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 .
The instant office action having application number 19/253,598, filed on June 27, 2025, has claims 1-20 pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2025 and 03/19/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No.11,294,863. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-22 under examination are obvious, respectively, by claims 1-14 of the reference Patent. Every limitations in the instant application under examination claims are recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences or additional limitations between the claims are highlighted below by underlining and bolding all limitations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the independent claim 1, of the instant application to receiving an event stream from a remote capture agent, wherein the event stream includes timestamped event data generated by the remote capture agent based on network traffic monitored by the remote capture agent; determining a volume of the network traffic from which the remote capture agent generated the timestamped event data; determining a percentage of the event stream to store in one or network traffic; and causing a portion of the event stream to be stored in the one or more data stores according to the percentage. Note, such deviation would not interfere with the functionality of the claims that are already patented, and would achieve the same end result.
Please, see the comparison table below:
Instant application 19/253,598
Patent No. 11716248
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: causing display, via a graphical user interface, including a set of event streams and a set of statistics representing statistics for network traffic corresponding with the set of event streams, the set of statistics generated based on timestamped event data of the set of event streams received from at least one remote capture agent without subsequently processing and storing the timestamped event data used to generate the statistics in a data store; and causing display, via the graphical user interface, of a graph of index volumes associated with the set of event streams.
11. A computing device, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: causing display, via a graphical user interface, including a set of event streams and a set of statistics representing statistics for network traffic corresponding with the set of event streams, the set of statistics generated based on timestamped event data of the set of event streams received from at least one remote capture agent without subsequently processing and storing the timestamped event data used to generate the statistics in a data store; and causing display, via the graphical user interface, of a
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: causing display, via a graphical user interface, including a set of event streams and a set of statistics representing statistics for network traffic corresponding with the set of event streams, the set of statistics generated based on timestamped event data of the set of event streams received from at least one remote capture agent without subsequently processing and storing the timestamped event data used to generate the statistics in a data store; and causing display, via the graphical user interface, of a graph of index volumes associated with the set of event streams.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving an event stream from a remote capture agent, wherein the event stream includes timestamped event data generated by the remote capture agent based on network traffic monitored by the remote capture agent; determining a volume of the network traffic from which the remote capture agent generated the timestamped event data; determining a percentage of the event stream to store in one or more data stores based on the volume of the network traffic; and causing a portion of the event stream to be stored in the one or more data stores according to the percentage.
15. A computing device, comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including: receiving an event stream from a remote capture agent, wherein the event stream includes timestamped event data generated by the remote capture agent based on network traffic monitored by the remote capture agent; determining a volume of the network traffic from which the remote capture agent generated the timestamped event data; determining a percentage of the event stream to store in one or more data stores based on the volume of the network traffic; and causing a portion of the event stream to be stored in the one or more data stores according to the percentage.
18. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: receiving an event stream from a remote capture agent, wherein the event stream includes timestamped event data generated by the remote capture agent based on network traffic monitored by the remote capture agent; determining a volume of the network traffic from which the remote capture agent generated the timestamped event data; determining a percentage of the event stream to store in one or more data stores based on the volume of the network traffic; and causing a portion of the event stream to be stored in the one or more data stores according to the percentage.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
The application claim 1 does not contain specific limitations as shown in the patent claim 1; however, according to In re Goodman, the application claim 1 is generic to the species of information covered by claim 1 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is anticipated by the species of the patented invention.
The application claim 11 does not contain specific limitations as shown in the patent claim 15; however, according to In re Goodman, the application claim 11 is generic to the species of information covered by claim 15 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is anticipated by the species of the patented invention.
The application claim 15 does not contain specific limitations as shown in the patent claim 18; however, according to In re Goodman, the application claim 15 is generic to the species of information covered by claim 18 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is anticipated by the species of the patented invention.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory CategoryClaim 1 is directed to a process (a computer-implemented method), which is a statutory category.Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial ExceptionClaim 1 recites “recites “A computer-implemented method, comprising: causing display, via a graphical user interface, including a set of event streams and a set of statistics representing statistics for network traffic corresponding with the set of event streams, the set of statistics generated based on timestamped event data of the set of event streams received from at least one remote capture agent without subsequently processing and storing the timestamped event data used to generate the statistics in a data store; and causing display, via the graphical user interface, of a graph of index volumes associated with the set of event streams.” these limitations including causing display of event streams and statistics, generating statistics from timestamped data, and displaying graphs.These limitations describe collecting data, analyzing data, and presenting results, which is an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two: Practical ApplicationThe claim recites generic computer elements such as a graphical user interface and remote capture agent performing conventional functions. These do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.Step 2B: Inventive ConceptThe additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim merely uses conventional computer components performing routine functions.Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.Same rational applies to claims 11 and 15.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the set of statistics includes one or more of a total number of events, a total incoming traffic, a total outgoing traffic, a total traffic, or an index volume for the timestamped event data in the set of event streams.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale is applied to claim 12.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the graph comprises a bar chart of index volumes of the set of event streams.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale is applied to claim 13.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the graph comprises a pie chart of index volumes across the set of event streams.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale apples to claim 14.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “causing display, via the graphical user interface, of a user-interface element to filter the set of statistics by a host from which the set of event streams are collected.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale apples to claims 14 and 16.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the graph is updated in real-time as new timestamped event data is received.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale apples to claim 17.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein in response to detecting an indicated portion associated with the graph, modifying the appearance of the graph.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein in response to detecting the indicated portion associated with the graph, a search term or other data associated with an even stream is displayed.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale apples to claim 19.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “causing display, via the graphical user interface, of a legend corresponding with the graph, wherein in response to detection an indicated portion associated with the legend, modifying the appearance of the graph.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale apples to claim 20.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “causing display, via the graphical user interface, of a user-interface element including options used to configure a search term.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claims 1 to 20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) (a) as being unpatentable over Porras et al. (US 6484203 B1) (hereinafter Porras) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20120197934 A1) (hereinafter Zhang).
As per claims 1, 11 and 15, Porras discloses causing display, via a graphical user interface, including a set of event streams and a set of statistics representing statistics for network traffic corresponding with the set of event streams [Referring to FIG. 5, a monitor may also "deinterleave." That is, the monitor may create and update 74, 76 more than one short-term profile for comparison 78 against a single long-term profile by identifying one of the multiple short-term profiles that will be updated by an event record in an event stream, Col. 13, line 51 (It is understood that the reference teaches a monitor that processes event stream is to create and update multiple short-term profiles, which are statistical representations of network traffic, and presents them for comparison with a long-term profile, thereby meeting or rendering obvious the claimed display of a set of event streams together with corresponding traffic statistics in a graphical user interface)], the set of statistics generated based on timestamped event data of the set of event streams received from at least one remote capture agent without subsequently processing and storing the timestamped event data used to generate the statistics in a data store [The monitor may distinguish between network packets based on the time such packets were received by the network entity, permitting statistical analysis to distinguish between a normal data transfer during a workday and an abnormal data transfer on a weekend evening, col. 12, line 35, (it is understood that the reference teaches generating statistics from timestamped network events by distinguishing packets based on time of receipt, and since it performs this analysis without disclosing storage of the underlying timestamped data, it reasonably meets or renders obvious the claimed limitation)]. However Porras does not disclose causing display, via the graphical user interface, of a graph of index volumes associated with the set of event streams. On the other hand, Zhang discloses causing display, via the graphical user interface, of a graph of index volumes associated with the set of event streams [Figs. 11A and 11B, the report is generated as a bar graph, paragraph 101].
As per claims 2 and 12, Zhang discloses wherein the set of statistics includes one or more of a total number of events, a total incoming traffic, a total outgoing traffic, a total traffic, or an index volume for the timestamped event data in the set of event streams [the line is combined with the prior line to see how often the pair of lines occurs, one before the other, as a percentage of total pairs in the MD sample, paragraph 23].
As per claims 3 and 13, Zhang discloses wherein the graph comprises a bar chart of index volumes of the set of event streams [Figs. 11A and 11B, the report is generated as a bar graph, paragraph 101].
As per claims 4 and 14, Porras discloses wherein the graph comprises a pie chart of index volumes across the set of event streams [identifying one of the multiple short-term profiles that will be updated by an event record in an event stream, Col. 13, line 54].
As per claims 5 and 16, Porras discloses causing display, via the graphical user interface, of a user-interface element to filter the set of statistics by a host from which the set of event streams are collected [A long-term and short-term statistical profile can be generated for each event stream. Thus, different event streams can "slice" network packet data in different ways, col. 13, line 33].
As per claims 6 and 17, Porras discloses wherein the graph is updated in real-time as new timestamped event data is received [The monitor may distinguish between network packets based on the time such packets were received by the network entity, permitting statistical analysis to distinguish between a normal data transfer during a workday and an abnormal data transfer on a weekend evening, col. 12, line 35].
As per claim 7, Zhang discloses wherein in response to detecting an indicated portion associated with the graph, modifying the appearance of the graph [a variety of content editing applications, modify the content, paragraph 43].
As per claims 8 and 19, Zhang discloses wherein in response to detecting the indicated portion associated with the graph, a search term or other data associated with an even stream is displayed [the process flows to block 1204 where a search is performed for historical data related to the search requested by the user, paragraph 102].
As per claims 9, 18 and 20, Zhang discloses causing display, via the graphical user interface, of a legend corresponding with the graph, wherein in response to detection an indicated portion associated with the legend, modifying the appearance of the graph [Figs. 11A and 11B, the report is generated as a bar graph, paragraph 101].
As per claim 10, Zhang discloses causing display, via the graphical user interface, of a user-interface element including options used to configure a search term [Search execution module 310 also communicates with database 135 to perform historical searches, paragraph 83].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOOSHA ARJOMANDI whose telephone number is (571)272-9784. The examiner can normally be reached on (571)272-9784.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571)272-4098. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
April 18, 2026
/NOOSHA ARJOMANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights