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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on August 01, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/01/2025 and 03/04/2026. 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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,393,563 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations. Especially, the U.S. Patent No. 12,393,563 discloses more details in logic assets with the application scenario. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that claims 1-20 of the instant application is fully disclosed by the U.S. Patent No. 12,393,563.
The following table shows the claims in Instant Application that are rejected by corresponding claim(s) in U.S. Patent No.12135756.
Instant Application: 19287979
Patent: 12393563
1. A computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving event data from a plurality of disparate computing resources, the event data comprising a timestamp, one or more ingestion-attributes, and one or more custom key-value pair indexing-attributes; indexing the event data into structured event data based on the timestamp, the one or more ingestion-attributes, and the one or more custom key-value pair indexing- attributes, the structured event data stored at a distributed data store; applying a first retention threshold of a multi-tiered retention policy to older versions of the structured event data; applying a second retention threshold of the multi-tiered retention policy to a latest version of the structured event data, the first retention threshold shorter than the second retention threshold; receiving a retrieval request requesting to compare the structured event data between a first time range and a second time range; based on the retrieval request, retrieving structured event data from both the first time range and the second time range from the distributed data store; and generating a new attribute indicating changes to the structured event data between the first time range and the second time range.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the event data from the plurality of disparate computing resources comprises receiving the event data via an application programming interface (API) from the plurality of disparate computing resources.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, prior to indexing the event data into the structured event data, determining that the event data is valid based on ingestion rules.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving other event data from the plurality of disparate computing resources; determining that the other event data is invalid based on ingestion rules; and discarding the other event data.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein indexing the event data into the structured event data comprises adding a timeline attribute to the structured event data.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the timeline attribute comprises changes in attributes, properties, augmentations, or relationship structures of the event data over a specified period of time.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein applying the first retention threshold comprises: determining that an older version of the structured event data satisfies the first retention threshold; and based on determining that the older version of the structured event data satisfies the first retention threshold, evicting the older version of the structured event data.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the new attribute further indicates that the structured event data existed in both the first time range and the second time range.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the new attribute further indicates attributes, properties, or augmentations of the structured event data that changed between the first time range and the second time range.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the event data represents a parent-child hierarchy of cloud resources.
1. A computer-implemented method executed on data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving an event over a network obtained by a plurality of disparate computing resources in communication with the data processing hardware, the event comprising a corresponding ingestion-attribute associated with the event; determining that the corresponding ingestion-attribute associated with the event satisfies ingestion criteria; and in response to determining that the corresponding ingestion-attribute associated with the event satisfies the ingestion criteria: ingesting the event obtained by the one of the plurality of disparate computing resources for persistent storage in a data store by indexing, using the corresponding ingestion-attribute as an indexing-attribute, the event as structured data at the data store, the data store associated with an eviction time period threshold representing a maximum amount of time that an event may be stored at the data store and at least one attribute for determining whether the eviction time period threshold applies to a particular event stored in the data store based on a corresponding ingestion-attribute associated with the particular event; determining, based on the corresponding ingestion-attribute matching the at least one attribute, that the eviction time period threshold applies to the event; and based on determining that the eviction time period threshold applies to the event, applying the eviction time period threshold to the event by: determining that the event has been stored in the data store for a period of time that satisfies the eviction time period threshold; and in response to determining that the event has been stored in the data store for the period of time that satisfies the eviction time period threshold, evicting the event from the data store.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein ingesting the event is in response to at least one of: receiving an ingestion request; an indication from a time schedule; or an indication from an event.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, identifying whether the event is associated with any custom indexing-attributes defined by a user for indexing events.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: applying a set of validity rules to the event; determining whether the event is valid based on the set of validity rules; and when the event is valid, indexing the event into the data store as structured data.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the set of validity rules comprises a set of priority rules to determine a priority of the event.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the operations further comprise, when the event is invalid, rejecting the event for indexing into the data store.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a retrieval request for data stored in the data store, wherein receiving the retrieval request comprises receiving a data retrieval offset, the data retrieval offset indicating a position in a list of data to be retrieved, and wherein only data after the position in the list of data is retrieved.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the data store comprises a distributed storage system.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein ingesting the event comprises obtaining the event by the one of the plurality of disparate computing resources via an application programming interface.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the event is indicative of a measured characteristic of a corresponding one of the plurality of disparate computing resources.
Claims 11-20 are system claims corresponding to method claims 1-10 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth to the rejection of claims 1-10 above.
“Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuruvada et al (US 2019/0236149 A1), in view of Therrien et al (US 2007/0130232 A1).
As per claim 1, Kuruvada discloses:
- a computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising (Para [0080] – [0082], Para [0441], a method implemented by combination of hardware and software component to perform operations),
- receiving event data from a plurality of disparate computing resources, the event data comprising a timestamp, one or more ingestion-attributes, and one or more custom key-value pair indexing-attributes (Fig. 2, 5, 13A – 13B, Para [0051], [0054], [0058], [0258], [0307],[0317]- [0318], receiving event data from different sources which includes timeseries data (i.e., time stamp), data ingestion protocol such as conversion, format (i.e., ingestion attribute) and key value pair),
- indexing the event data into structured event data based on the timestamp, the one or more ingestion-attributes, and the one or more custom key-value pair indexing- attributes, the structured event data stored at a distributed data store (Para [0061] – [0062], [0055], indexing event data into structured store based on time, ingestion attribute such as data format, type and key value pair, Para [0060], [0307], [0318]),
Kuruvada does not explicitly disclose applying a first retention threshold of a multi-tiered retention policy to older versions of the structured event data; applying a second retention threshold of the multi-tiered retention policy to a latest version of the structured event data, the first retention threshold shorter than the second retention threshold; receiving a retrieval request requesting to compare the structured event data between a first time range and a second time range; based on the retrieval request, retrieving structured event data from both the first time range and the second time range from the distributed data store; and generating a new attribute indicating changes to the structured event data between the first time range and the second time range. However, in the same field of endeavor Therrien in an analogous art disclose applying a first retention threshold of a multi-tiered retention policy to older versions of the structured event data (Fig. 15b, Para [0125], [0128] – [0130], retention policy is set to 7 months period (i.e., first retention threshold) in multi-tiered retention), applying a second retention threshold of the multi-tiered retention policy to a latest version of the structured event data, the first retention threshold shorter than the second retention threshold (Fig. 15-17, Para [0125], [0140], [0142], retention for number of years (i.e., second retention threshold) to a latest version of files, Fig. 6, item 6d, Para [0078], [0086], [0088]), receiving a retrieval request requesting to compare the structured event data between a first time range and a second time range (Para [0085], differences on changes are made to file A between 3:00 and 4:00 (i.e., comparing structured data between first and second time)), retrieving structured event data from both the first time range and the second time range from the distributed data store (claim 17, line 2-4, retrieving modified version of said original file (i.e., structured data from both first and second time range), using another modification of said original file and said another byte-level difference), generating a new attribute indicating changes to the structured event data between the first time range and the second time range (Fig. 6, item 6a, Para [0077], creating new version of structured data between 1:00 and 2:00 (i.e., first and second time range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first and second retention threshold to old and new version of structured data as taught by Therrien as the means to receiving, processing and indexing event data from various sources in Kuruvada. Kuruvada and Therrien are analogous prior art since they both deal with processing structured data such as event, filed and applying retention based on retention policies. A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to efficiently storing and managing version of data, (Therrien, Para [0023]).
As per claim 2, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Kuruvada discloses:
- wherein receiving the event data from the plurality of disparate computing resources comprises receiving the event data via an application programming interface (API) from the plurality of disparate computing resources (Fig. 8A, 11D, Para [0026], [0140] - [0141], [0207], API to receive and search event data collected from various sources).
As per claim 3, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Kuruvada discloses:
- prior to indexing the event data into the structured event data, determining that the event data is valid based on ingestion rules (Para [0288], [0366], validating event before indexing based on policy).
As per claim 4, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Kuruvada discloses:
- receiving other event data from the plurality of disparate computing resources (Para [0104], receiving data from variety of sources (i.e., receiving event form disparate resources),
- determining that the other event data is invalid based on ingestion rules (Para [0057], [0060], [0135], pre-processing (i.e., in validating) raw data into various rules),
- and discarding the other event data (Para [0057], [0206], discarding event data).
As pe claim 5, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Kuruvada discloses:
- wherein indexing the event data into the structured event data comprises adding a timeline attribute to the structured event data (Para [0061], [0062], indexing event by timestamps (i.e., adding timeline)).
As per claim 6, rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, and further Kuruvada discloses:
- wherein the timeline attribute comprises changes in attributes, properties, augmentations, or relationship structures of the event data over a specified period of time (Para [0117] – [0118], determining timestamps for each event associated with the data to locate one or more properties (i.e., timeline attribute with properties) that indicate instructions for determining a timestamp for each event).
As per claim 7, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Therrien discloses:
- determining that an older version of the structured event data satisfies the first retention threshold (Para [0142], retention period for 7 years (i.e., retention threshold) for certain keyword related data (i.e., structured event)
- based on determining that the older version of the structured event data satisfies the first retention threshold, evicting the older version of the structured event data (Fig. 16, deleting (i.e., evict$3) after retention period (i.e., retention threshold)).
As per claim 8, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Kuruvada discloses:
- wherein the new attribute further indicates that the structured event data existed in both the first-time range and the second time range (Para [0124], [0141], structured event between time range).
As per claim 9, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Kuruvada discloses:
- wherein the new attribute further indicates attributes, properties, or augmentations of the structured event data that changed between the first-time range and the second time range (Para [0117] – [0118], determining timestamps for each event associated with the data to locate one or more properties (i.e., timeline attribute with properties) that indicate instructions for determining a timestamp for each event).
As per claim 10, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Kuruvada discloses:
- wherein the event data represents a parent-child hierarchy of cloud resources (Para [0146], Objects in data models can be arranged hierarchically in parent/child relationships. Each child object represents a subset of the dataset covered by its parent object).
As per claims 11-20,
Claims 11-20 are system claims corresponding to method claims 1-10 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth to the rejection of claims 1-10 above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED R UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3138. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
/MOHAMMED R UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights