task, word tokenization, reads this list of sentences … each sentence into constituent words…..” word tokenization is construed as second ….. pipeline) configured to operate in parallel to tokenize the string of characters, (Col.7/lines 4-11, Col.8/line 10-20, Claim.5; “… a master node… 114, 118… a pipeline and delegate one or more tasks to …..slave nodes, such as nodes 116a-116N, 120a-120N, for execution in parallel…”, “tasks …… consist ….. with the following properties: …. a string indicating the name of the pipeline to be executed”, “the ….. task comprises …. tokenization”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Goyal’s method of illustrating how a search head and indexers perform a search query by enhancing Goyal’s method to include Leighton’s method for natural language processing in order to include parallel operation of multiple pipelines.
The motivation: Multiple pipelines operating parallelly, enable multiple processors to perform different tasks in parallel order, thus produce the desired output more easily.
however, Goyal in view of Leighton does not explicitly discloses;
c. ……access a first set of token tables and …. access a second set of token tables; …..
d. …. use the first set of token tables ….. and ….. use the second set of token tables …..
In an analogous reference Mattsson discloses;
c. ……access a first set of token tables and …. (Abstract, Para.0005; “A token table is selected from a set of token tables”, “a first token can be retrieved from the first token table”) …. access a second set of token tables…(Para.0005; “A second token can be retrieved from a second token table”)
d. …. use the first set of token tables ….. (Abstract, Para.0005; “A token table is selected from a set of token tables”, “a first token can be retrieved from the first token table”) and ….. use the second set of token tables ….. (Para.0005; “A second token can be retrieved from a second token table”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Goyal in view of Leighton’s method of illustrating how a search head and indexers perform a search query by enhancing Goyal in view of Leighton’s method to include Mattsson’s method for tokenizing data in order to include different set of token table.
The motivation: each set of token tables allows different sets of tokenized data to be accessed from one or more token tables, therefore it would be convenient to query about different portion of data from different token table. Also, each set of token tables can be stored on a different server which increases scalability and reliability because if one server goes down or encounters problems, the other can continue functioning independently.
With respect to independent claims 8 and 15, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 1; therefore, claims 8 and 15 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
Goyal in view of Leighton and further in view of Mattsson discloses:
The method of claim 1,wherein the first tokenization pipeline is configured to ….. one or more tokenization operations ….. the second tokenization pipeline ….. of a tokenization operation. (Goyal, disclosed in claim 1)
…. first ……pipeline is configured to delay the performance of one or more …..operations until the second …..pipeline completes the performance of a ….. operation. (Leighton, Col.2/lines 1-6, Fig.4, [element 404, 408, 410,412,414], Col.11/lines 35-60; “…. the first task …. and a request to execute a second …. task in the ordered sequence”, “At step 404, ….. an ordered sequence of …. tasks (e.g., a pipeline) … At step 408, ….. transmit the data structure and a request to execute a first …… task in the ordered sequence to a …. Once the request is received, ….. execute the first …. task … to produce a first task output (step 410). The first task output can then be inserted into the data structure (step 412), and ….. transmit the data structure having the first task output to …. (step 414)” in an ordered sequence as the second task executes after the first task transmits, and so on, it is indicated a delay in performance of each operation)
With respect to dependent claims 9 and 16, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 2; therefore, claims 9 and 16 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3:
Goyal in view of Leighton and further in view of Mattsson discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the second tokenization pipeline is configured to …. performance of one or more tokenization operations ….(Goyal, disclosed in claim 1)
…..the second …… pipeline is configured to delay the performance of one or more tokenization operations until the third …. pipeline completes the performance of a tokenization operation. (Leighton, Col.2/lines 1-6, Fig.4, [element 404, 408, 410,412,414], Col.11/lines 35-60; “…. the first task …. and a request to execute a second …. task in the ordered sequence”, “At step 404, ….. an ordered sequence of …. tasks (e.g., a pipeline) … At step 408, ….. transmit the data structure and a request to execute a first …… task in the ordered sequence to a …. Once the request is received, ….. execute the first …. task … to produce a first task output (step 410). The first task output can then be inserted into the data structure (step 412), and ….. transmit the data structure having the first task output to …. (step 414)”as the second task executes after the first task transmits, and so on in an order sequence after the second task executes, the third task starts transmitting as all the tasks are executed in sequence, it is indicated a delay in performance of each operation)
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 17, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 3; therefore, claims 10 and 17 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5:
Goyal in view of Leighton and further in view of Mattsson discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the token server is located remotely from the local computing system and the remote computing system. (Goyal, Col.80/line 47, Col 32/line 50-60; “stores the ….. events to a remote data store”, “data intake and query system ….. comprises …. server ……”)
With respect to dependent claims 12 and 19, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 5; therefore, claims 12 and 19 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6:
Goyal in view of Leighton and further in view of Mattsson discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein each tokenization pipeline …. tokenization operation ….(Goyal, disclosed in claim 1)
each…. pipeline is configured to perform a processing operation (Leighton, Col.6, lines 34-35: ”The ….data structure …. include configuration options for each pipeline task”) on a set of characters based on an output from a different …. pipeline (Col.2, lines 3-9; “the data structure having the first task output and a request to execute a second …. task in the ordered sequence, …. to produce a second task output, wherein the first task output serves as an input to the second …. task”) and prior to performing a …… operation on the set of characters. (Col.6, Lines 14-25; “FIG. 2A depicts a pipeline ….ncluding a plurality of …. tasks 202a-202N in an ordered sequence. The individual …. tasks 202a-202N can be any …..operation such as, …...word tokenization … each …. task 202a-202N in pipeline ….is provided with one or more inputs 204a-204N and produces one or more outputs 206a-206N …. the input to a particular task in a pipeline will be the output of the previous task in the pipeline. For example, output 206a of ….task 202a can be provided as input 204b to …task 202b”)
With respect to dependent claims 13 and 20, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 6; therefore, claims 13 and 20 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7:
Goyal in view of Leighton and further in view of Mattsson discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the local computing system …… tokenization pipelines, and wherein the tokenized outputs from …… tokenization pipelines are combined to produce the combined tokenized string of characters. (Goyal, disclosed in claim 1)
…. the ….. system instantiates three or more ….pipelines…..(Leighton, Col.6, lines 35-40/ Col.6, lines 45-49/ Col.6, lines 49-53/Col.6, lines 15-19; “root node …delegate the responsibilities of generating the pipeline or blade data structure to one or more nodes”, “The first task in pipeline 212, sentence segmentation… executed and the output 214…” sentence segmentation is construed as first pipeline, “The next pipeline task, word tokenization, reads this list of sentences … each sentence into constituent words, and stores the result on the blade” word tokenization is construed as second pipeline, “The individual NLP tasks …can be any NLP operation such as…part of speech tagging” part of speech tagging is construed as third pipeline)
With respect to dependent claim 14, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 7; therefore, claim 14 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 7.
Claims 4,11 and 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goyal et al (US 11449371 B1) in view of Leighton et. Al (US 10108605 B1) also in view of Mattsson et. Al (US 20150095252 A1) and further in view of Hembry et. Al (US 20020046201 A1)
Regarding Claim 4:
Goyal in view of Leighton and further in view of Mattsson discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the string of characters ….. and wherein the second portion of the string of characters …..(Goyal, disclosed in claim 1)
however, Goyal in view of Leighton and further in view of Mattsson does not explicitly discloses:
…… the first portion of the string of characters comprises represents a measurement of days and wherein the second portion of the string of characters represents a measurement of seconds.
In an analogous reference Hembry discloses:
…… the first portion of the string of characters comprises represents a measurement of days (Hembry, Para.0058, Para.1105; “holds the value of a duration…..whether this duration value is in units of years, months, days, …. value can also be of a composite type defining a "Date Duration" of the form yyyymmdd….”, “….. character form yyyy-mm-dd…..”) and wherein the second portion of the string of characters represents a measurement of seconds. (Hembry, Para.0058, Para.1105; “holds the value of a duration…..whether this duration value is in units of …. minutes seconds…. "Time Duration" of the form hhmmss, or a "Timestamp Duration" of the form …hhmmss….”, “….. character form ….-hh.mm.ss…..”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Goyal in view of Leighton and further in view of Mattsson’s method of illustrating how a search head and indexers perform a search query by enhancing Goyal in view of Leighton and further in view of Mattsson’s method to include Hembry’s method for defining object classes to match corresponding specialized data types.
The motivation: the string of characters representative of measurement of days and seconds can be parsed and understood by humans or programs easily.
With respect to dependent claims 11 and 18, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 4; therefore, claims 11 and 18 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAYEDA SALMA NAHAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached on (571) 270-3351. 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.
/SAYEDA SALMA NAHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/BEEMNET W DADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights