`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`11/022,599
`Examiner
`
`XavierSzewai Wong
`
`NATCHU, VISHNU
`Art Unit
`
`2462 |
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WieMENER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event, however, maya reply betimelyfiled
`after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Anyreply received by the Office later than three monthsafter the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any
`eared patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)X] Responsive to communication(s) filed on 21°' May 2009.
`2a) This action is FINAL.
`2b)L] This action is non-final.
`3)L] Sincethis application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordancewith the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4)] Claim(s) 1-40 is/are pendingin the application.
`4a) Of the above claim(s)____ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`5)L] Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`6) Claim(s) 1-40 is/are rejected.
`7) Claim(s)___ is/are objected to.
`8)L] Claim(s)__ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)L] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`10)L] The drawing(s)filed on
`is/are: a)[_] accepted or b)_] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`11)C The oath ordeclaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12) Acknowledgmentis made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)}(d) or(f).
`a)LJAI b)L] Some*c)] None of:
`
`1.L] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.0] Copiesofthe certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`
`
`Attachment(s)
`1) Cl Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) CJ Notice of Draftsperson’s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) [J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`;
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`4) Cl Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. __
`5) L] Notice of Informal Patent Application
`6) CT Other:
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20091024
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 103
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 103
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022 ,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Argumentsfiled on 21% May 2009are not persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues that Zikan, in general, does not suggest “processing a single flow,
`
`whereby only the statistics and behavior of that one flow are used to determineits outcome(pg.
`
`4).” Nonetheless, the limitations of independentclaims 1 and 21, in no where in the claims do the
`
`arguments presented above reflect such “narrowed down”limitations. Even, en arguendo, that
`
`said “narrowed down”limitations are present, col. 8 lines 48-50 of Zikan clearly states “an
`
`overall flow in a particular are typically is a conglomeration of one or more separate flows,” in
`
`other words, the arc flow can be one single flow (emphasis added). Such (each one/ single) arc
`
`flow is governed by a penalty and merit function E,.(/) as explained in col. 10 lines 29-30.
`
`Applicant also argues that the penalty function of Zikan does not suggest “dropping a
`
`packet or enforcing an increased drop rate on the flow”as the applicant’s invention performs(pg.
`
`7). Again, no where in the limitations of claim 1 (or claim 21) mentions such “narrowed down”
`
`limitations of “dropping packets” or “increasing drop rates.” Claim 1 (and claim 21) merely states
`
`“a determination that the flow is exhibiting undesirable behaviour, forcing a penalty on the
`
`flow.” Clearly, the Zikan penalty and merit function teaches the limitations above.
`
` In response to applicant's argument above that the
`
`references fail to show certain features of applicant's
`
`invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant
`
`
`
`relies (e., dropping a packet or enforcing an increased drop rate on the flow) are not
`
`recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 104
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022 ,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 3
`
`
`interpreted in light of the specification,
`
`limitations from the
`
`specification are not read into the claims. See in re Van Geuns,
`
`988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Applicants also argue that claims 4, 10, 24 and 30 are not clearly taught by Zikan (pg.3).
`
`Claims 4, 10, 24 and 30 contains the samelimitations, thus, the examiner combined the
`
`rejections and asserts that the best reference, Zikan, at the time of the previous action dated 20"
`
`December 2007 has been applied and fully explained, and therefore, in full compliance with 37
`
`CFR 1.104(c)(2). Even so, the examiner hereby re-states the rejection as shown below:
`
`Claims 4, 10, 24 and 30: Zikan clearly teaches the penalty is enforced when a congestion
`
`condition is encountered (abstract, lines 3-6: penalty and merit function to reduce costs of
`
`congestion).
`
`Regarding claims 1-20, the Examiner notes the claimsare directed to statutory subject
`
`matter, per paragraphs 0025-0027 of the Applicant’s specification, becauseit is implied that a
`
`misbehaving flow manager, comprising processors, determines the behavior characteristics of a
`
`packet flow.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the
`
`basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A personshall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publicationin this or a foreign country or in public use or on
`sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 21, 22 and 24 — 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Zikanet al (US 6,310,881 B1).
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 105
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 105
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022 ,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 4
`
`Consider claims 1 and 21, Zikan et al disclose a dynamic load balancer (¢.g. MFM) for
`
`processing a flow which comprises of a series of information packets (col. 2 In. 45-49), the
`
`balancer comprising meansfor: maintaining a set of behavioral statistics, which are updated as
`
`information packets belong to the flow are processed, for the flow (col. 2 In. 47-5/; col. 5 In. 26-
`
`29); determining, based upon the behavioralstatistics, whether the flow is exhibiting undesirable
`
`behavior (col. 2 In. 47-51; col. 5 1n. 30-37); enforcing, in response to the determination of
`
`undesirable behavior, a penalty on the flow (col. 3 In. 2-6; col. 5 In. 37-47).
`
`Consider claims 5 and 25, Zikan et al disclose a dynamic load balancer (¢.g. MFM) for
`
`processing a flow which comprises of a series of information packets (col. 2 In. 45-49), the
`
`balancer comprising means for: maintaining a set of behavioral statistics, which are updated as
`
`information packets belong to the flow are processed, for the flow (col. 2 In. 47-5/; col. 5 In. 26-
`
`29), computing, based upon the behavioralstatistics, an expression Eyp(/) (e.g. badness factor) to
`
`provide indication of whether the flow is exhibiting undesirable behavior (col. 9 In. 40-65).
`
`Consider claims 2 and 22, as applied to claims 1 and 21, Zikan et al teach meansfor the
`
`penalty has an effect of correcting the flow’s behavior such that the flow exhibits less
`
`undesirable behavior (merit function & flow optimization: col. 3 In. 2-5; col. 4 In. 19-20, col. 10 In. 20-
`
`28).
`
`Consider claims 4, 10, 24 and 30, as applied to claims 1, 8, 21 and 28, Zikanet al teach
`
`that the invention is to solve, among other misbehaviors/faults, congestion in a network (col. 2
`
`In. /-6; abstract), the penalty function is enforced when a misbehavior/fault, such as a
`
`congestion, is encountered (col. 5 In. 30-47; col. 9 In. 62-65).
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 106
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 106
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022 ,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 5
`
`Consider claims 6 and 26, as applied to claims 5 and 25, Zikan et al teach meansfor the
`
`Eyp(/) (e.g. badness factor) providing an indication of a degree to which the flow 1s behaving
`
`undesirably (col. 9 In. 40-67).
`
`Consider claims 7, 8, 27 and 28 as applied to claims 6, 7, 26 and 27, Zikan et al teach
`
`means for determining, based on the E.p(/) (e.g. badness factor), a penalty to impose and enforce
`
`on the flow (col. 3 In. 2-6; col. 5 In. 37-4]; col. 9 In. 40-65).
`
`Consider claims 9 and 29, as applied to claims 8 and 28, Zikan et al teach meansfor the
`
`penalty has an effect (enforcing) of correcting the flow’s behavior such that the flow exhibits less
`
`undesirable behavior (merit function & flow optimization: col. 3 In. 2-5; col. 4 In. 19-20); therefore,
`
`causing Eyp(/) (e.g. badness factor) to improve (maximization of merit functions: col. 10 In. 20-28).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which formsthe basis forall
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the time the invention was madeto a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`manner in which the invention was made.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`Bw
`
`Determining the scope and contents of the priorart.
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claimsat issue.
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness
`or nonobviousness.
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 107
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 107
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022 ,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 6
`
`Claims3, 12, 13, 14, 18, 23, 32, 33, 34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Zikan et al (US 6,310,881 B1) in view of Skirmont (US 6,252,848 B1).
`
`Consider claims3, 13, 14, 23, 33 and 34, as applied to claims 1, 8, 13, 21, 28 and 33,
`
`Zikanet al teach the penalty imposed involve lost packets (drop rate; col. 4 In. 16-20). However,
`
`Zikan et al may not have exp/icit/y mentioned an increased drop rate such that a misbehaving
`
`flow has a higher probability of being dropped than flowsthat do not exhibit undesirable
`
`misbehavior. Skirmont teaches means for assigning not well-behaved flows to higher drop
`
`probabilities and therefore, creating an increased drop rate, than a flow that is well-behaved (col.
`
`4 In. 64-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary slcill in the art at the time the
`
`invention wascreated to apply the teachings of Skirmontto the penalty function of Zikan et al
`
`for penalty enforcement on misbehaving flows.
`
`Consider claims 12 and 32, as applied to claims 8 and 28, Zikanet al teach the claimed
`
`invention except may not have explicitly mentioned the penalty is determined and enforced on
`
`the flow even when no congestion condition is encountered. Skirmont mentions a Random Early
`
`Detection (RED) algorithm comprising means for allowing the dropping of packets without
`
`regard to the characteristics (e.g. congestion) of a flow (col. 5 In. 21-24). It would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was created to incorporate the
`
`REDalgorithm as mentioned by Skirmontto the load balancer of Zikan et al for improving
`
`network flow performance.
`
`Consider claims 18 and 38, as applied to claims 5 and 25, Zikanet al teach the claimed
`
`invention except may not have explicitly mentioned the behavioral statistics comprising an
`
`average size for the information packets of a flow. Skirmont teachesin figure 2? an average
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 108
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 108
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022 ,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 7
`
`queue (flow) size is taken into account when deciding a drop probability (col. 4 In. 26-34). It
`
`would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was created
`
`to apply the teachings of Skirmentto the penalty function of Zikan et al for enforcing flow
`
`traffic.
`
`Claims11 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zikan
`
`et al (US 6,310,881 B1) in view of Afanador (US 6,167,041).
`
`Consider claims 11 and 31, as applied to claims 8 and 28, Zikanet al disclose the
`
`claimed invention except may not have explicitly mentioned no penalty is enforced on a flow
`
`unless a congestion is encountered, regardless of how undesirably the flow is behaving.
`
`Afanadorteaches that only offending queues (flows) are penalized in time of congestion (col. &
`
`In. 25-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was created to apply the teachings of Afanadorto the penalty function of Zikan et al for fair
`
`penalization of flows.
`
`Claims 15, 16, 17, 35, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Zikan et al (US 6,310,881 B1) in view of Scifres et al (US 7,113,990 B2).
`
`Consider claims 15, 16, 17, 35, 36 and 37, as applied to claims 1, 5, 16, 25 and 36, Zikan
`
`et al teach the claimed invention except may not have explicitly mentioned the behavioral
`
`statistics comprising: T for an amount of total information containedin all of the information
`
`packets belonging to a flow, an L for how long the flow has been existing, and using T/L to
`
`obtain R, which is a rate for information transfer of the flow. Scifres et al teach a flow volume
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 109
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 109
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022 ,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 8
`
`32 (e.g. T) is divided by a time period 46 (e.g. L) to obtain an average flow rate (e.g. R) (col. 5
`
`In. 9-73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was created to apply the calculation method as taught by Scifres et al to the penalty function of
`
`Zikan et al for flow restriction and allocation.
`
`Claims 19, 20, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a} as being unpatentable over
`
`Zikanet al (US 6,310,881 B1) in view of Kejriwalet al (US 6,934,250 B1).
`
`Consider claims 19, 20, 39 and 40, as applied to claims 5 and 25, Zikan et al disclose the
`
`claimed invention except may not have explicitly mentioned meansfor receiving and
`
`determining whether to forward a particular information packet to a destination; updating, in
`
`response to a determination to forward the particular packet, a set of behavioralstatistics to
`
`reflect processing of the particular packet; and updating regardless of. Kejriwalet al teach
`
`means for a policing embodiment determines whether a received packetis to be rejected
`
`(discarded) or enqueued (forwarded out of a processor pipeline) to a destination based on a length
`
`indicator (packet conforming or non-conforming information); as a statistics table 92/ is being
`
`written based on the information of the packet, either rejected or forwarded.(col. 24 In. 30-43 &
`
`47-65, fig. 9 @ 917,922,924,950 > fig. 534).
`
`Conclusion
`
`This action is made FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the
`
`extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this action. In the eventa first reply is filed within TWO
`
`MONTHSofthe mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 110
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 110
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022 ,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 9
`
`the end of the THREE-MONTHshortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period
`
`will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event,
`
`however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHSfrom the date ofthis
`
`final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Xavier Wong whose telephone numberis 571-270-1780. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached on Mondaythrough Friday 3:30 am - 6:00 pm (EST).
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Seema Rao can be reached on 571-272-3174. The fax phone numberfor the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 1s 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.
`
`‘Xavier Szewai Wong/
`X.8.W
`30" October 2009
`
`/Donald L Mills/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 111
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 111
`
`

`

`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Application/Control No.
`Reexamination
`NATCHU, VISHNU
`
`Search Notes
`
`11022599
`
`
`Ili
`
`ll | ures
`
`Xavier Szewai Wong
`
`_
`
`2462
`
`
`
`SEARCHED
`
`
`Class
`Subclass
`Date
`Examiner
`10.30.09
`XSW
`
`229-236
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`370
`
`
`
`SEARCH NOTES
`
`Search Notes
`Date
`Examiner
`10.30.09
`XSW
`
`
` EASTimage, class and keyword search in USPAT, US-PGPUB,
`
`DERWENT, EPO, JPO, and IBM_TDB (please see search histor
`
`10.30.09 XSW
`Inventor Name and Assignee search in PALM and EAST
`
`
`INTERFERENCE SEARCH
`
`Class
`Subclass
`Date
`
`
`
` Examiner
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Part of Paper No. : 20091024
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exh ibit1002
`
`Page 112
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 112
`
`

`

`EASTSearch History
`
`EAST Search History
`
`EAST Search History (Prior Art)
`
`
`
`efault
`‘Operator
`
`.
`
` \US-PGPUB;
`USPAT: EPO;
`
`
`
`‘2009/10/30
`19:05
`
`i
`
`paQeEE, UE
`
` '370/229-236 .ccls.
`
`
`5@rlad<"20041222"
`‘@ad < "20041222"
`
`BORE,SE HEEpe
`2009/10/30
`19:05
`
`“(2009/10/30
`19:05
`
`'USPAT; EPO;
`SPO;
`‘DERWENT;
`I1BM_TDB
`{US-PGPUB:
`USPAT; EPO;
`
`
`
`
`RAE RRREEEEE,FE RRRERRRS
`‘2009/10/30
`19:05
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘US-PGPUB;
`USPAT, EPO;
`
`
`
`
`2009/10/30
`19:07
`
`(Caspian Sable).as. and
`\(penal$6 with (flow
`‘traffic)).clm.
`
`
`
` latchu near Vishnu).
`
`
`370/229,232,234.ccls.
`
` {370/233,235,236..ccls.
`
`
`
`» @riad<"2004122"
`‘@ad < "20041222"
`
`{USPAT; EPO;
`SPO;
`1
`‘DERWENT;
`{1BM_TDB
`{US-PGPUB;
`‘USPAT; EPO;
`
`IPO;
`
`‘DERWENT:
`‘|BM_TDB
`RARRERRRRE GEEERRR, SRRRRRRA RRRRRRSRRRRA |
`2007/12/16
`19:09
`
`(OR
`
`i:
`‘ON;
`
`(2007/12/16
`19:08
`
`i
`i
`i
`i
`i
`
`‘ORO
`i
`i
`
`\
`g
`‘
`\
`\
`
`‘ON\
`\
`‘:
`
`2007/12/16
`19:09
`
`
`
`‘USPAT; EPO;
`‘IPO;
`‘DERWENT;
`|BM_TDB
`
`‘US-PGPUB:
`‘USPAT; EPO;
`
`IPO;
`
`
`‘DERWENT;
`‘|BM_TDB
`
`file:///Cl/Documents%20and%20Settings/xwong/My%2!
`
`ODoc...599/EASTSearchllistory.11022599_AccessibleVersion.htm (1 of 2)10/30/2009 7:08:07 PM
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Page 113
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 113
`
`

`

`‘DERWENT;
`
`:
`SUSPAT; EPO;
`
`‘DERWENT;
`1BM_TDB
`
`‘USPAT; EPO;
`‘IPO;
`
`i
`
`‘ON
`
`‘ON
`
`'2007/12/16
`19:11
`
`2007/12/16
`19:11
`
`
`
`EASTSearch History
`
`ISSRREEREDRERRRERRESLERRE, ESEEEREREEREEREEEEEEES ISSREERERSELSE SERALERREE CESSLESANORASEES
`‘$5
`'4692
`(S2 $3) and S4
`{US-PGPUB;
`‘OR
`‘ON
`2007/12/16
`:
`SUSPAT; EPO;
`19:11
`
`:
`
`:
`:
`
`BeeteeREEEEEEEEEEEEEPEGE
`$8
`1448
`(S2 and S3) and S4
`‘US-PGPUB;
`OR
`‘ON
`2007/12/16
`:
`‘USPAT; EPO;
`19:11
`JPO;
`
` 44
`
`EASTSearch History (Interference)
`
`< This search history is empty>
`
`10/ 30/ 2009 7:08:00 PM
`C:\ Documents and Settings\ xwong\ Desktop\ Natchu\ Natchu_Base.wsp
`
`file:///Cl/Documents%20and%20Settings/xwong/My%20Doc...599/EASTSearchllistory.11022599_AccessibleVersion.htm (2 of 2)10/30/2009 7:08:07 PM
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 114
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 114
`
`

`

`EASTSearch History
`
`EAST Search History
`
`EAST Search History (Prior Art)
`:iittiitiittiittiitiittiitiittiittiitiittii4
`y
`‘Search Query
`
`y
`
`‘DBs
`
`:‘syssyy‘yys
`US- PGPUB;
`USPAT; EPO;
`\JPO;
`:syssy
`DERWENT;
`y
`;
`;4
`;
`;
`;4
`;
`;
`‘|BM_TDB
`
`;
`
`;4
`
`y3
`
`‘US- PGPUB;
`USPAT; EPO;
`JPO;
`DERWENT;
`ss
`‘IBM_TDB
`
`3333s3333
`
`US-PGPUB;
`‘USPAT; EPO;
`JPO;
`DERWENT;
`g
`‘|BM_TDB
`ener
`ys‘
`
`USPAT; EPO;
`JPO;
`DERWENT;
`;:
`‘1BM TDB
`
`US-PGPUB;
`USPAT; EPO;
`JPO;
`DERWENT;
`BM _TDB
`:;:::
`
`US-PGPUB;
`USPAT; EPO;
`JPO;
`s
`DERWENT;
`‘1BM_TDB
`
`:;:::;::::::;:::;::::::;:::;
`:::;:::;::::::;:::;::::
`
`‘US-PGPUB;
`USPAT; EPO;
`‘JPO;
`DERWENT;
`:
`‘IBM_TDB
`
`:;:::;::::::
`
`(Natchu near
`‘Vishnu).in.
`
`y
`
`‘370/229-236.ccls.
`
`2A EEEEDQu
`y
`29960275
`‘@rlad <
`"20041222" @ad
`< "20041222"
`
`;
`
`L4
`
`‘7769
`
`PROOeSnUCUSuentSUCUStEOnEEGS
`y
`
`>iD
`
`with (flow packet
`frame traffic
`stream)) same
`(statistic$5 behavi
`‘$6 histor$5)
`eeey
`‘L4 and (penal$5
`with (single one)
`adj (flow packet
`frame traffic
`stream))
`‘L4and(penal$5
`same (single one)
`:
`‘a
`dj (flow packet
`frame traffic
`stream))
`
`i$s$sssssss
`
`:
`
`;
`
`;4
`
`;3;
`
`333 y
`
`‘Time Stamp
`;
`;4
`;
`;4
`;
`;
`;4
`;
`;
`
`‘2009/10/30
`19:05
`
`;‘
`‘Plurals
`:;::;
`;
`;
`;4
`;
`;
`;4
`
`ON
`
`;
`
`;4
`
`;
`
`;
`
`;4
`
`;
`
`;
`
`;4
`
`;
`
`;
`
`;
`
`‘‘y
`s
`2009/10/30
`19:05
`
`g:ys‘ss
`
`2009/10/30
`19:05
`
`ON
`
`‘ON:
`
`Receeeenneeeeeeennnceeny
`
`‘ON
`
`eer
`‘:::\
`2009/10/30
`19:05
`
`‘ON‘
`
`:
`
`‘ON
`
`:\
`2009/10/30
`19:11
`
`:\:\:
`2009/10/30
`:
`19:30
`
`ON
`
`“(2009/10/30
`19:38
`
`EAST Search History (Interference)
`
`< This search history is empty>
`
`10/ 30/ 2009 8:46:06 PM
`C:\ Documents and Settings\ xwong\ My Documents\ EAST\ Workspaces\ Natchu_10.30.09.
`
`file://Cl/Documents%20and %20Settings/xwong/My%20Doc...599/EASTSearchHistory. 11022599AccessibleVersionhtm (1 of 2)10/30/2009 8:46:10 PM.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Page 115
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 115
`
`
`
`
`

`

`EASTSearch History
`
`wsp
`
`file://Cl/Documents%20and %20Settings/xwong/My%20Doc...599/EASTSearchHistory. 11022599AccessibleVersion.htm (2 of 2)10/30/2009 8:46:10 PM.
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 116
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 116
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`SABLE-01008
`
`8956
`
`03/12/2010
`7596
`43490
`WIST & ASSOCIATES, A PC
`1255 Treat Blvd.
`3rd Floor
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597
`
`p
`
`
`
`WONG, XAVIER S$
`
`2462,
`
`innit
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/12/2010
`
`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):
`PATENT @WEST-ASSOCIATES.NET
`STWEST @ ASTOUND.NET
`PATENT @ WESTPATENTLAW.COM
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 117
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 117
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413 (Rev. 04-03)
`
`
`
`
` . 11/022,599 NATCHU, VISHNU
`
`HatGEnIeN Seminary
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`
`
`Xavier Szewai Wong 2462
`
`All participants (applicant, applicant’s representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1) Xavier Wong.
`
`(2) Sara Pfeffer.
`
`Date ofInterview: 5March 2010.
`
`(3)Vishnu Natchu.
`
`(4)
`
`.
`
`Type:
`
`)[] Video Conference
`a)X] Telephonic
`c)L] Personal [copy given to: 1) applicant 2) applicant’s representative]
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted: d)] Yes
`If Yes, brief description:
`
`e)L] No.
`
`Claim(s) discussed: new proposed claim.
`
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Zikan et al, US 6310887 B2.
`
`Agreementwith respectto the claims f)_] was reached. g)L] was not reached. h)X] N/A.
`
`Substanceof Interview including description of the general nature of what was agreedto if an agreement was
`reached, or any other comments: discussed invention in general; the examiner recommendedfurtherclarification on
`‘behavioral statistics", "heuristically determining said flow" and "penalty" phrases; the applicant will file amendment for
`further consideration by the examiner.
`
`(A fuller description, if necessary, and a copy of the amendments which the examiner agreed would render the claims
`allowable, if available, must be attached. Also, where no copy of the amendments that would render the claims
`allowable is available, a summary thereof must be attached.)
`
`THE FORMAL WRITTEN REPLY TO THE LAST OFFIGE ACTION MUST INCLUDE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
`INTERVIEW. (See MPEP Section 713.04).
`If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, APPLICANTIS
`GIVEN A NON-EXTENDABLE PERIOD OF THE LONGER OF ONE MONTH OR THIRTY DAYS FROM THIS
`INTERVIEW DATE, OR THE MAILING DATE OF THIS INTERVIEW SUMMARY FORM, WHICHEVER IS LATER, TO
`FILE A STATEMENT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW. See Summary of Record of Interview
`requirements on reverse side or on attached sheet.
`
`
`
`/Xavier Szewai Wong/
`AU 2462 Patent Examiner
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20100305
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 118
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 118
`
`

`

`Manualof Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Section 713.04, Substance of Interview Must be Madeof Record
`A complete written statement as to the substance of any face-to-face, video conference, or telephoneinterview with regard to an application must be madeofrecord in the
`application whether or not an agreementwith the examiner was reachedat the interview.
`
`Summary of Record of Interview Requirements
`
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews
`Paragraph (b)
`
`In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statementof the reasons presented at the interview as
`warranting favorable action mustbe filed by the applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office action as specified in §§ 1.111, 1.135. (35 U.S.C. 132)
`
`37 CFR §1.2 Business to be transactedin writing.
`All business with the Patent or Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Patent and
`Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to
`any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt.
`
`The action of the Patent and Trademark Office cannot be based exclusively on the written record in the Office if that recordis itself
`incomplete through the failure to record the substanceof interviews.
`It is the responsibility of the applicant or the attorney or agent to make the substance of an interview of record in the applicationfile, unless
`the examiner indicates he or she will do so.
`It is the examiner’s responsibility to see that such a record is made andto correct material inaccuracies
`which bear directly on the question of patentability.
`
`Examiners must complete an Interview Summary Form for each interview held where a matter of substance has been discussed during the
`interview by checking the appropriate boxes andfilling in the blanks. Discussions regarding only procedural matters, directed solely to restriction
`requirements for which interview recordation is otherwise provided for in Section 812.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, or pointing
`out typographical errors or unreadable script in Office actions orthe like, are excluded from the interview recordation procedures below. Where the
`substance of an interview is completely recorded in an Examiners Amendment, no separate Interview Summary Record is required.
`
`The Interview Summary Form shall be given an appropriate Paper No., placed in the right hand portion ofthefile, and listed on the
`“Contents” section of the file wrapper.
`In a personal interview, a duplicate of the Form is given to the applicant (or attorney or agent) at the
`conclusion of the interview.
`In the case of a telephone or video-conferenceinterview, the copy is mailed to the applicant's correspondence address
`either with or prior to the nextofficial communication. If additional correspondencefrom the examiner is not likely before an allowanceor if other
`circumstances dictate, the Form should be mailed promptly after the interview rather than with the next official communication.
`
`The Form provides for recordation of the following information:
`— Application Number (Series Code and Serial Number)
`—
`Nameof applicant
`— Name of examiner
`— Date of interview
`— Type of interview (telephonic, video-conference, or personal)
`—
`Nameof participant(s) (applicant, attorney or agent, examiner, other PTO personnel, etc.)
`—
` Anindication whether or not an exhibit was shown or a demonstration conducted
`—
`Anidentification of the specific prior art discussed
`— An indication whether an agreement was reachedandif so, a description of the general nature of the agreement (may be by
`attachment of a copy of amendments or claims agreed as being allowable). Note: Agreement asto allowability is tentative and does
`notrestrict further action by the examiner to the contrary.
`— The signature of the examiner who conducted the interview (if Form is not an attachmentto a signed Office action)
`
`It is desirable that the examiner orally remind the applicant of his or her obligation to record the substance of the interview of each case. It
`should be noted, however, that the Interview Summary Form will not normally be considered a complete and properrecordation of the interview
`unlessit includes, or is supplemented by the applicant or the examinerto include, all of the applicable items required below concerning the
`substanceofthe interview.
`A complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include at least the following applicable items:
`1) A brief description of the nature of any exhibit shown or any demonstration conducted,
`2) an identification of the claims discussed,
`3) an identification of the specific prior art discussed,
`4) an identification of the principal proposed amendments of a substantive nature discussed, unless these are already described on the
`Interview Summary Form completed by the Examiner,
`5) a brief identification of the general thrust of the principal arguments presented to the examiner,
`(The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the arguments is not
`required. The identification of the argumentsis sufficientif the general nature or thrust of the principal arguments madeto the
`examiner can be understood in the context of the application file. Of course, the applicant may desire to emphasize andfully
`describe those arguments which heor she feels were or might be persuasive to the examiner.)
`6) a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed, and
`7) if appropriate, the general