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 .
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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is responsive to the Applicant’s Amendment/Remarks filed on 09/15/2026. In the Amendment, applicant amended claims 22, 24 and 35-36. Claims 1-20 are cancelled. As necessitated by the Amendment, Examiner hereby respectfully maintains the rejection to claims 21-40 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/353396.
As to Arguments and Remarks filed in the Amendment, please see Examiner’s responses shown after Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 103.
Please note claims 21-40 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/353396. Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the Patent No. 12/353396 contains every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application 19/247600. (See table below).
Instant Application claim 1
Patent No. 12,353396 claim 11
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer system to perform operations comprising:
retrieving a plurality of log events, each log event associated with a respective computing transaction;
receiving an indication of a type of compression;
labeling each of the plurality of log events based on the indicated type of compression;
compressing the plurality of log events based on the labels; and
storing the compressed log events on a distributed ledger, wherein the storage comprises
bibliographic information respective of the computing transactions associated with
the events.
A non-transitory, computer readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer system to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a data application, a plurality of revisions to a file; determining whether each of the plurality of revisions comprises a trivial revision based on respective metadata of each of the plurality of revisions; determining a type of compression as relevancy according to one or more relationships between the plurality of revisions; compressing a changelog respective of the file based on a relevancy of each of the revisions; receiving, from a user device, a request identifying the file; retrieving, based on metadata of the file, at least one revision associated with the file based on the changelog; and presenting, on a display of the user device, the at least one retrieved revision; wherein the determination of whether each of the plurality of revisions comprises the trivial revision comprises: determining, via fuzzy logic, a trivial score for each revision of the plurality of revisions by generating a plurality of versions of a compressed file based on differing weights for individual revisions and determining an amount of compression for each of the versions; comparing the determined trivial score to a relevancy threshold; and in response to the determined trivial score being less than the relevancy threshold, determining that the respective event comprises the trivial event.
Claims 11-15 of Patent No. 12/353396 satisfies all the elements of claims 21-28 of the instant application, and as such, anticipates the claims of instant application.
Instant Application claim 29
Patent No. 12,353396 claim 1
A computer-implemented method comprising:
retrieving, by a computing device, a plurality of log events, each log event associated
with a file recorded on a main chain of a distributed ledger;
receiving, by the computing device, an indication of a type of compression;
labeling, by the computing device, each of the plurality of log events based on the
indicated type of compression;
compressing, by the computing device, the plurality of log events based on the labels; and
storing, by the computing device, the compressed log events on a side chain of the
distributed ledger, wherein the storage comprises bibliographic information
respective of the file.
A computer-implemented method for compressing data respective of a file, the method comprising: receiving, from a data application by a computing system, a plurality of events, each event representative of a respective revision to the file by a user, wherein each event is associated with metadata indicative of a lineage of computing transactions that altered the file; determining, by the computing system, whether each of the plurality of events comprises a trivial event based on respective metadata of each of the plurality of events; determining, by the computing system, a type of compression as relevancy according to one or more relationships between the plurality of events; and compressing, by the computing system, data respective of the plurality of events based on relevancy; wherein the determination of whether each of the plurality of events comprises the trivial event comprises: determining, via fuzzy logic, a trivial score for each event of the plurality of events by generating a plurality of versions of a compressed file based on differing weights for individual events and determining an amount of compression for each of the versions; comparing the determined trivial score to a relevancy threshold; and in response to the determined trivial score being less than the relevancy threshold, determining that the respective event comprises the trivial event.
Claims 1-10 of Patent No. 12/353396 satisfies all the elements of claims 29-37 of the instant application, and as such, anticipates the claims of instant application.
Instant Application claim 38
Patent No. 12,353396 claim 16
A computer-implemented method comprising:
retrieving, by a computing device, a plurality of log events, each log event associated
with computing transactions respective of data recorded on a main chain of a
distributed ledger;
receiving, by the computing device, an indication of a type of compression, wherein the
type of compression comprises relevancy-based compression or redundancy-based
compression;
labeling, by the computing device, each of the plurality of log events based on the
indicated type of compression;
compressing, by the computing device, the plurality of log events based on the labels; and
storing, by the computing device, the compressed log events on a side chain of the
distributed ledger.
A system for compressing data respective of a file, the system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium stored thereon instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a data application, a plurality of events, each event representative of a revision to file; determining, via fuzzy logic, a trivial score for an event of the plurality of events by: determining a trivial score for each event of the plurality of events by generating a plurality of versions of a compressed file based on differing weights for individual events and determining an amount of compression for each of the versions; comparing the determined trivial score to a relevancy threshold; in response to the determined trivial score being less than the relevancy threshold, determining that the respective event comprises the trivial event; determining a type of compression as relevancy according to one or more relationships between the plurality of events; and compressing data respective of the plurality of events based on relevancy.
Claims 1-10 of Patent No. 12/353396 satisfies all the elements of claims 38-40 of the instant application, and as such, anticipates the claims of instant application.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 21, 23, 25-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayer et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0412751, hereinafter Thayer), in view of Miller et al. (US Patent 9,589,038, hereinafter Miller).
As per as claim 21, Thayer discloses:
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer system to perform operations comprising:
retrieving a plurality of log events, each log event associated with a respective computing transaction (Thayer, e.g., [0046-0052], “...the event log generating component can include or be associated with one or more operations, such as processes, applications, services (e.g., application, network), or login procedures, which are executed or can be executed by the agent device... store the generated event log(s) with an identifier associated with the agent device onto a distributed ledger (e.g., a blockchain) collectively maintained and stored by each of the agent device and any one or more other agent device(s) within the network or neighborhood of the agent... event logs to extract therefrom one or more event logs that are relevant to the detected suspect event...” and [0062-0063], [0088], “...each agent device can independently receive transactions and store a copy of the distributed ledger including the transactions, in a corresponding memory, a transaction can only be added to the distributed ledger when a consensus to add the transaction, as defined by the consensus ruleset...”);
receiving an indication of a type of compression (Thayer, e.g., [0052-0053], “...the event dataset generating component can “compress” any combination of the parsed relevant event log(s) associated with the detected suspect event by parsing it based on a determined relevance thereof to the detected suspect event...” and [0081)];
storing the compressed log events on a distributed ledger, wherein the storage comprises bibliographic information respective of the computing transactions associated with the events (Thayer, e.g., [0058-0059], “...agent device can generate and communicate an acknowledgement message to another agent device based on a receipt of an event dataset from the other agent device... data associated with the detected suspect event, the second set of generated event logs...” and further see [0063-0064], [0072], “...stored electronic information to facilitate the determination that an associated suspect event ...”).
To further clarify the features of “ labeling each of the plurality of log events based on the indicated type of compression; compressing the plurality of log events based on the labels”
However Miller, in an analogous art, discloses “labeling each of the plurality of log events based on the indicated type of compression” (Miller, e.g., [col. 10, lines 24-67], “... compressing, normalizing, subsampling, statistically sampling, image reconstruction... types of event categories may also be specified and each event may be associated with one or more of the categories, allowing multiple categorizations of events...categorized as error events. The event categories may be transactional, informational, functional or a combination of these and/or other such category types. Events may be further categorized by event aggregations, event combinations, event category operations, event namespaces, event meta-categories (categories of categories) and/or other such event categorization types” and [col. 15, lines 34-39], “... categorized based on one or more event categories (or event types)...”), “compressing the plurality of log events based on the labels” (Miller, e.g., [col. 10, lines 32-67], “... transaction service may specify one or more categories associated with the events...a transaction relating to a user purchase may be in a different event category than a transaction relating to a user creating an account...adding a corresponding new set of device attributes may be a different event category...”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Miller and Thayer to reconfiguring the data gathering service each time the provider may wish to gather different data, or focus data gathering on a certain attribute subset or perform other types of analysis (Miller, e.g., [col 1, lines 5-38]).
As per as claim 23, the combination of Miller and Thayer disclose:
(New) The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein:
the indicated type of compression comprises a redundancy type, and
the labeling comprises, for each log event of the plurality of log events:
retrieving a category of data associated with the log event (Miller, e.g., fig. 8, associating with texts descriptions [col. 15, lines 10-39], “... retrieve and/or process the transaction data from the downstream service... data retrieved from system logs, data stored as a result of previous commands...”) and (Thayer, e.g., [0046-0052], “...the event log generating component can include or be associated with one or more operations, such as processes, applications, services (e.g., application, network), or login procedures, which are executed or can be executed by the agent device... store the generated event log(s) with an identifier associated with the agent device onto a distributed ledger (e.g., a blockchain) collectively maintained and stored by each of the agent device and any one or more other agent device(s) within the network or neighborhood of the agent... event logs to extract therefrom one or more event logs that are relevant to the detected suspect event...” and [0062-0063], [0088], “...each agent device can independently receive transactions and store a copy of the distributed ledger including the transactions, in a corresponding memory, a transaction can only be added to the distributed ledger when a consensus to add the transaction, as defined by the consensus ruleset...”);
determining at least one other log event that shares the retrieved category (Miller, e.g., fig. 8, associating with texts descriptions [col. 15, lines 10-39], “...data retrieved from system logs... the transaction data and/or the resulting event data may be categorized based on one or more event categories (or event types) to aid in storing...”); and
appending, to metadata of the log event and at least one other log event, an
indication of the shared category (Miller, e.g., fig. 8, associating with texts descriptions [col. 15, lines 10-39], “...data retrieved from system logs... the transaction data and/or the resulting event data may be categorized based on one or more event categories (or event types) to aid in storing...”) and ([col. 17,lines [60-67], “... accessing and retrieving data, which may include any combination and number of data servers, databases, data storage devices and data storage media, in any standard, distribute...”).
As per as claim 25, the combination of Miller and Thayer disclose:
(New) The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein:
the computing transaction comprises storage of a file on a main chain of the distributed ledger (Thayer, e.g., [0019], [0046], [0059-0060], “...the event logs can still be stored in the distributed ledger maintained and stored by each other agent device(s)...”);
the log events comprise revisions to the file (Thayer, e.g., [0075-0076], “...updates (e.g., software or firmware revisions) can be communicated to the gateway agent device...”); and
storing the log events on the distributed ledger comprises storing the log events on a side chain of the distributed ledger (Thayer, e.g., [0019], [0046], [0059-0060], “...the event logs can still be stored in the distributed ledger maintained and stored by each other agent device(s)...”).
As per as claim 26, the combination of Miller and Thayer disclose:
(New) The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein storing the compressed log events on the distributed ledger comprises hashing the compressed log events with an existing block of a side chain of the distributed ledger to add the compressed log events to a new block on the side chain (Miller, e.g., [col. 13, lines 1-19], “... repository of name-value pairs based on an indexing of the name-value pair, or based on indexing first the name and then the value, or based on indexing first the value and then the name, or based on a hash of the name-value pair, or based on a hash of first the name and then the value, or based on a hash of first the value and then the name, or based on a GUID, or based on a lookup table...”).
As per as claim 27, the combination of Miller and Thayer disclose:
(New) The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the distributed ledger comprises a main chain maintained on a plurality of main chain nodes and a side chain maintained on a plurality of side chain nodes, wherein the main chain nodes are different from the side chain nodes (Thayer, e.g., [0059-0060], “...collective maintenance and storage of a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain, so long as a plurality of agent devices, like agent device 310, is in the network or neighborhood of the agent device 310. In accordance with some embodiments, a distributed ledger can be collectively maintained by a network (e.g., a distributed ledger network) of nodes, such as a plurality of agent devices having a corresponding distributed ledger node component 360. In accordance with some embodiments, the operation of “storing” any piece or type of electronic data (e.g., event logs, analytical output data, templates, behavioral rules, identifiers, connectivity configurations, neighborhood maps, event datasets) by an agent device...”).
As per as claim 28, the combination of Miller and Thayer disclose:
(New) The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein:
receiving a log event of the plurality of log events comprises:
receiving, from a user device, an update associated with the computing
transaction (Thayer, e.g., [0042-046], “...determine whether the neighborhood (i.e., the one or more other agent devices that agent device 310 can directly communicate with) has changed, so that the associated connectivity configuration or neighborhood map can be dynamically updated to account for changes in the neighborhood of the agent device...” and [0075]); and
generating the log event based on the update (Thayer, e.g., [0042-0046] and [0075]); and
labeling the log event of the plurality of log events comprises:
appending metadata to the update log event, the metadata indicative of a property of the update (Thayer, e.g., [0042-0046] and [0075]); and
adding a label to the metadata based on the indicated type of compression (Miller, e.g., [col. 10, lines 24-67], “... compressing, normalizing, subsampling, statistically sampling, image reconstruction... types of event categories may also be specified and each event may be associated with one or more of the categories, allowing multiple categorizations of events...categorized as error events. The event categories may be transactional, informational, functional or a combination of these and/or other such category types. Events may be further categorized by event aggregations, event combinations, event category operations, event namespaces, event meta-categories (categories of categories) and/or other such event categorization types” and [col. 15, lines 34-39], “... categorized based on one or more event categories (or event types)...”).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayer et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0412751, hereinafter Thayer), in view of Miller et al. (US Patent 9,589,038, hereinafter Miller) and further in view of Bortnikov et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0176038, hereinafter Borknikov).
As per as claim 35, the combination of Thayer and Miller disclose:
(Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 29, wherein storing the compressed log events on the side chain comprises hashing the compressed log events with an existing block of the side chain to form a new block on the side chain (Miller, e.g., [col. 13, lines 1-19], “... repository of name-value pairs based on an indexing of the name-value pair, or based on indexing first the name and then the value, or based on indexing first the value and then the name, or based on a hash of the name-value pair, or based on a hash of first the name and then the value, or based on a hash of first the value and then the name, or based on a GUID, or based on a lookup table...”).
To further clarify the features of “wherein the hashing comprises hashing the compressed log events with an entirety of the existing block, and wherein the new block is stored by each of a plurality of side chain nodes”.
However Bortnikov, in an analogous art, discloses “wherein the hashing comprises hashing the compressed log events with an entirety of the existing block, and wherein the new block is stored by each of a plurality of side chain nodes” (Bortnikov, e.g., [0118], “…The hash value of the immediately preceding block may be just the hash of the header of the previous block or may be the hash value of the entire previous block…”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Bortnikov, Miller and Thayer to manage, maintain, and control, especially for purposes of security because of its single location (Bortnikov, e.g., [0002-0004]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayer et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0412751, hereinafter Thayer), in view of Miller et al. (US Patent 9,589,038, hereinafter Miller) and further in view of Baek et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0092085, hereinafter Baek).
As per as claim 36, the combination of Thayer and Miller disclose:
(Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 29, wherein the main chain is maintained on a plurality of main chain nodes and the side chain is maintained on a plurality of side chain nodes, wherein the main chain nodes are different from the side chain nodes (Thayer, e.g., [0059-0060], “...collective maintenance and storage of a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain, so long as a plurality of agent devices, like agent device 310, is in the network or neighborhood of the agent device 310. In accordance with some embodiments, a distributed ledger can be collectively maintained by a network (e.g., a distributed ledger network) of nodes, such as a plurality of agent devices having a corresponding distributed ledger node component 360. In accordance with some embodiments, the operation of “storing” any piece or type of electronic data (e.g., event logs, analytical output data, templates, behavioral rules, identifiers, connectivity configurations, neighborhood maps, event datasets) by an agent device...”),
To further clarify the features of “wherein storage of a block on the main chain comprises agreement among the main chain nodes, and wherein storage of a block on the side chain comprises agreement among the side chain nodes”.
However Baek, in an analogous art, discloses “wherein the hashing comprises hashing the compressed log events with an entirety of the existing block, and wherein the new block is stored by each of a plurality of side chain nodes” (Baek, e.g., fig. 2, associating with texts description, [0007-0012], “…agreement among nodes of a blockchain network capable of preventing a side chain from being generated and capable of ensuring finality…” and further see [0070], [0088], “… agreement can be made that one of a plurality of candidate blocks generated for each round is accepted as an approved block. The decision making for the agreement may be conducted by voting of each of the plurality of nodes…”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Baek, Miller and Thayer for achieving an agreement among nodes of a blockchain network capable of resolving a unique leader election problem for each round in the conventional leader model and a problem when the elected leader is a malicious leader (Baek, e.g., [0007-0010]).
Claims 29-34 and 37 are essentially the same as claims 21-28 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method rather a non transitory computer readable medium, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 21-28.
Claims 38-40 are essentially the same as claims 21-28 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method rather a non transitory computer readable medium, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 21-28.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not teach “storing the compressed log events on the distributed ledger comprises: storing the compressed plurality of log events on a side chain of the distributed ledger; and in response to a threshold value for the storing of the compressed plurality of log events on the side chain, appending a subset of the plurality of log events to a main chain of the distributed ledger, wherein the threshold value comprises at least one of a length of time the compressed plurality of log events are stored on the side chain or an amount of data stored on the side chain." (Claim 22), and “determining shared content among log events having the indication of the shared category; combining the log events with the indication of the shared category into a single combined log entry that includes the shared content and non-shared content of the combined log events; and deleting the log events that were combined” (claim 24). Per the instant office action, claims 22 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (See MPEP 2111), "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2026 with respect to claims 21-40 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection for the following reasons:
Issue I: Applicant argued on pages 1-2 (Remarks/Argument) regarding to claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/353396.
Response I: Since there is no Terminal Disclaimer has file and further the Patent No. 12/353396 contains every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application 19/247600. However, the examiner further consideration when the claims under condition are allowable.
Issue II: Applicant argued on pages 2-3 (Remarks/Argument) that the combination of Thayer and Miller do not discloses the features of “receiving an indication of a type of compression”.
Response II: The examiner respectfully submits: Thayer, e.g., [0052-0053], “...the event dataset generating component can “compress” any combination of the parsed relevant event log(s) associated with the detected suspect event by parsing it based on a determined relevance thereof to the detected suspect event...” and [0081), the examiner asserts compress parse/analyze relevant event log which is determine/indicate the relevant types for compress of event log), and applicant can further see [0059], “…collectively maintained by a network (e.g., a distributed ledger network) of nodes, such as a plurality of agent devices having a corresponding distributed ledger node component...the operation of “storing” any piece or type of electronic data (e.g., event logs, analytical output data, templates, behavioral rules, identifiers, connectivity configurations, neighborhood maps, event datasets) (type of event log).
Issue III: Applicant argued on pages 2-3 (Remarks/Argument) that the combination of Thayer and Miller do not discloses the features of “labeling each of the plurality of log events based on the indicated type of compression” and “compressing the plurality of log events based on the labels”.
Response III: Unless Applicant provide the detailing of how to labeling each of log event on the type of compression, otherwise for the broadest interpretation, the examiner respectfully submits: Miller teaches “labeling each of the plurality of log events based on the indicated type of compression”, (Miller, e.g., [col. 10, lines 24-67], “... compressing, normalizing, subsampling, statistically sampling, image reconstruction... types of event categories may also be specified and each event may be associated with one or more of the categories, allowing multiple categorizations of events...categorized as error events. The event categories may be transactional, informational, functional or a combination of these and/or other such category types. Events may be further categorized by event aggregations, event combinations , event category operations, event namespaces, event meta-categories (categories of categories) and/or other such event categorization types” and [col. 15, lines 34-39], “... categorized based on one or more event categories (or event types)...”) (the examiner asserts compressing types of event categories which is equivalent to labeling each of log event in the categories , “compressing the plurality of log events based on the labels” (Miller, e.g., [col. 10, lines 32-67], “... transaction service may specify one or more categories associated with the events...a transaction relating to a user purchase may be in a different event category than a transaction relating to a user creating an account...adding a corresponding new set of device attributes may be a different event category...” (the examiner asserts different event category = events labeling).
Issue IV: Applicant argued on pages 3-4 (Remarks/Argument) that the combined of Thayer and Miller do not discloses the features of “retrieving, by a computing device, a plurality of log events, each log event associated with a file recorded on a main chain of a distributed ledger” of claim 29.
Response IV: Unless applicant provide the detailing of to retrieve a file recorded on a main chain of a distributed ledge”, otherwise for the broadest interpretation the examiner submits (Thayer, e.g., [0059-0062], “… collective maintenance and storage of a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain, so long as a plurality of agent devices, like agent device 310, is in the network or neighborhood of the agent device 310. In accordance with some embodiments, a distributed ledger can be collectively maintained by a network (e.g., a distributed ledger network) of nodes, such as a plurality of agent devices having a corresponding distributed ledger node component 360. In accordance with some embodiments, the operation of “storing” any piece or type of electronic data (e.g., event logs, analytical output data, templates, behavioral rules, identifiers, connectivity configurations, neighborhood maps, event datasets)… sending and receiving transactions (e.g., any portion of electronic data to be stored on a distributed ledger), validating transactions, verifying blocks of transactions, and adding transactions to an immutable ledger (e.g., blockchain) that is collectively maintained by the agent devices, a copy of which is respectively stored in a memory of each agent device…” and see [0069], (access/copy records)) (the examiner assets, access or select/collect which is equivalent to retrieve a plurality of log events). Further see (Miller, e.g., fig. 8, associating with texts description, [col. 15, lines 5-40], “…data retrieved from system logs…”).
Issue V: Applicant argued on page 4 (Remarks/Argument) that the combined of Thayer and Miller do not discloses the features of “storing, by the computing device, the compressed log events on a side chain of the distributed ledger”.
Response V: The Examiner respectfully submits (Thayer, e.g., [0003], “… stored event data (e.g., event logs)…”, [0019-0024], “… store the generated plurality of event logs, with an identifier associated with the agent device, onto a distributed ledger (e.g., a blockchain) collectively maintained and stored by each of the agent device…”), further see [0046], [0052], [0060-0061], “… sending and receiving transactions (e.g., any portion of electronic data to be stored on a distributed ledger), validating transactions, verifying blocks of transactions, and adding transactions to an immutable ledger (e.g., blockchain) that is collectively maintained by the agent devices, a copy of which is respectively stored in a memory of each agent device…”).
Issue VI: Regarding to amended claims 35-36.
Response VI: See the above new ground of rejection.
The Examiner respectfully submits that, with respect to the totally newly amended subject matter, the Examiner respectfully cited proper paragraphs from cited reference to reject the claim in responsive to the newly amended, please refer to the corresponding section of the office action.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following patents and papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to collaborative work often includes multiple parties working on the same document from different computers or work stations and tracking the changes made to this shared document relies on the underlying document software, and may be native to the computer making the relevant changes. Documents for collaborative work may also be stored in the cloud, and may be tethered to a particular distributed ledger for security.
a. Pablo Javier Buki (US PGPUB 2020/0119926, hereinafter Buki); “Notifying Entities Of Relevant Events Removing Private Information” discloses “performed by a validator node of a first federation, the validator node including a transceiver and a processor, the method including: receiving, via the transceiver, incoming interfederation blocks (“IFBs”) from a second federation different than the first federation; validating the incoming IFBs to create validated IFBs; splicing the validated IFBs into validated transactions between payer-federation and receiver-federation pairs; merging the validated transactions based on the respective destinations of each validated transaction to create outgoing IFBs; proposing, to other validator nodes in the first federation, that an IFB of the outgoing IFBs be routed to a third federation different than the first federation and the second federation”.
Buki also teaches modification to the data will affect the hash value of the entire block [005].
Buki further teaches side chain is a blockchain linked to another blockchain by interlocking the transactions, i.e., an element in one transaction in one blockchain points to an element in the transaction in another blockchain thus locking both in place and creating a connection at the point in which there is a passing transaction [0009].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3173. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:45 AM - 6:30 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/TUAN A PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights