Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chor et al. (US20210027458A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chor discloses a method comprising (para [0372] shows a monitoring application that provides operational visibility into performance metrics and events from hosts);
receiving input that selects a first option of the plurality of options to enable tracking of the individual event on a user device (para [0094] shows events may be derived from “time series data,” where the time series data comprises a sequence of data points (e.g., performance measurements from a computer system, etc.) that are associated with successive points in time; para [0101] shows a user may manually define extraction rules for certain fields when the events are being created; para [0398] shows the field values represent the values of one or more metrics associated with the identified machines; para [0374] shows these performance metrics can include: (1) CPU-related performance metrics; (2) disk-related performance metrics; (3) memory-related performance metrics; para [0519] shows the mobile client device transmits one or more queries requesting the real-time metric data associated with the identified machines); and
in response to receiving the input that selects the first option of the plurality of options to enable tracking of the individual event on the user device, presenting a second option associated with defining one or more conditions for triggering the tracking of the individual event (para [0152] shows the results (e.g., the machine data obtained from the external data source) are then filtered; para [0201] shows filter criteria can include hosts, sources, source types, time range; para [0377] shows a user interface that enables a user to select a specific time range and then view associated performance metrics for the selected time range. For example, the screen displays a listing of recent “tasks and events” and “average CPU core utilization” for the selected time range.)
Regarding claim 2, Chor as applied to claim 1 discloses:
receiving input via a graphical user interface that selects the second option to define the one or more conditions for triggering the tracking of the individual event; and storing instructions for generating interaction data based on the first and second options (para [0171] shows an indexer may again refer to a source type definition associated with the data to locate one or more properties that indicate instructions for determining a timestamp for each event; para [0377] shows a user interface that enables a user to select a specific time range and then view associated performance metrics for the selected time range. For example, the screen displays a listing of recent “tasks and events” and “average CPU core utilization” for the selected time range. This enables the user to correlate trends in the performance-metric graph for the selected time range with corresponding event and log data to quickly determine the root cause of a performance problem.)
Regarding claim 3, Chor as applied to claim 1 discloses:
aggregating interaction data into an entity [location] associated with a first event type in response to determining that the interaction data corresponds to the first event type (para [0196] shows the indexer indexes the events; para [0214] shows the indexer can group the event references based on their location; para [0218] shows each indexer communicates the groupings to the search head. The search head can aggregate the groupings from the indexers and provide the groupings for display. In some cases, the groups are displayed based on the source type; para [0240] shows if a user interacts with a particular group, the indexer can provide additional information regarding the group); and
storing the entity as part of interaction data (para [0110] shows logs in which details of interactions between the web server and any number of client devices 102 is recorded; para [0249] shows results are stored.)
Regarding claim 4, Chor as applied to claim 1 discloses aggregating the interaction data comprises accumulating the interaction data with one or more prior interactions associated with the first event type (para [0214] shows the indexer can group the event references based on their location; para [0218] shows each indexer communicates the groupings to the search head. The search head can aggregate the groupings from the indexers and provide the groupings for display. In some cases, the groups are displayed based on the source type; para [0240] shows if a user interacts with a particular group, the indexer can provide additional information regarding the group; para [0291] shows for historical searches (e.g., searches based on a particular historical time range), the user can select a specific time range, or alternatively a relative time range, such as “today,” “yesterday” or “last week”; para [0369] shows a histogram of notable events organized by urgency values, and a histogram of notable events organized by time intervals; para [0370] shows these notable events can include a large number of authentication failures.)
Regarding claim 5, Chor as applied to claim 4 discloses applying one or more statistical functions on the accumulated interaction data associated with the first event type (para [0156] shows calculating statistics on the results.)
Regarding claim 6, Chor as applied to claim 3 discloses the interaction data includes a first interaction [authentication failures] and wherein the interaction data includes first interaction data, further comprising: determining that a second interaction [successful authentication] associated with an AR experience corresponds to a second event type; and generating second interaction data for the second event type representing the second interaction (para [0397] shows augmented reality (AR); para [0370] shows notable events can include a large number of authentication failures on a host followed by a successful authentication.)
Regarding claim 7, Chor as applied to claim 5 discloses:
separately tracking first and second interactions using first and second interaction data (para [0207] shows the indexer can track all event references; para [0370] shows notable events can include a large number of authentication failures on a host followed by a successful authentication); and
generating a message that includes the first and second interaction data in response to receiving a request to terminate an AR experience, the message being sent to a remote server [data intake and query system 108] (para [0397] shows augmented reality (AR); para [0109] shows a client device 102 making a request for a specific resource; para [0370] shows notable events can include a large number of authentication failures on a host followed by a successful authentication; para [0455] shows the extended reality application 1814 may generate a 3D model then terminates; para [0398] shows extended reality application 1814 then receives one or more metrics associated with the identified machines.)
Regarding claim 8, Chor as applied to claim 1 discloses:
obtaining a map that associates a list of events [access] with a list of custom events [specific point in time] of an AR experience (para [0397] shows augmented reality (AR); para [0094] shows an event is associated with a specific point in time; para [0114] shows client devices 102 to access various resources of the network-based service; para [0280] shows a user may be able to dynamically create custom fields by highlighting portions of a sample event that should be extracted as fields using a graphical user interface; para [0291] shows the user can select a specific time range, or alternatively a relative time range, such as “today,” “yesterday” or “last week”; para [0298] shows mapping of semantic knowledge about one or more dataset);
determining that a first event type [authentication failures] of first interaction data corresponds to a first event of the list of events; determining that a second event type [successful authentication] of second interaction data corresponds to a second event of the list of events (para [0114] shows client devices 102 to access various resources of the network-based service; para [0370] shows notable events can include a large number of authentication failures on a host followed by a successful authentication); and
visually depicting the first and second interaction data in association with the list of custom events of the AR experience based on the map (para [0280] shows a user may be able to dynamically create custom fields by highlighting portions of a sample event that should be extracted as fields using a graphical user interface; para [0298] shows mapping of semantic knowledge about one or more dataset.)
Regarding claim 9, Chor as applied to claim 1 discloses a first event type is triggered in response to determining a specified camera view being activated during an AR experience, interaction data indicating to a remote server which type of camera view was activated during the AR experience on the user device (para [0397] shows augmented reality (AR); para [0110] shows a web server may generate one or more web server logs in which details of interactions between the web server and any number of client devices 102 is recorded; para [0403] shows extended reality application 1814 receives field values extracted from events, generates AR overlays based on the field values as the camera 1820 is pointed at different machines in the industrial environment. By pointing the camera 1820 at the machine, the technician would then see the AR overlay, enabling the technician to visually determine whether the machine is operating at an excessive temperature or outside of a normal range of CPU or memory utilization).
Regarding claim 10, Chor as applied to claim 9 discloses the specified camera view comprises at least one of front-facing camera view, a rear-facing camera view, or that a specified real-world object is detected in a captured image (para [0403] shows extended reality application 1814 receives field values extracted from events, generates AR overlays based on the field values as the camera 1820 is pointed at different machines in the industrial environment; para [0394] shows extended reality application 1814 may detect the optical data marker.)
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a system. Claim 12 requires limitations that are similar to those recited in the method claim 1 to carry out the method steps. And since the reference of Chor teaches the method including limitations required to carry out the method steps, therefore claim 12 would have also been anticipated by Chor.
Furthermore, Chor discloses at least one processor; and a memory component having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (para [0383]).
Regarding claim 13, Chor as applied to claim 12 discloses the operations further comprising:
presenting a graphical user interface for developing an AR experience (para [0309] shows a graphical user interface 900; para [0397] shows augmented reality (AR));
displaying on the graphical user interface a list of different AR events; and receiving input that selects an individual event from the list of different AR events (para [0101] shows a user may manually define extraction rules for certain fields when the events are being created; para [0398] shows the field values represent the values of one or more metrics associated with the identified machines; para [0374] shows these performance metrics can include: (1) CPU-related performance metrics; (2) disk-related performance metrics; (3) memory-related performance metrics; para [0291] shows the user can select a specific time range, or alternatively a relative time range, such as “today,” “yesterday” or “last week”.)
Regarding claim 14, Chor as applied to claim 12 discloses the operations further comprising:
aggregating interactions into an entity [location] associated with a first event type in response to determining that interaction data corresponds to the first event type (para [0196] shows the indexer indexes the events; para [0214] shows the indexer can group the event references based on their location; para [0218] shows each indexer communicates the groupings to the search head. The search head can aggregate the groupings from the indexers and provide the groupings for display. In some cases, the groups are displayed based on the source type; para [0240] shows if a user interacts with a particular group, the indexer can provide additional information regarding the group); and
storing the entity as part of interaction data (para [0110] shows logs in which details of interactions between the web server and any number of client devices 102 is recorded; para [0249] shows results are stored.)
Regarding claim 15, Chor as applied to claim 14 discloses aggregating the interaction data comprises accumulating the interaction data with one or more prior interactions associated with the first event type (para [0214] shows the indexer can group the event references based on their location; para [0218] shows each indexer communicates the groupings to the search head. The search head can aggregate the groupings from the indexers and provide the groupings for display. In some cases, the groups are displayed based on the source type; para [0240] shows if a user interacts with a particular group, the indexer can provide additional information regarding the group; para [0291] shows for historical searches (e.g., searches based on a particular historical time range), the user can select a specific time range, or alternatively a relative time range, such as “today,” “yesterday” or “last week”; para [0369] shows a histogram of notable events organized by urgency values, and a histogram of notable events organized by time intervals; para [0370] shows these notable events can include a large number of authentication failures.)
Regarding claim 18, Chor as applied to claim 12 discloses the one or more conditions comprise at least one of a level of subscription of an end user, a geographical region associated with the end user, a time of day, one or more levels in a gaming application, or specified views or depictions of real-world environment portions (para [0196] shows the indexer indexes the events; para [0214] shows the indexer can group the event references based on their location; para [0291] shows for historical searches (e.g., searches based on a particular historical time range), the user can select a specific time range, or alternatively a relative time range, such as “today,” “yesterday” or “last week”.)
Regarding claim 19, Chor as applied to claim 12 discloses the operations comprising:
obtaining a map that associates a list of events with a list of custom events of an AR experience (para [0397] shows augmented reality (AR); para [0094] shows events may be derived from “time series data,” where the time series data comprises a sequence of data points (e.g., performance measurements from a computer system, etc.) that are associated with successive points in time);
determining that a first event type of first interaction data [authentication failures] corresponds to a first event of the list of events; determining that a second event type of second interaction data [successful authentication] corresponds to a second event of the list of events (para [0370] shows notable events can include a large number of authentication failures on a host followed by a successful authentication); and
visually depicting the first and second interaction data in association with the list of custom events of the AR experience based on the map (para [0370] shows visualizations can also include an "incident review dashboard" that enables a user to view and act on "notable events.")
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium. Claim 20 requires limitations that are similar to those recited in the method claim 1 to carry out the method steps. And since the reference of Chor teaches the method including limitations required to carry out the method steps, therefore claim 1 would have also been anticipated by Chor.
Furthermore, Chor discloses a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (para [0383]).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being patentable over Chor in view of Wu et al. (US20190245873A1).
Regarding claim 11, Chor as applied to claim 1 discloses an AR experience (para [0397]) but fails to teach:
generating a counter in association with the individual event in response to receiving the input that selects the first option; determining, by the user device, that the one or more conditions for triggering the tracking of the individual event have been satisfied; and in response to determining, by the user device, that the one or more conditions for triggering the tracking of the individual event have been satisfied, incrementing the counter, wherein interaction data comprises value of the counter determined in response to closing of an AR experience.
However Wu, in an analogous art (para [0088] shows virtual reality), discloses:
generating a counter in association with the individual event in response to receiving the input that selects the first option; determining, by the user device, that the one or more conditions for triggering the tracking of the individual event have been satisfied; and in response to determining, by the user device, that the one or more conditions for triggering the tracking of the individual event have been satisfied, incrementing the counter, wherein interaction data comprises value of the counter determined in response to closing of an experience (para [0157] shows one or more accumulators that maintain a count of the occurrences of the one or more anomalies, events, or conditions. Accordingly, this enables one monitoring trigger (or alert trigger) to be configured to activate if the count of the occurrences of one or more anomalies, events, or conditions exceeds one or more defined thresholds; para [0038] shows the Session layer sets up, coordinates, and terminates conversations, exchanges, and dialogues between applications at each end of a connection.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Chor with the teaching of Wu in order to activate the triggers if the monitored metrics deviate from the baseline beyond a defined threshold (Wu; para [0157]).
Claims 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being patentable over Chor in view of Luo et al. (US20210409517A1).
Regarding claim 16, Chor as applied to claim 12 fails to teach the individual event comprises a face lost event, the face lost event being triggered when a face of a person is no longer detected within a camera view of the user device.
However, Luo discloses the individual event comprises a face lost event, the face lost event being triggered when a face of a person is no longer detected within a camera view of the user device (para [0073] shows detection of faces; tracking faces as they leave the field of view in video frames).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Chor with the teaching of Luo in order to track faces as they leave the field of view in video frames (Luo; para [0073]).
Regarding claim 17, Chor as applied to claim 12 fails to teach the individual event comprises a face found event, the face found event being triggered when a new face of a person is detected by a camera of the user device.
However, Luo discloses the individual event comprises a face found event, the face found event being triggered when a new face of a person is detected by a camera of the user device (para [0073] shows detection of faces, tracking faces as they enter the field of view in video frames).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Chor with the teaching of Luo in order to track faces as they enter the field of view in video frames (Luo; para [0073]).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mahajan et al. (US20210142255A1) discloses in [Abstract] mapping interaction attributes to generate custom assessment functionality; para [0052] shows the one or more attributes may include number of attempts, input type; the system may generate an assessment functionality to associate the one or more attributes to a specific user; para [0039] shows augmented reality devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN DOAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, William Trost can be reached on 571-272-7872. 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.
/TAN DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2442
Prosecution Insights