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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the differential signature" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer-implemented method comprising: accessing a plurality of log records, each of the plurality of log records including data that accords with a particular hierarchical data structure; extracting a set of individual log records from the plurality of log records; detecting that at least a first subset of log records in the set of individual log records includes detail information; wherein a header message in at least a second log record in the set of individual log records is specified, in a hierarchy defined for the particular hierarchical data structure, at a different level in a path than particular detail messages in the first subset of log records in the set of individual log records; determining, for the particular detail messages in the first subset of log records, that header information from the header message in the second log record applies to detail information in the particular detail messages; wherein determining that the header information from the header message applies to the detail information in the particular detail messages comprises determining, by a log parser that locates header messages relative to detail messages along the path of the hierarchy, a level of the header message along the path of the hierarchy relative to the particular detail messages; creating a header-details relationship among the header message and the particular detail messages; adding the header information from the header message to the particular detail messages to enrich the particular detail messages; and displaying the enriched particular detail messages on a user interface for data processing; wherein the user interface includes a log search facility and one or more tools for drilling-down into contents of the enriched particular detail messages; wherein the data processing is configured to automatically retrieve enriched particular detail messages that are associated with the header information through a single search via the log search facility”.
The limitations of “creating a header-details relationship among the header message and the particular detail messages; adding the header information from the header message to the particular detail messages to enrich the particular detail messages; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a computer-implemented” to perform the claimed steps. The “computer-implemented” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a computer-implemented” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “accessing a plurality of log records, each of the plurality of log records including data that accords with a particular hierarchical data structure”, “displaying the enriched particular detail messages on a user interface” and “automatically retrieve enriched particular detail messages that are associated with the header information through a single search via the log search facility” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a computer-implemented” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “accessing a plurality of log records, each of the plurality of log records including data that accords with a particular hierarchical data structure”, “displaying the enriched particular detail messages on a user interface” and “automatically retrieve enriched particular detail messages that are associated with the header information through a single search via the log search facility” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of Claim 6, wherein the path is a path to the particular detail messages, and wherein the differential signature identifies an absolute level of header messages along the path to the particular detail messages”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “input via the user interface” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving an input via the user interface” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing a plurality of instructions executable by the one or more processors, the plurality of instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising: accessing a plurality of log records, each of the plurality of log records including data that accords with a particular hierarchical data structure; extracting a set of individual log records from the plurality of log records; detecting that at least a first subset of log records in the set of individual log records includes detail information; wherein a header message in at least a second log record in the set of individual log records is specified, in a hierarchy defined for the particular hierarchical data structure, at a different level in a path than particular detail messages in the first subset of log records in the set of individual log records; determining, for the particular detail messages in the first subset of log records, that header information from the header message in the second log record applies to detail information in the particular detail messages; wherein determining that the header information from the header message applies to the detail information in the particular detail messages comprises determining, by a log parser that locates header messages relative to detail messages along the path of the hierarchy, a level of the header message along the path of the hierarchy relative to the particular detail messages; creating a header-details relationship among the header message and the particular detail messages; adding the header information from the header message to the particular detail messages to enrich the particular detail messages; and displaying the enriched particular detail messages on a user interface for data processing; wherein the user interface includes a log search facility and one or more tools for drilling-down into contents of the enriched particular detail messages; wherein the data processing is configured to automatically retrieve enriched particular detail messages that are associated with the header information through a single search via the log search facility”.
The limitations of “facility and one or more tools for drilling-down into contents of the enriched particular detail messages; wherein the data processing is configured to
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory” to perform the claimed steps. The “system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “accessing a plurality of log records, each of the plurality of log records including data that accords with a particular hierarchical data structure”, “displaying the enriched particular detail messages on a user interface” and “automatically retrieve enriched particular detail messages that are associated with the header information through a single search via the log search facility” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “accessing a plurality of log records, each of the plurality of log records including data that accords with a particular hierarchical data structure”, “displaying the enriched particular detail messages on a user interface” and “automatically retrieve enriched particular detail messages that are associated with the header information through a single search via the log search facility” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a plurality of instructions executable by one or more processors that cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: accessing a plurality of log records, each of the plurality of log records including data that accords with a particular hierarchical data structure; extracting a set of individual log records from the plurality of log records; detecting that at least a first subset of log records in the set of individual log records includes detail information; wherein a header message in at least a second log record in the set of individual log records is specified, in a hierarchy defined for the particular hierarchical data structure, at a different level in a path than particular detail messages in the first subset of log records in the set of individual log records; determining, for the particular detail messages in the first subset of log records, that header information from the header message in the second log record applies to detail information in the particular detail messages; wherein determining that the header information from the header message applies to the detail information in the particular detail messages comprises determining, by a log parser that locates header messages relative to detail messages along the path of the hierarchy, a level of the header message along the path of the hierarchy relative to the particular detail messages; creating a header-details relationship among the header message and the particular detail messages; adding the header information from the header message to the particular detail messages to enrich the particular detail messages; and displaying the enriched particular detail messages on a user interface for data processing; wherein the user interface includes a log search facility and one or more tools for drilling-down into contents of the enriched particular detail messages; wherein the data processing is configured to automatically retrieve enriched particular detail messages that are associated with the header information through a single search via the log search facility”.
The limitations of “
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “one or more processors” to perform the claimed steps. The “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “one or more processors” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “one or more processors” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “accessing a plurality of log records, each of the plurality of log records including data that accords with a particular hierarchical data structure”, “displaying the enriched particular detail messages on a user interface” and “automatically retrieve enriched particular detail messages that are associated with the header information through a single search via the log search facility” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “one or more processors” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “accessing a plurality of log records, each of the plurality of log records including data that accords with a particular hierarchical data structure”, “displaying the enriched particular detail messages on a user interface” and “automatically retrieve enriched particular detail messages that are associated with the header information through a single search via the log search facility” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassi et al. (‘Bassi’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240163668) in view of Myllymaki et al. (‘Myllymaki’ hereinafter) (Myllymaki et al., "Robust web data extraction with xml path expressions." Technical reportz (2002)) and further in view of Luo (Publication 20080140705).
As per claim 1, Bassi teaches
A computer-implemented method comprising: (see abstract and background)
accessing a plurality of log records, each of the plurality of log records including data that accords with a particular hierarchical data structure; extracting a set of individual log records from the plurality of log records; (retrieve from log database, paragraph [0118],[0161],[0172]; log database stores node identifier and corresponding configuration details for the node, paragraphs [0141],[0143]; log records are JSON objects with a particular structure, order, and is a hierarchical structure, paragraphs [0141],[0143],[0145])
detecting that at least a first subset of log records in the set of individual log records includes detail information; (retrieve from log database, paragraph [0118],[0161],[0172]; particular data record corresponding to the node contains node information, paragraphs [0143]-[0146]).
Bassi does not explicitly indicate “wherein a header message in at least a second log record in the set of individual log records is specified, in a hierarchy defined for the particular hierarchical data structure, at a different level in a path than particular detail messages in the first subset of log records in the set of individual log records; determining, for the particular detail messages in the first subset of log records, that header information from the header message in the second log record applies to detail information in the particular detail messages; wherein determining that the header information from the header message applies to the detail information in the particular detail messages comprises determining, by a log parser that locates header messages relative to detail messages along the path of the hierarchy, a level of the header message along the path of the hierarchy relative to the particular detail messages; creating a header-details relationship among the header message and the particular detail messages;”.
However, Myllymaki discloses “wherein a header message in at least a second log record in the set of individual log records is specified, in a hierarchy defined for the particular hierarchical data structure, at a different level in a path than particular detail messages in the first subset of log records in the set of individual log records;” (html page changes where the hierarchical order of table row changes, pages 7-8 & 10, where one of skill in the art would know that that HTML tables have a table header, <thead>, and associated body elements or rows, <tbody> and <tr> elements, and that the Myllymaki discusses changes to the hierarchy over time), “determining, for the particular detail messages in the first subset of log records, that header information from the header message in the second log record applies to detail information in the particular detail messages; wherein determining that the header information from the header message applies to the detail information in the particular detail messages comprises determining, by a log parser that locates header messages relative to detail messages along the path of the hierarchy, a level of the header message along the path of the hierarchy relative to the particular detail messages; creating a header-details relationship among the header message and the particular detail messages;” (traversal graph following path of hops down to desired data, figures 2, 4 & section 4.2, where traversal graph following hops down to desired data reads on log parser that locates header messages relative to detail because in the described HTML table similarly creates relationships between the table header and rows that exist along the path of the hierarchy and they exist at different levels relative to earlier versions of the page).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bassi and Myllymaki because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by reducing the vulnerability in extraction technologies to the continually changing content, structure, and formatting (see Myllymaki, abstract). This gives the user the advantage of being able to correctly and consistently parse files and documents.
Neither Bassi nor Myllymaki explicitly indicate “adding the header information from the header message to the particular detail messages to enrich the particular detail messages; and displaying the enriched particular detail messages on a user interface for data processing; wherein the user interface includes a log search facility and one or more tools for drilling-down into contents of the enriched particular detail messages; wherein the data processing is configured to automatically retrieve enriched particular detail messages that are associated with the header information through a single search via the log search facility”.
However, Luo discloses “adding the header information from the header message to the particular detail messages to enrich the particular detail messages;” (part declared in header of the XML document is inserted into nodes of XML document, paragraph [0118]), “and displaying the enriched particular detail messages on a user interface for data processing; wherein the user interface includes a log search facility and one or more tools for drilling-down into contents of the enriched particular detail messages; wherein the data processing is configured to automatically retrieve enriched particular detail messages that are associated with the header information through a single search via the log search facility” (editing agent displays documents and the viewer causes update action that can be the updating/transforming with transformation/query script that transforms each node element tags with unique identifier in source document, paragraphs [0050]-[0058], where unique identifier reads on header information and transforming node element tags reads on drilling down into contents).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bassi, Myllymaki and Luo because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a standardized way that modifications may be made to XML data (see Luo, paragraphs [0018]-[0027]. This gives the user the advantage of not having to manually enter all XML data changes.
As per claim 2,
Bassi does not explicitly indicate “the header message is specified, in the hierarchy defined for the particular hierarchical data structure, at a root level in the path and the particular detail messages are specified, in the hierarchy defined for the particular hierarchical data structure, at a sub-level under the root level in the path”.
However, Myllymaki discloses “the header message is specified, in the hierarchy defined for the particular hierarchical data structure, at a root level in the path and the particular detail messages are specified, in the hierarchy defined for the particular hierarchical data structure, at a sub-level under the root level in the path” (figure 4, where root starts at header of table and rows in table are at sub-level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bassi and Myllymaki because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by reducing the vulnerability in extraction technologies to the continually changing content, structure, and formatting (see Myllymaki, abstract). This gives the user the advantage of being able to correctly and consistently parse files and documents.
As per claim 4,
Bassi does not explicitly indicate “the level of the header message is identified in JSON text and a lower level of the particular detail messages is identified in the JSON text using an open bracket that indicates a transition to the lower level”.
However, Myllymaki discloses “the level of the header message is identified in JSON text and a lower level of the particular detail messages is identified in the JSON text using an open bracket that indicates a transition to the lower level” (figure 4, where one of skill in the art would know that <td> is essentially and open bracket and that HTML is a meta-language similar to a JSON/XML-type structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bassi and Myllymaki because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by reducing the vulnerability in extraction technologies to the continually changing content, structure, and formatting (see Myllymaki, abstract). This gives the user the advantage of being able to correctly and consistently parse files and documents.
As per claim 5,
Bassi does not explicitly indicate “the header message and the particular detail messages are at different levels below the path”.
However, Myllymaki discloses “the header message and the particular detail messages are at different levels below the path” (figure 4, where header of table and rows in table are at different levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bassi and Myllymaki because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by reducing the vulnerability in extraction technologies to the continually changing content, structure, and formatting (see Myllymaki, abstract). This gives the user the advantage of being able to correctly and consistently parse files and documents.
As per claims 11-12,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 1-2 and are similarly rejected.
As per claims 16-17,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 1-2 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 3, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassi et al. (‘Bassi’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240163668) in view of Myllymaki et al. (‘Myllymaki’ hereinafter) (Myllymaki et al., "Robust web data extraction with xml path expressions." Technical reportz (2002)) and further in view of Luo (Publication 20080140705) and further in view of Shatsky et al. (‘Shatsky’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20110103373).
As per claim 3,
Neither Bassi, Myllymaki nor Luo explicitly indicates “the header message identifies a namespace and the particular detail messages identify values for one or more variables in the namespace”.
However, Shatsky discloses “the header message identifies a namespace and the particular detail messages identify values for one or more variables in the namespace” (paragraphs [0107]-[0109]; table 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bassi, Myllymaki, Luo and Shatsky because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing for consistency for mapping elements to the proper type and prevent naming conflicts. This gives the user the advantage of less confusion when parsing records and logs.
As per claim 13,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 18,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 14-15 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is noted that these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 101 and those rejections need to be resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights