Splunk Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 4, 20212020001159 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/582,669 04/29/2017 R. David Carasso SP0021.07US.C6/275589 8036 128058 7590 10/04/2021 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (Splunk Inc.) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 2555 GRAND BLVD KANSAS CITY, MO 64108 EXAMINER ELLIS, MATTHEW J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2152 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patentofficecorrespondence@splunk.com shbdocketing@shb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte R. DAVID CARASSO, MICAH JAMES DELFINO, and JOHNVEY HWANG Appeal 2020-001159 Application 15/582,669 Technology Center 2100 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, LARRY J. HUME, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–26, and 28–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Splunk Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-001159 Application 15/582,669 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims “are directed towards real time display of event records and extracted values based on at least one extraction rule, such as a regular expression.” Spec., Abstr. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: organizing received machine data into a plurality of time- stamped events, wherein event of the plurality of time-stamped events includes a portion of the machine data produced by a component within an information technology environment and reflects activity within the information technology environment; applying an extraction rule to the plurality of events to extract field values for a particular field defined by an extraction rule; upon applying the extraction rule to extract field values for the particular field, determining one or more unique field values from the extracted field values for the particular field, as defined by the extraction rule, in the plurality of events; determining a statistic associated with each of the one or more unique field values in the extracted field values at a location within each of the plurality of events, the location defined by the extraction rule; causing display, via a graphical user interface, of a subset of the one or more unique field values; causing display, via the graphical user interface, of information related to the statistic associated with the displayed unique field value among the subset of the one or more unique field values; wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices. Appeal 2020-001159 Application 15/582,669 3 REFERENCE(S) The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Ivanov US 2007/0198565 A1 Aug. 23, 2007 Ward US 2010/0275128 A1 Oct. 28, 2010 Petersen US 2012/0246303 A1 Sept. 27, 2012 REJECTIONS The Examiner provisionally rejects claim 12 under nonstatutory double patenting over claim 1 of each of copending Applications 15/582,668, 15/582,667, 15/011,392, 14/816,038, and 14/816,036. Final Act. 3. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, 8–13, 15, 18–23, 25, and 28–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Petersen and Ivanov. Final Act. 15–21. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 6, 14, 16, 24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Petersen, Ivanov, and Ward.3 Final Act. 21–23. 2 We note that the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection in the Final Office Action includes a harmless typographical error identifying claim 7, instead of claim 1, as provisionally rejected under nonstatutory double patent. Compare Final Act. 3 (stating that claim 7 is provisionally rejected), with Final Act. 3–15, dated Jan. 17, 2019 (presenting a limitation by limitation comparison of claim 1 with the copending applications). 3 We note that Ward’s application number was not identified in the Final Office Action, but was cited in the Notice of References Cited, dated August 31, 2017. Appeal 2020-001159 Application 15/582,669 4 OPINION THE PROVISIONAL NONSTATUTORY DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION Claim 1 Appellant does not argue the Examiner’s nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1, nor does Appellant identify any filing of a terminal disclaimer. See Appeal Br. 10 (asserting that in view of the amendments the nonstatutory double patenting rejection should be withdrawn). While we recognize Appellant cancelled claim 7, which was identified as rejected (Final Act. 3), the Examiner’s substantive rejection clearly set forth and analyzes the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 4– 15; Ans. 3. As such, Appellant’s general assertion, without more, is not persuasive. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON PETERSEN AND IVANOV Claims 1–3, 5, 8–13, 15, 18–23, 25, and 28–30 Appellant argues that Petersen fails to teach or suggest “determining one or more unique field values from the extracted field values for the particular field, as defined by the extraction rule, in the plurality of events” and “determining a statistic associated with each of the one or more unique field values in the extracted field values at a location within each of the plurality of events, the location defined by the extraction rule,” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 21. Appeal Br. 11–13. For example, Appellant acknowledges that Petersen describes counting unique log messages, but Appellant points out there is no disclosure of a statistic associated with each of the one or more extracted unique field values at a Appeal 2020-001159 Application 15/582,669 5 location within each of the plurality of events. Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 2–3. The Examiner acknowledges that in Petersen “whole events are counted; not necessarily explicitly the unique field values which are found from regular expressions.” Ans. 5. The Examiner, though, determines Petersen teaches “that events such as logins are counted and those events are determined based on a regular expression which extracts field values within events.” Ans. 5. The Examiner then reasons Because the events are determined based on regular expressions, when events are counted, the field values are counted. Furthermore, the Office is required to view the claims in light of a broadest reasonable interpretation. The claims don’t clarify that the field values must be a sub-portion of the events or that there may be multiple field values within a single event. Therefore, based on a broadest reasonable interpretation, the regular expressions can be interpreted as extracting field values which comprise entire events. This would mean that the regular expressions define field values as entire log messages so that counting the log messages is no different than counting the field values. Ans. 5. We are persuaded of error. Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 include (1) a plurality of time-stamped events, (2) extracted field values extracted from the plurality of events, (3) unique extracted field values from the extracted field values in the plurality of events, and (4) a statistic associated with each of the one or more unique field values at a location within each of the plurality of events. We understand the Examiner interprets Petersen’s log entries as the plurality of events, and the parsed log message as the extracted field values. See Final Act. 16. While the Examiner correctly identifies that Petersen, like the claimed invention, uses regular expressions Appeal 2020-001159 Application 15/582,669 6 to parse log message, i.e. extract field values (Petersen ¶ 102, Spec. 23), notably absent in Petersen are the further limitations of those extracted field values. Petersen’s general teaching of consolidating log messages, i.e. events, and reporting statistical features of events (Petersen ¶¶ 117, 168) is insufficient to teach or suggest the claimed extracted unique field value and associated statistic limitations. Therefore, based on the record before us, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. According, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 8–13, 15, 18–23, 25, and 28–30 as unpatentable over Petersen and Ivanov. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON PETERSEN, IVANOV, AND WARD Claims 4, 6, 14, 16, 24, and 26 Each of claims 4, 6, 14, 16, 24, and 26 dependent from one of independent claims 1, 11, and 21. As discussed above, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 5, 8–13, 15, 18–23, 25, and 28–30 over Petersen and Ivanov. Ward does not cure the deficiencies of Petersen and Ivanov and, as such, we are similarly persuaded of error. According, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 6, 14, 16, 24, and 26 as unpatentable over Petersen, Ivanov, and Ward. Appeal 2020-001159 Application 15/582,669 7 CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1, and we reverse the rejections of claims 1–6, 8–16, 18– 26, and 28–30 as unpatentable based on the cited combinations of prior art. Appeal 2020-001159 Application 15/582,669 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting over claim 1 (15/582,668, 15/582,667, 15/011,392, 14/816,038, 14/816,036) 1 1–3, 5, 8– 13, 15, 18– 23, 25, 28– 30 103 Petersen, Ivanov 1–3, 5, 8– 13, 15, 18– 23, 25, 28– 30 4, 6, 14, 16, 24, 26 103 Petersen, Ivanov, Ward 4, 6, 14, 16, 24, 26 Overall Outcome 1 2–6, 8–16, 18–26, 28– 30 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation