DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 16, & 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection. See Office Action below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,360,991. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use similar limitations to produce the same end result of in response to receiving a user selection of the particular cell of the plurality of cells in the table format, causing display of a plurality of options corresponding to the particular cell, wherein an option included in the plurality of options is selected for display based on a data analysis performed in association with the particular cell selected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,360,991 to arrive at the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application because one would realize that the remaining elements would perform the same functions as before.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Kenney et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0101013 A1).
In respect to Claim 1, Kenney teaches:
a computer-implemented method comprising: causing display of a set of events within a table format that includes: one or more columns, each column corresponding to an event attribute, and a plurality of rows forming a plurality of cells with the one or more columns, each row of the plurality of rows corresponding to an event of the set of events, wherein a particular cell in a particular row of the plurality of rows is in a particular column of the one or more columns, the particular cell comprises one or more data items of the event corresponding to the row, and the one or more data items in the particular cell correspond to the event attribute of the particular column; (Kenney teaches [0019] displaying on a display device a table of data through a user interface, with columns and rows of data items and records, wherein these data records are analogous to an event corresponding to the row, and attributes such as customer, order id, and order date are attributes of columns within the data table.)
and in response to receiving a user selection of the particular cell of the plurality of cells in the table format, (Kenney teaches [Claim 1] receiving a signal from a use through the user interface to select a portion of data in a cell of the displayed table.)
causing display of a plurality of options corresponding to the particular cell, (Kenney teaches [0007] filter options are displayed.)
wherein an option included in the plurality of options is selected for display based on a data analysis performed in association with the one or more data items in the particular cell selected (Kenney teaches [0007, 0063, 0074] analyzing a context of the selection of the portion of data, wherein the analysis is based upon a type of the selection portion of data; the content of the menu of filters is automatically generated in response to the analysis, comprising filters specifically related to the context and default filters.)
As per Claim 2, Kenney teaches:
wherein the set of events corresponds to search results of a search query represented as a search string that specifies an initial plurality of search commands (Kenney [0035, 0048-0049])
As per Claim 4, Kenney teaches:
wherein the set of events corresponds to search results of a search query represented as a search string that specifies an initial plurality of search commands and the method further comprises: in response to receiving a user selection of a first option corresponding with a command for including in the search query for searching the set of events within the table format, causing the command to be added to the initial plurality of search commands (Kenney teaches [0047-0048] if the existing filter is not mutually exclusive to the filter selection, applying the filter selection in conjunction with the existing filter; if mutually exclusive, the existing filter is removed and the selected one applied.)
As per Claim 5, Kenney teaches:
receiving a user selection of the option included in the plurality of options, wherein the option corresponds with a command for inclusion in a search query for searching the set of events within the table format; (Kenney [0035, 0048-0049])
and in response to receiving the user selection of the option corresponding to the particular cell in the table format, generating one or more search commands, based on the option, for searching the set of events within the table format (Kenney [0035, 0048-0049] teaches [0043] receiving a filter selection from the menu of filters; generating a filter query, wherein the value of the key field is used to determine whether a given row is filtered.)
As per Claim 6, Kenney teaches:
receiving a user selection of the option included in the plurality of options, wherein the option corresponds with a command for inclusion in a search query for searching the set of events within the table format; in response to receiving the user selection of the option corresponding to the particular cell in the table format, adding the command to the search query; executing the search query including the command corresponding with the option; and updating the set of events within the table format based on execution of the search query (Kenney teaches [0055] applying the generated filter query to the table of data displaying on the display device a table of results; the results are rendered in place of the original, unfiltered table.)
As per Claim 8, Kenney teaches:
wherein the option is selected for display in association with the plurality of options based on a determination that at least one of the one or more of the data items of the particular cell is of a numeric data type (Kenney teaches [0037] analysis based upon a type of the selected portion of data; number-specific filters such as smallest and greater than average.)
As per Claim 9, Kenney teaches:
wherein the option is selected for display in association with the plurality of options based on a determination that at least one of the one or more of the data items of the particular cell is of a categorical data type (Kenney teaches [0035, 0072] string specific filters offered when the selection is a categorical data type.)
Claim 16 is the system claim corresponding to method claim 1 above, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claim 19 is the media claim corresponding to method claim 1 above, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
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(s) 3, 10-11, 14-15, & 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of HINTERBICHLER et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0301996 A1).
As per Claim 3, HINTER teaches:
wherein each event included in the set of events corresponds to a portion of raw machine data and is associated with a timestamp (HINTER teaches [0023] log messages includes a timestamp, wherein log messages are portions of raw machine data.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of HINTER into the system of Kenney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an effective system of finding information within the log data that identifies problems in spite of the overwhelming scale and volume of the log data to be analyzed. (HINTER [0003])
As per Claim 10, HINTER teaches:
wherein the option is selected for display in association with the plurality of options based on a determination that at least one of the one or more of the data items of the particular cell comprises raw machine data for a first event of the set of events (HINTER teaches [0023] log messages includes a timestamp, wherein log messages are portions of raw machine data.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of HINTER into the system of Kenney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an effective system of finding information within the log data that identifies problems in spite of the overwhelming scale and volume of the log data to be analyzed. (HINTER [0003])
As per Claim 11, HINTER teaches:
wherein the option is selected for display in association with the plurality of options based on a determination that at least one of the one or more of the data items of the particular cell comprises, for a first event of the set of events, a timestamp associated with raw machine data of the first event (HINTER teaches [0023] log messages includes a timestamp, wherein log messages are portions of raw machine data.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of HINTER into the system of Kenney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an effective system of finding information within the log data that identifies problems in spite of the overwhelming scale and volume of the log data to be analyzed. (HINTER [0003])
As per Claim 14, HINTER teaches:
causing a field label of a field label-value pair to be detected in a subportion of text displayed in the particular cell; and causing the field label to be displayed as the option in the displayed plurality of options (HINTER teaches [0025, 0037] that the user selects text in a log message; such as an extract field button appears; wherein extracted-field definition is then usable in searches and filters; displaying the detected field label itself as a menu option.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of HINTER into the system of Kenney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an effective system of finding information within the log data that identifies problems in spite of the overwhelming scale and volume of the log data to be analyzed. (HINTER [0003])
As per Claim 15, HINTER teaches:
wherein the data items of the event attribute associated with the particular cell each comprise a value extracted from the set of events using a common extraction rule (HINTER teaches [0013] the extracted field definition can be applied to the entirety of log data like statically defined fields.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of HINTER into the system of Kenney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an effective system of finding information within the log data that identifies problems in spite of the overwhelming scale and volume of the log data to be analyzed. (HINTER [0003])
Claims 17-18 are the system claims corresponding to method claims 15 & 3 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claim(s) 7, 12-13, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of Rothschiller et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0145244 A1).
As per Claim 7, Rothschiller teaches:
wherein the option is selected for display in association with the plurality of options based on a determination that the particular cell is an empty cell (Rothschiller teaches [0043] a quick analysis entry button shown when two or more non-blank cells are selected, wherein a blank or non-blank determination affects the offered tool.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Rothschiller into the system of Kenney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an analysis tool by which a user can apply data analysis features while bypassing the potentially steep learning curve and high barrier of entry for new and less advanced users of a spreadsheet application. (Rothschiller [0004])
As per Claim 12, Rothschiller teaches:
wherein the selected particular cell comprises a first selected cell and a second selected cell, and the option is selected for display in association with the plurality of options based on a determination that the second selected cell is in a second column of the one or more columns and the second cell is separate from the particular column (Rothschiller teaches [0005] selection of a range of cells (necessarily multiple cells, potentially spanning columns) drives the offer features. Determination is keyed to the second cell’s separate column.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Rothschiller into the system of Kenney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an analysis tool by which a user can apply data analysis features while bypassing the potentially steep learning curve and high barrier of entry for new and less advanced users of a spreadsheet application. (Rothschiller [0004])
As per Claim 13, Rothschiller teaches:
wherein the option is selected for display in association with the plurality of options based on a determination that at least one of the one or more of the data items of the selected particular cell comprises a statistical value generated by one or more statistical functions performed on values of data items of a first event of the set of events (Rothschiller teaches [0030, 0078] calculation options such as sum, average, percentage total, and running total based on determining a statistical value.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Rothschiller into the system of Kenney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an analysis tool by which a user can apply data analysis features while bypassing the potentially steep learning curve and high barrier of entry for new and less advanced users of a spreadsheet application. (Rothschiller [0004])
Claim 20 is the media claim corresponding to method claim 13 above, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 September 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights