Index of Claims
`
`11022599
`
`NATCHU, VISHNU
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`
`Reexamination
`
`Rejected
`
`CLAIM
`
`DATE
`
`
`Application/Control No.
`
`
`
`
`
` Examiner
`~ TIMI
`I
`
`
`
`Wong, Xavier Szewai
`
`=|Allowed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ee|
`
`
`|Tt v Pp
`pffT
`eeSS
`po Pp
`po
`Po
`
`
`Po
`
`p|
`po
`Poe
`
`SS————
`Po
`a
`
`SEé a
`
`po
`Pote
`Pot
`Po
`Pot
`po
`EEpoew
`rrPot
`Po
`po
`po
`J 80
`f
`-—}-|__ po
`pT
`eseeee
`Poee
`po
`fe
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Part of Paper No.
`
`: 20071217
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Page 66
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 66
`
`

`

`a
`
`Index of Claims
`
`Application/Control No.
`
`11022599
`
`Examiner
`
`Wong,Xavier Szewai
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination
`NATCHU,VISHNU
`
`Art Unit
`
`2616
`
`Rejected
`
`Cancelled
`
`=|Allowed Restricted
`
`
`
`
`
`CLAIM
`
`
`
`‘BriTa007
`ipef|
`fe
`esa
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Part of Paper No. : 20071217
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 67
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 67
`
`

`

`Search Notes
`
`
`
`Application/Control No.
`
`11/022,599
`Examiner
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent under
`Reexamination
`
`NATCHU, VISHNU
`Art Unit
`
`Xavier Szewai Wong
`
`2616
`
`SEARCHED
` SEARCH NOTES
`(INCLUDING SEARCH STRATEGY)
`
`DATE
`
`EXMR
`
`EASTimage and keyword searchin
`USPAT, US-PGPUB, DERWENT,
`EPO, JPO, and IBM_TDB(please see
`
`12/16/2007
`
`
`
`12/16/2007
`
`
`
`inventor Name and Assignee search
`in PALM ExPO and EAST
`
`12/16/2007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`search history)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Part of Paper No. 20071217
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 68
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 68
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER F'OR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`11/022,599
`
`12/22/2004
`
`Vishnu Natchu
`
`60010-0020
`
`8956
`
`08/20/2008
`7590
`29989
`IIICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER, LLP
`2055 GATEWAYPLACE
`SUITE 550
`SAN JOSE, CA 95110
`
`1
`
`
`
`WONG, XAVIER S$
`
`2616
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`08/20/2008
`
`RAESR ORE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 69
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 69
`
`

`

`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`
`Notice of Abandonment
`
`11/022,599
`Examiner
`
`Xavier Wong
`
`NATCHU, VISHNU
`Art Unit
`
`2616
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
`
`This application is abandonedin view of:
`
`|.BdApplicant's failure to timelyfile a proper reply to the Office letter mailed on 20" December 2007.
`(a) DA reply wasreceived on
`(with a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission dated
`), which is after the expiration of the
`period for reply (including a total extension of time of
`month(s)) which expired on
`(b) [A proposed reply was received on
`, but it does not constitute a proper reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (a) to the final rejection.
`(A proper reply under 37 CFR 1.113 toafinal rejection consists only of: (1) a timely filed amendment which places the
`application in condition for allowance; (2) a timely filed Notice of Appeal (with appeal fee); or (3) a timely filed Request for
`Continued Examination (RCE) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114).
`(c) [A reply was received on
`but it does not constitute a proper reply, or a bona fide attempt at a proper reply, to the non-
`final rejection. See 37 CFR 1.85(a) and 1.111. (See explanation in box 7 below).
`(d) X] No reply has been received.
`
`2. FZ] Applicant's failure to timely pay the required issue fee and publication fee, if applicable, within the statutory period of three months
`from the mailing date of the Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85).
`(with a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission dated
`(a) CJ The issue fee and publication fee, if applicable, was received on
`), which is after the expiration of the statutory period for payment of the issue fee (and publication fee) set in the Notice of
`Allowance (PTOL-85).
`is due.
`is insufficient. A balance of $
`(b) (J The submitted fee of $.
`The issue fee required by 37 CFR 1.18 is $
`. The publication fee, if required by 37 CFR 1.18(d), is $
`(c) (] The issue fee and publication fee, if applicable, has not been received.
`
`:
`
`3.00 Applicant's failure to timely file corrected drawings as required by, and within the three-month period set in, the Notice of
`Allowability (PTO-37).
`(a) [] Proposed corrected drawings were received on
`after the expiration of the period for reply.
`(b) [J No corrected drawings have been received.
`
`(with a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission dated
`
`), which is
`
`
`
`4. [] The letter of express abandonment whichis signed by the attorney or agentof record, the assigneeof the entire interest, or all of
`the applicants.
`
`5. 0 Theletter of express abandonmentwhich is signed by an attorney or agent (acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR
`1.34(a)}) upon the filing of a continuing application.
`
`6. L] The decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference rendered on
`of the decision has expired and there are no allowed claims.
`
`and because the period for seeking court review
`
`7. J The reason(s) below:
`
`over 7 monthsafter office action mailed 12-20-07 without response filed
`
`{Brenda Pham/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
`
`Petitions to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(a) or (b), or requests to withdraw the holding of abandonment under 37 CFR 1.181, should be promptly filed to
`minimize any negative effects on patent term.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-1432 (Rev. 04-01)
`
`Notice of Abandonment
`
`Part of Paper No. 20080816
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 70
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 70
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Application
`Inventor(s): Vishnu, Natchu
`Appln. No.:—11/022,599 Art Unit: 2616
`
`Confirm. No.: 8956
`Examiner: Wong, Xavicr S.
`Filed: 12/22/2004
`
`Title: MECHANISM FOR IDENTIFYING AND
`
`PENALIZING MISBEHAVING FLOWS
`
`IN A NETWORK
`
`Customer No. 43490
`
`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION UNDER37 C.F.R. § 1.111
`
`Mail Stop Amendments
`Commissioner for Patcnts
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DearSir:
`
`This RESPONSEis in reply to the Office Action mailed December 20, 2007. The time
`
`set for response was three months and ended on March 20, 2008. No reply wasfiled prior to the
`
`end of the six month maximum statutory period. Thus, the above-referenced application was
`
`unintentionally abandonedand a Petition for Revival under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137 accompaniesthis
`
`response. All required fees are enclosed.
`
`SABLE-01008
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 71
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 71
`
`

`

`Remarks
`
`These remarks are in response to the Office Action mailed December 20, 2007. Thetotal
`
`number of claims submitted for consideration is forty (40).
`
`SABLE-01008
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 72
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 72
`
`

`

`Office Action Not in Accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.104(¢)(2)
`
`Applicant respectfully asserts that the rejections are not in accordance with 37 CFR
`
`1.104(c)(2), which states, in relevantpart, “[t]he pertinence of cach reference, if not apparent,
`
`must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.” In the present Office Action, there
`
`rejected claims have been lumped together into one collective rejection, and the language of the
`
`claims has been paraphrased. For example, in paragraph 6 of the Office Action, claims 4, 10, 24,
`
`and 30 were rejected “as applied to claims 1, 8, 21, and 28” without explanation as to the
`
`pertinence of the reference as applied to each element of each rejected claim. Applicant hasset
`
`forth several arguments below, however without further clarity in the rejections, Applicant
`
`cannot properly and fully respond. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that these
`
`rejections be withdrawn.
`
`SABLE-01008
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 73
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 73
`
`

`

`Response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`The Office Action rejected claims 1, 2, 4-10, 21, 22 and 24-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`as being anticipated by Zikan ct al (U.S. 6,310,881 B1).
`
`“A claim is anticipated only if each and every elementas set forth in the claim is found,
`
`either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v.Union
`
`Oil Co. ofCalifornia, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Zikan does not
`
`anticipate each and every element of each rejected claim.
`
`
`Rejections to Claims 1 & 21 Under § 102(b)
`
`The Office Action mistakenly asserts that the dynamic load balancer in Zikanet al. 1s
`
`equivalent to the misbehaving flow manager (MFM)ofthe present application. Conversely,
`
`these two components have different functions and utilize different types of information, as
`
`described below. And while the result of the method taught in Zikan is improved routing
`
`capabilities (col. 1, In 17-20; col. 2, In 52-59), in the present invention “processing a packet my,
`
`but does not necessarily, involve forwarding the packet to another router.” [detailed description
`
`of present application, hereinafter “Natchu’”, para 29]
`
`Claim 1 teaches “a machine implemented methodfor processing a flow...” This is a
`
`method for processing a single flow, whereby only the statistics and behaviorofthat one flow
`
`are used to determine its outcome. [Natchu, para 30-31] By contrast, the Zikan method teaches a
`
`networktraffic direction system comprising several router modules that, by communicating with
`
`each other, determine changes in the overall communication system and adapt accordingly. [See
`
`FIGs. 1, 2A, 2B] Thus, the Zikan reference teaches multiple nodes that acquire information from
`
`SABLE-01008
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 74
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 74
`
`

`

`multiple sources and make changes to groups of flows, whereas the present invention is directed
`
`to a method for processing one flow at a time based on information from only that one flow.
`
`Claim 1 of the present application also teaches “maintaining a set of behavioralstatistics
`
`for the flow, whercin the sct of bchavioralstatistics is updated as information packcts belonging
`
`to the flow are processed.” Again, this claim is directed to processing a single flow. Information
`
`pertaining to each packet belonging to a single flow is collected by the misbehaving flow
`
`manager (MFM), and eachset of behavioralstatistics contains information from only one flow.
`
`[Natchu, para 35; FIGs. 3-4] By contrast, the dynamic load balancer of Zikan is “configured to
`
`determine flows based on the homeand neighborpotentials,” and “‘uses information collected by
`
`the neighborhood supervisor unit 214 of the home router module 130 from the neighboring
`
`router modules 130.” [col. 2, In 45-47; col. 5, In 34-37; see also col. 17, In 18-29]
`
`In claim 1 of the present application, “the set of behavioralstatistics is updated as
`
`information packets belonging to [a single] flow are processed.” Additionally, statistics for each
`
`flow processed by a router are separate and distinct, and the statistics for one flow are not used to
`
`determine the outcome of another flow. [Natchu, para 29-30; FIGs. 3-4] By contrast, the
`
`dynamic load balancer of Zikan “adjusts the routing tables of the router table unit 218 based
`
`upon the information collected [from neighboring router modules] in order to optimize overall
`
`utilization of the data communication system served by the networktraffic director system 110.”
`
`[col. 5, In 34-41] “The dynamic load balancer unit 216 uses information from the neighborhood
`
`supervisor unit 214 to determine paramcters that the routing table unit 218 then uses to prepare
`
`routing table data.” [col. 7, In 63-66] The method for determining these parameters and
`
`optimizingtraffic flow is discussed in columns 8-11 of Zikan.
`
`SABLE-01008
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 75
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 75
`
`

`

`Mathematically, the method is expressed in column 9, lines 45-50 of Zikan, and “the
`
`expression E,(f) incorporates factors associated with individual OD/QoS combinations for each
`
`arc “ab” over all the arcs in a data communication system.” [col. 10, In 29-31] An “arc” is
`
`defined as a direction that a packet can travel along a link, and “for typical flow conditions in a
`
`data communication system, an overall flow in a particular arc typically is a conglomeration of
`
`one or more separate flows.” [col. 8, In 12-14, 48-50] Thus, in the Zikan reference, the method
`
`used to optimize traffic flow in a communication system incorporates information from several
`
`flows, whereas the methodin the present application utilizes information from a single flow. [See
`
`also col. 17, In 39-46]
`
`Claim | of the present application includes “determining, basedat least partially upon the
`
`set of behavioral statistics, whether the flow is exhibiting undesirable behavior.” Therefore, once
`
`all statistics for a single flow are collected, the MFM decides how to treat that particular flow
`
`(e.g., whether to drop all or part of it, etc.) [Natchu, para 30] By contrast, the dynamic load
`
`balancer 216 in Zikan collects information from “router modules scattered throughout a data
`
`communication system” via the neighborhood supervisor unit 214. [col. 15, In 43-44, 61-63] The
`
`information collected within a predetermined period of time is then analyzed and comparedto
`
`the information collected from the previous time period. If certain parameters have changed or
`
`been reached, the dynamic load balancer subsequently updates its associated routing table. [col.
`
`19, In 12-25] Therefore, while the system in Zikan collects information during a predetermined
`
`time period and comparesit with information from another time period, the method of the
`
`present invention collects information for a single flow, without time limits, and does not
`
`compare it to statistics for another flow.
`
`SABLE-01008
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 76
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 76
`
`

`

`The method of claim 1 in the present application also comprises, “in response to
`
`determination that the flow is exhibiting undesirable behavior, enforcing a penalty on the flow.”
`
`In the present invention, any given penalty imposed is applied to only a single flow; the decision
`
`to enforce a penalty is not carricd out on multiple flows at a time. [Natchu, para 31-32; FIGs. 3,
`
`5] Moreover, in the present invention a penalty can include dropping a packet or enforcing an
`
`increased drop rate on the flow [Natchu, para 31-32, 41-44].
`
`Bycontrast, the penalty function involvedin the Zikan system is actually a measure of
`
`undesirable influences affecting the flow of communication in the entire data communication
`
`system.[col. 9, In 62-65] This penalty function requires consideration of a multitude of factors
`
`relating to a plurality of flows within the data system. “The solution to the optimization of the
`
`uniquely formulated [penalty function] over all the componentflows...results in solutions of
`
`flow fj.ab for each OD/QoS combination “j”for each arc “ab” in the data communication
`
`system.” [col. 10, In 52-58] Moreover, Zikan does not teach a penalty function that includes
`
`dropping a flow or increasing the drop rate for a flow. Instead, the penalty function of Zikan
`
`determines the presence of undesirable influences in the data communication system that may be
`
`remedied by changing parameters stored in routing tables. Thus, the penalty function docs not
`
`impose an action on a single flow as the result of that single flow’s behavior.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, claim | is not anticipated by Zikan and Applicant respectfully
`
`requests that the rejection to claim 1 be withdrawn.
`
`Claim 21 wasalso rejected as being anticipated by Zikan. The elements of claim 21
`
`parallel those of claim 1. Thus, the arguments made above with respect to claim | rejections also
`
`apply to the rejection of claim 21 under §102(b), and Applicant respectfully requests that the
`
`rejection to claim 21 be withdrawn.
`
`SABLE-01008
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 77
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 77
`
`

`

`
`Rejections to Claims 5 & 25 Under $102(b)
`
`Claim 5 teaches a method that comprises “maintaining a set of behavioralstatistics for
`
`the flow, whercin the sct of behavioral statistics is updated as information packets belonging to
`
`the flow are processed.” These same elements are also present in claim |. Therefore, the
`
`aforementioned arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under §102(b) are likewise
`
`applicable to these elements of claim 5, and Applicantasserts that Zikan does not anticipate these
`
`elements.
`
`Claim 5 also teaches “computing, basedat least partially upon the set of behavioral
`
`statistics, a badness factor for the flow, wherein the badness factor provides an indication of
`
`whether the flowis exhibiting undesirable behavior.” The badness factor taught by the present
`
`application employs a set of behavioralstatistics for a single flow, and its resulting calculation is
`
`utilized by the MFM to determine whether a penalty should be enforced on the flow. [Natchu,
`
`para 30, 41]
`
`By contrast, the expression E,,g(/) in Zikan necessarily requires computation of data
`
`from all flows in a communication system in order to assess the state of the system as a whole.
`
`“The solution for data flows also optimizes the following uniquely formulated expression E,,6(f)
`
`involving a substantially quadratic function of data flows in a data communication system.” [col.
`
`9, In 40-44] “The expression E,,3(f) incorporates factors associated with individual OD/QoS
`
`combinations for each are “ab” overall the arcs in a data communication system.” [col. 10, In
`
`29-31] Moreover, once E,,g(f) is computed, any changes madeare applied to a group offlowsin
`
`the system; there is no drop-rate penalty enforced on an individual flow.
`
`SABLE-01008
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 78
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 78
`
`

`

`For the foregoing reasons, claim 5 is not anticipated by Zikan and Applicant respectfully
`
`requests that the rejection to claim 5 be withdrawn.
`
`Claim 25 wasalso rejected as being anticipated by Zikan. The elements of claim 25
`
`parallel those of claim 5. Thus, the arguments made above with respect to claim | rejections also
`
`apply to the rejection of claim 25 under §102(b), and Applicant respectfully requests that the
`
`rejection to claim 25 be withdrawn.
`
`
`Rejections to Claims 2, 4, 6-10, 22, 24, 26-30 Under $102(b
`
`Claims 2, 4, 6-10, 22, 24, and 26-30 were also rejected under §102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Zikan. Claims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the limitations
`
`of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. 37 CFR 1.75. As shown above,
`
`claims 1, 5, 21, and 25 are not anticipated by Zikan. Claims 2 & 4 depend from claim 1; claims
`
`6-10 depend from claim 5; claims 22 & 24 depend from claim 21; and claims 26-30 depend from
`
`claim 25. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that these rejections be withdrawn as well.
`
`SABLE-01008
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 79
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 79
`
`

`

`Response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`Claims3, 12-14, 18, 23, 32-34, and 38 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Zikan ct al in view of Skirmont. Claims 11 and 31 were rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Zikan et al in view of Afanador. Claims 15-17, 35-37
`
`were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Zikan et al in view of Scifres
`
`et al. Claims 19-20, 39-40 were rejected under §103(a) as being unpatentable over Zikan in view
`
`of Kejriwal et al. As explained above, these rejections are lumpedtogether in groups without
`
`specific explanation of how each element is obvious over each reference. Moreover, the claims
`
`are paraphrased and citations to the references are sparse. Thus, these rejections are improper and
`
`Applicant cannot properly respond.It is respectfully requested that these rejections be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`SABLE-01008
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`10
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 80
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 80
`
`

`

`Conclusion
`
`Applicant respectfully asserts that the Office Action does not meet the standards of 37
`
`CFR 104(c)(2) and requests that the action be withdrawn and a new Office Action issued.
`
`Additionally, to the best of Applicant’s ability in light of the improper Office Action, arguments
`
`have been set forth whichillustrate that the cited references do not render the claims
`
`unpatentable.
`
`The Examineris respectfully requested to telephone the undersigned if she can assist in
`
`any way in expediting the issuance of a patent.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Sara Dirvianskis/
`Sara Dirvianskis
`Reg. No. 62,613
`
`Dated: May 21, 2009
`
`West & Associates, A PC
`2815 Mitchell Dr., Suite 209
`Walnut Creek, CA 94598
`T: (925) 465-4603
`
`SABLE-01008
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`1]
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 81
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 81
`
`

`

`
`
`Electronic Patent Application Fee Transmittal
`
`Application Number:
`
`Filing Date:
`
`11022599
`
`22-Dec-2004
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Mechanism foridentifying and penalizing misbehaving flows in a network
`
`
`
`
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Vishnu Natchu
`
`Filer:
`
`Stuart James West/Marisella Cornett
`
`Filed as Small Entity
`
`Utility under 35 USC 111(a)Filing Fees
`
`Description
`
`Fee Code
`
`Quantity
`
`Sub-Total in
`USD($)
`
`Basic Filing:
`
`Claims:
`
`
`Miscellaneous-Filing:
`
`Petition-revive unintent. abandoned appl
`
`Patent-Appeals-and-Interference:
`
`Post-Allowance-and-Post-Issuance:
`
`Extension-of-Time:
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 82
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 82
`
`

`

`Sub-Total in
`Fee Code Quantity AmountDescription USD(S)
`
`
`
`
`
`Total in USD ($)
`
`
`
`
`
`Miscellaneous:
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 83
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 83
`
`

`

`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`5379175
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Mechanism for identifying and penalizing misbehaving flows in a network
`
`
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Vishnu Natchu
`
`Customer Number:
`
`29989
`
`
`
`Filer Authorized By: Stuart James West
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket Number: 60010-0020
`
`Receipt Date:
`
`21-MAY-2009
`
`Utility under 35 USC 111(a)
`Application Type:
`
`
`Paymentinformation:
`
`
`
`Submitted with Payment yes
`
`Payment Type
`
`Credit Card
`
`Authorized User
`
`File Listing:
`
`Pages|tamper’|__DecumentDescription|FileName|Message Digest Part/.zip (ifappl.)
`
`File Size(Bytes)/
`
`Multi
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 84
`
`
`
`
`
`Document
`
`eg
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 84
`
`

`

`Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
`
`‘
`“
`20090521-Transmittal-Revival-
`SABLE-01008.pdf
`
`2127342
`
`9273262a6d96ac04909387f952e6a815792|
`
`Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
`
`SABLE-01008_RevivalPetition_F
`inalSDP. pdf
`
`Yel
`5c1cA3fa221d0854051ed95344ec1 88ad9e
`
`20090521-
`
`Information:
`
`20090520-
`declarationforrevival-
`Oath or Declaration filed
`S4ca
`SABLE-01008_FinalSDP.pdf|asedcsbaa7ctodeebda35t3465cidbdo4oaf
`
`
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`20090521-
`Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in
`SABLE-01008_ROA_FinalSDP.
`an Amendment
`6e38,
`4cde5042cb40d09b1 dbboo6b49fa715cO""l
`pdf
`
`
`126381
`
`Warnings:
`
`Fee Worksheet (PTO-875)
`
`fee-info.pdf
`
`30327
`
`3ec3f0/0ba43223ae/fadb341131a489c3d
`2faSb
`
`This AcknowledgementReceipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTOof the indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary componentsfor a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shownon this
`Acknowledgement Receiptwill establish thefiling date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903indicating acceptanceof the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary componentsfor
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and ofthe International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105)will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receiptwill establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 85
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 85
`
`

`

`wee wu. 8 Re
`
`DocumentDescription: Petition for Review by the Office of Petitions
`
`PTO/SB/64 (04-09)
`Approved for use through 05/31/2009. OMB 0651-0031
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respondto a collection of information unlessit displays a valid OMB control number.
`PETITION FOR REVIVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR PATENT
`Docket Number (Optional)
`ABANDONED UNINTENTIONALLY UNDER37 CFR1.137(b)
`SABLE-01008
`
`Title:
`
`|Mechanism For Identifying And Penalizing Misbehaving FlowsIn a Network
`
`NOTE: If information or assistance is needed in completing this form, please contact Petitions
`Information at (571) 272-3282.
`
`
`
`
`First named inventor; Vishnu, Natchu
`
`41/022,599
`Art Unit: 2816
`
`Application No.:
`Filed: December22, 2004 ,
`Examiner: Wong,Xavier S.
`
`
`Attention: Office of Petitions
`
`
`Mail Stop Petition
`Commissionerfor Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`FAX (571) 273-8300
`
`
`
`The above-identified application became abandonedforfailure to file a timely and properreply to a notice or action by the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. The date of abandonmentis the dayafter the expiration date of the period set
`for reply in the office notice or action plus any extensionsof time actually obtained.
`
`
`APPLICANT HEREBY PETITIONS FOR REVIVAL OF THIS APPLICATION
`
`
`
`
`NOTE:A grantable petition requires the following items:
`(1) Petition fee;
`(2) Reply and/or issue fee:
`(3) Terminal disclaimer with disclaimerfee - required for all utility and plant applications filed
`before June 8, 1995; and for all design applications; and
`(4) Statementthat the entire delay was unintentional
`
`
`
`
`1. Petition Fee
`
`
`
`Small entity-fee $ 810.00
`(37 CFR 1.17(m)). Application claims small entity status. See 37 CFR 1.27.
`
`
`[_] Other than small entity-fee $
`(37 CFR 1.17(m))
`
`
`
`
`[_]
`has been filed previously on
`
`
`is enclosed herewith.
`
`
`2. Reply and/or fee
`A.
`The reply and/or fee to the above-noted Office action in
`the form of Response To Office Action
`
`(identify type of reply):
`
`8B.
`
` - Theissue fee and publication fee (if applicable) of $
`|| has been paid previously on
` is enclosed herewith.
`[Page 1 of 2]
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.137(b). The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public whichis to file (and by the USPTO to
`process) an application. Confidentiality is govermed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.11 and 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 1.0 hourto complete,including
`gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application form ta the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon theindividual case. Any comments on the amountof
`time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions far reducing this burden, should be sentto the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMSTO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Mail
`Stop Petition, Commissionerfor Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450,
`
`ifyou need assistance in completing the form, call 1-800-PTO-9199 and select option 2.
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 86
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 86
`
`

`

`PTO/SB/84 (04-09)
`Approved for use through 05/31/2009. OMB 0651-0031
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`
`Underthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a colfection of information unlessit displays
`a valid OMB contro! number
`
`for a small entity or $__
`CI Aterminaldisclaimer (and disclaimer fee (37 CFR 1.20(a)) of $
`other than a small entity) disclaiming the required period of time is enclosed herewith (see PTO/SB/63).
`
`for
`
`4. STATEMENT: Theentire delayin filing the required reply from the due date for the required reply until the filing of a
`grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.137(b) was unintentional. (NOTE: The United States Patent and Trademark Office may
`require additionalinformationif there is a question as to whethereither the abandonmentorthe delayin filing a petition
`under 37 CFR 1.137(b) was unintentional (MPEP 711.03(c), subsections(II|)(C) and (D)).]
`
`WARNING:
`Petitioner/applicant is cautioned to avoid submitting personal information in documentsfiled in a patent application that may contribute
`to identity theft. Personal information such as social security numbers, bank account numbers,or credit card numbers(otherthan a
`check or credit card authorization form PTO-2038 submitted for payment purposes)is never required by the USPTO to support a
`petition or an application.
`{f this type of personalinformation is included in documents submitted to the USPTO,petitioners/applicants
`should consider redacting such personal information from the documents before submitting them to the USPTO. Petitioner/applicantis
`advised that the record of a patent application is available to the public after publication of the application (unless a non-publication
`request in compliance with 37 CFR 1.213(a) is made in the application) or issuance of a patent. Furthermore, the record from an
`abandonedapplication mayalso be available to the public if the application is referenced in a published application or an issued patent
`(see 37 CFR 1.14). Checks andcredit card authorization forms PTO-2038 submitted for payment purposesare notretained in the
`application file and therefore are not publicly available.
`/Sara Dirvianskis/
`
`May 21, 2009
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Sara Dirvianskis
`
`62,613
`Registration Number, lfapplicable
`Type or Printed name
`925-465-4603
`2815 Mitchell Drive, Suite 209
`
`TrAddresSss—=—“‘“CSOSOSCO;*;~™~™™OC~;Number.” telephone
`
`Wainut Creek, CA 94598
`
`Address
`
`3. Terminal disclaimer with disclaimerfee [J Since this utility/plant application wasfiled on or after June 8, 1995, no terminal disclaimeris required.
`
`Enclosures:
`
`Fee Payment
`[J Reply
`[~] Terminat Disclaimer Form
`[| Additional sheets containing statements establishing unintentional delay
`Other: Responseto Office Action
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING OR TRANSMISSION [37 CFR 1.8(a)}
`| hereby certify that this correspondenceis being:
`Deposited with the United States Postal Service on the date shown below with sufficient postage as
`L] first class mail in an envelope addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P. O. Box
`1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`
`C| Transmitted by facsimile on the date shown below to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`at (571) 273-8300.
`
`Date
`
`Signature
`
`ped or printed name of person signing certificate
`
`{Page 2 of 2]
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 87
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 87
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Application
`Inventor(s): Vishnu, Natchu
`ApplIn. No.:—11/022,599 Art Unit: 2616 .
`
`Confirm. No.: 8956
`,
`Examiner: Wong, XavierS.
`Filed: 12/22/2004
`
`
`
`Title) MECHANISM FOR IDENTIFYING AND
`
`PENALIZING MISBEHAVING FLOWS
`IN A NETWORK
`
`Customer No. 43490
`
`PETITION FOR REVIVAL OF PATENT
`APPLICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R.§ 1.137(b)
`
`Mail Stop Amendments
`Commissionerfor Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DearSir:
`
`Applicantrespectfully petitions for the revival of the above-references patent application
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b). The entire delayin filing a reply to the Office Action mailed
`
`Decembe