Application/Control Number: 11/022,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 7
`
`Skirmont teaches means for assigning not well-behaved flows to higher drop
`
`probabilities and therefore, creating an increased drop rate, than a flow thatis well-
`
`behaved (col. 4In. 64-67). 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 Skirmontto the penalty
`
`function of Jacobson etal for penalty enforcement on misbehaving flows.
`
`Consider claims 12 and 32, as applied to claims 8 and 28, Jacobson et 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
`
`RED algorithm as mentioned by Skirmontto the load balancer of Jacobson etal for
`
`improving network flow performance.
`
`Consider claims 18 and 38, as applied to claims 5 and 25, Jacobson et al teach
`
`the claimed invention except may not have explicitly mentioned the behavioralstatistics
`
`comprising an average size for the information packets of a flow. Skirmont teachesin
`
`figure 2 an average queue (flow) size is taken into account when deciding a drop
`
`probability (col. 4 In. 26-34). 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 Skirmontto the penalty
`
`function of Jacobson etal for enforcing flow traffic.
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 215
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 215
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 8
`
`Claims 9 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Jacobson et al (US 2005/0226149 A1) in view of Malan et al (US 2002/0032717 A1)
`
`and in further view of Zikan et al (US 6,310,881 B1).
`
`Considerclaims 9 and 29, as applied to claims 8 and 28, Jacobsonet al teach
`
`means for the penalty has an effect (enforcing) of correcting the flow’s behavior such that
`
`the flow exhibits less undesirable behavior ([0097-0098]: DEM for a flow). Jacobson et
`
`al do not very explicitly teach “causing the badness factor to improve.” Zikan et al teach
`
`conceptof causing Eg,9(f) (e.g. badnessfactor) to improve (maximization of merit functions:
`
`col. 10 In. 20-28).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply a function
`
`of causing improvement in some badnessfactor as taught by Zikan etal to the single
`
`flow processing means of Jacobson et al to dynamically regulate each flow individually.
`
`Claims 11 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Jacobson etal (US 2005/0226149 A1) in view of Malan et al (US 2002/0032717
`
`A1) and in further view of Afanador (US 6,167,041).
`
`Consider claims 11 and 31, as applied to claims 8 and 28, Jacobson etal
`
`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. Afanador teachesthat only offending queues(flows) are penalized
`
`in time of congestion (col. 8 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 Afanador
`
`to the penalty function of Jacobson etal for fair penalization of flows.
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 216
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 216
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 9
`
`Claims 15, 16, 17, 35, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Jacobsonet al (US 2005/0226149 A1) in view of Malan et al (US
`
`2002/0032717 A1) and in further view of Scifres et al (US 7,113,990 B2).
`
`Considerclaims 15, 16, 17, 35, 36 and 37, as applied to claims 1, 5, 16, 25 and
`
`36, Jacobsonetal teach the claimed invention except may not have explicitly
`
`mentioned the behavioral statistics comprising: T for an amountof 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, whichis a rate for information transfer of
`
`the flow. Scifres et al teach a flow volume 32 (e.g. T) is divided by a time period 46
`
`(e.g. L) to obtain an average flow rate (e.g. R) (col. 5In. 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 Jacobsonet
`
`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 Jacobsonet al (US 2005/0226149 A1) in view of Malan et al (US
`
`2002/0032717 A1) and in further view of Kejriwal et al (US 6,934,250 B1).
`
`Consider claims 19, 20, 39 and 40, as applied to claims 5 and 25, Jacobson et
`
`al disclose the claimed invention except may not have explicitly mentioned means for
`
`receiving and determining whetherto forward a particular information packetto a
`
`destination; updating, in response to a determination to forward the particular packet, a
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 217
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 217
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 10
`
`set of behavioralstatistics to reflect processing of the particular packet; and updating
`
`regardless of whetherthe particular information packetis discarded or forwarded to a
`
`destination. Kejriwal et 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 927 is being written based on the information of the
`
`packet, either rejected or forwarded. (col. 24 lines 30-43 & 47-65; fig. 9@ 917,922,924,950
`
`> fig. 5A).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was created to apply the functions as taught by Kejriwal et al to the penalty
`
`function of Jacobson etal for distinguishing good and bad flowsindividually.
`
`Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Jacobson et al (US 2005/0226149 A1) in view of Yazaki et al (US 2010/0110889 A1)
`
`and in further view of Malan et al (US 2002/0032717 A1).
`
`Consider claim 43, Jacobson et al teach an article of manufacture(fig. 1:
`
`gateway 106) comprising:
`
`a computer-readable medium having stored thereon a data structure (figs. 9 and
`
`10 tables);
`
`a first field containing data representing a flow block (fig. 9: column 904 contains
`
`indicia of flow of packet; [0082] lines 10-18); and
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 218
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 218
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 11
`
`a second field containing data representing payload-content-agnostic behavioral
`
`statistics about a flow (fig. 9: column 906 drop times; [0083] — drop times involve
`
`behavior of the packet as shownin [0101)).
`
`While Jacobson et al mention:
`
`i.) data representing pre-determined behavior threshold values(fig. 2: lower and
`
`upperthresholds; [0098] + claims 4 and 5: comparing DEM ofa flow to a range);
`
`ii.) data representing the results of a heuristic determination of whether said flow
`
`exhibits undesirable behavior determined by comparing said behavioralstatistics to said
`
`pre-determined threshold values ([0098]: changing parameters... statistical method for a
`
`flow; [0098] + claims 4 and 5: comparing DEM ofa flow to a range); and
`
`iii.) data representing at least one penalty to be enforced against at /jeast one
`
`packet upon determination that said flow exhibits undesirable behavior ([0101-0103]:
`
`penalty);
`
`Jacobson et al may not have very explicitly mentioned “a third field,” “a fourth
`
`field,” and “a fifth field” to indicate on the table of processesi., ii. and iii. respectively.
`
`Yazaki showsfields ([0061]) that indicate i ([0097] lines 1-4: THR — threshold); ii
`
`([0097] lines 1-4: CNT — count of bytes); and iii ((0097] lines 1-4: W — weight; [0061]
`
`lines 13-23: PRIC/PRIN — priority conformance or non-conformance)(see claim 1 also). It
`
`would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the data structure (table) of
`
`Jacobson etalto includefields for i.,
`
`ii. and iii. as taught by Yazaki et al for the purpose
`
`of providing more information to judge whethera flow or packet is conformant or not.
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 219
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 219
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 12
`
`Jacobsen-Yazakido not very explicitly mention the set of behavioralstatistics is
`
`updated based on each information packet belonging to the flow, as each information
`
`packet belonging to the flow is processed, regardless of the presence or absence of
`
`congestion. Malan et al teaches concept function of set of behavioralstatistics is
`
`updated based on each information packet belonging to the flow, as each information
`
`packet belonging to the flow is processed, regardless of the presence or absence of
`
`congestion ([0119]: Flow statistics aggregate a flow’s individual packetstatistics into a
`
`single statistic — when individual packetstatistics are aggregated (e.g. accumulated),
`
`the single statistic varies accordingly as individual packetstatistics get accumulated;
`
`there is no congestion condition requirement in Malan). It would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art when the invention was made to modify the behavioral
`
`statistic update method of Jacobsen-Yazaki to that of Malan et al for more effective
`
`profiling of network flows.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Argumentsfiled on 224 February 2011 have been considered but are mootin
`
`view of new grounds of rejections. See Malanetal for “set of behavioralstatisticsis
`
`updated based on each information packet belonging to the flow, as each information
`
`packet belonging to the flow is processed, regardless of the presence or absence of
`
`congestion”limitation.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 220
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 220
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 13
`
`Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, 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
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the eventa first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTHshortenedstatutory 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 MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Xavier Wong whosetelephone numberis 571.270.1780.
`
`The examiner can normally be reached on Mondaythrough Friday 10:30 am - 8:00 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 is 571.273.8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 221
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 221
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/022,599
`Art Unit: 2462
`
`Page 14
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on accessto the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance fram 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/
`Patent Examiner AU 2462
`4" May 2011
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 222
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 222
`
`

`

`Page 1 of 1
`
`Application/Control No.
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination
`VB?299
`NATCHU, VISHNU
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`Xavier Szewai Wong
`2462
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Notice of References Cited
`
` *A copyof this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).}
`
`Document Number
`Country Code-Number-Kind Code
`S-2002/0032717 A1
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY
`03-2002
`
`Malan etal.
`
`spe
`Classification
`709/105
`
`Dates in MM-YYYYformat are publication dates. Classifications may be US orforeign.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001)
`
`Notice of References Cited
`
`Part of Paper No. 20110508
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 223
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 223
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control No.
`
`Search Notes
`
`11022599
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination
`NATCHU, VISHNU
`
`
`
`Examiner
`
`Art Unit
`
`Xavier Szewai Wong
`
`2462
`
`
`
`Examiner
`
`SEARCHED
`
`
`
`
`Examiner
`
`
`
`XSW/
`
`
`/XSW/
`
`
`
`Subclass
`
`
`
`SEARCH NOTES
`
`
`
`
`
`Examiner
`Search Notes
`XSW
`
`
`EAST image, class and keyword search in USPAT, US-PGPUB,
`10.30.09
`DERWENT, EPO, JPO, and IBM_TDB (please see search histor
`
`
`
`
`
`updated above
`08.14.2010
`
`
`updated above
`2011.05.09
`
`
`
`INTERFERENCE SEARCH
`
`
` Subclass
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Part of Paper No.
`
`: 20110508
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 224
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 224
`
`

`

`EASTSearch History
`
`EAST Search History
`
`EAST Search History (Prior Art)
`
`(5 and (penalty
`‘and behavio$1r$5).
`iclm.
`
`2 py
`
`I BMTDB
`
`
` uery
`erau
`‘Operator
`:
`
`(Natchu near
`USPCPUB:
`:
`‘Vishnu).in. SABLE. USPAT; EPO;
`|
`‘as.
`“IPO;
`‘DERWENT;
`BM_TDB
`US-PGPUB;
`‘USPAT; EPO;
`‘JPO;
`‘DERWENT;
`_1BM_TDB
`SREEERE, SEER EEEEEEEEE, EE
`370/229-236.ccls.|US-PGPUB;
`
`and (@rlad <
`‘USPAT; EPO;
`
`"20041222" @ad
`—:JPO;
`
`‘< "20041222")
`‘DERWENT;
`
`‘IBM_TDB
`
` and
`i
`:
`(eac
`‘individual$3) with
`(USPAT; EPO;
`16:57
`‘behavio$5 with
`—_.JPO;
`‘(packet frame)
`‘DERWENT;
`IBM_TDB
`(US-PGPUB;
`("370"/$ "455"/
`'$.709/$).ccls. and USPAT; EPO;
`‘(@rlad <
`‘JPO;
`"20041222" @ad
`DERWENT;
`< "20041222")
`_IBM_TDB
`'L9and (each
`“{US-PGPUB;
`‘individual$3) with
`‘USPAT; EPO;
`‘behavio$5 with.JPO;
`(packet frame)
`‘DERWENT;
`i
`IBM_TDB
`is and (each
`‘US-PGPUB;
`individual$3) near
`(USPAT; EPO;
`(packet frame)
`‘JPO;
`with (behavio$5
`DERWENT;
`'statis$5) same
`‘IBM_TDB
`‘conges$6
`AE
`
`"370"/$"455"~USPCPUB:
`709"/$).ccls. and
`‘USPAT; EPO;
`‘(@rlad <
`“IPO;
`"20041222" @ad
` {DERWENT;
`‘< "20041222")
`
`45é
`
`2011/05/09
`16:51
`
`:201 1/05/09
`17:24
`
`:201 1/05/09
`17:24
`
`:201 1/05/09
`17:49
`
`ON
`
`2011/05/09
`16:51
`
`;‘
`
`:
`
`ON
`
`3333833833:8333833833:8i:
`
`‘OR
`‘
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`‘OR
`:
`
`ON
`
`aT ToaIGS
`17:51
`
`("
`
`file://Cl/Documents%20and%20Settings/xwong/My%20Docu...2599/EASTSearchHistory.11022599_AccessibleVersion htm(1 of 2)5/9/2011 5:55:16 PM.
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 225
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 225
`
`

`

`EASTSearch History
`
`:
`
`:
`
`
`
`:
`iB and (each USBSB
`8
`‘individual$3) near3 {USPAT; EPO;
`‘(packet frame)
`‘JPO;
`with (behavio$5
`DERWENT:
`statis$5) same
`‘IBM_TDB
`‘updat$4
`
`:
`ON”
`
`;
`2011/08/08
`17:54
`
`
`
`\nnnnatePPIDISADDDDDDIIDISDDIDIRIDDIIIIIDED.
`
`EAST Search History (Interference)
`
`< This search history is empty>
`
`5/9/2011 5:55:14 PM
`C:\ Documents and Settings\ xwong\ Desktop\ Amendo\ Natchu\ Natchu_08.15.10.wsp
`
`file:///Cl/Documents%20and%20Settings/xwong/My%20Docu...2599/EASTSearchHistory.11022599_AccessibleVersion htm(2 of 2)5/9/2011 5:55:16 PM.
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 226
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 226
`
`

`

`?
`
`EASTSearch History
`
`EAST Search History
`
`EAST Search History (Prior Art)
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`and (each
`‘LQ
`‘individual$3) with
`ibehavio$5 with
`(packet frame)
`
`$
`:
`CORCRERECEECECCESCRCEECECTETCRCEECECTECCECEECECCETCRECECEECETCRECERRCCETCRERECEECETCRECECEECETCRECECEECECCEERES SAE
`
`‘Search Query
`
`
`DERWENT;
`'IBM_TDB
`‘US-PGPUB;
`'L9 and (each
`‘USPAT; EPO;
`lindividual$3) near
`‘PO;
`‘(packet frame)
`‘DERWENT;
`with (behavio$5
`‘|BM_TDB
`istatis$5) same
`ARRPa, RARAAAALARA! BORSALGALAAALALLALLLLARLALA! NORAALAAAALARALLORAS SAS FAL§
`(("370"/$ "455'/$
` (US-PGPUB;
`‘OR
`SON
`'201 1/05/09
`"709"/$).ccls. and
`(USPAT; EPO;
`;
`17:51
`‘(@rlad <
`‘JPO;
`"20041222" @ad
`DERWENT;
`IBM_TDB
`
`'201 1/05/09
`17:49
`
`:
`
`i
`
`$
`
`~(2011/05/09
`17:55
`
`;
`
`|
`
`‘
`
`; ‘
`
`ORs
`
`< "20041222") ~iLi2and(each
`
`‘individual$3) near
`‘(packet frame)
`with (behavio$5
`istatis$5)
`
`‘US-PGPUB,
`(USPAT; EPO;
`\JPO;
`DERWENT;
`‘IBM_TDB
`
`EAST Search History (Interference)
`
`< This search history is empty>
`
`5/9/2011 7:32:35 PM
`C:\ Documents and Seittings\ xwong\ Desktop\ Amendo\ Natchu\ Natchu_08.15.10.wsp
`
`file:///C/Documents%20and%20Settings/xwong/My%20Documen...1022599/EASTSearchHistory.11022599_AccessibleVersionhtm5/9/2011 7:32:38 PM
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Page 227
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 227
`
`

`

` Doc code: RCEX
`
`[_] Other
`
`[X<] Enclosed
`
`Amendment/Reply
`
`L] Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
`
`L] Affidavit(s) Declaration{s)
`
`[_] Other
`
`MISCELLANEOUS
`
`CO Suspension of action on the above-identified application is requested under 37 CFR 1.103{c) for a period of months
`{Period of suspension shall not exceed 3 months; Fee under 37 CFR 1.17(i) required)
`
`[_] Other
`
`The RCE fee under 37 CFR 1.17(e) is required by 37 CFR 1.114 when the RCE is filed.
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge any underpaymentof fees, or credit any overpayments, to
`Deposit Account No
`503203
`
`FEES
`
`SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT, ATTORNEY, OR AGENT REQUIRED
`
`Patent Practitioner Signature
`
`[_] Applicant Signature
`
`PTO/SB/30EFS (07-09)
`Approved for use through 07/31/2012. OMB 0851-0031
`Doc description: Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number.
`
`REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION(RCE)TRANSMITTAL
`(Submitted Only via EFS-Web)
`
`
`
`
`
`Application|4499599 Filing|5904-12-22 Art|9462Docket Number) sani¢o1008us
`
`
`Number
`Date
`(if applicable)
`Unit
`First Named NATCHU
`Examiner
`Xavier S. Wong
`Inventor
`Name
`
`This is a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 of the above-identified application.
`Request for Continued Examination (RCE) practice under 37 CFR 1.114 does not apply to any utility or plant application filed prior to June 8,
`1995, or to any design application. The Instruction Sheet for this form is located at WWW_USPTO.GOV
`
`SUBMISSION REQUIRED UNDER 37 CFR 1.114
`
`Note: If the RCE is proper, any previously filed unentered amendments and amendments enclosed with the RCE will be entered in the order
`in which they werefiled unless applicant instructs otherwise. If applicant does not wish to have any previously filed unentered amendment(s)
`entered, applicant must request non-entry of such amendment{s).
`Ol Previously submitted. If a final Office action is outstanding, any amendmentsfiled after the final Cffice action may be considered as a
`submission evenif this box is not checked.
`
`| Consider the arguments in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief previously filed on
`
`
`
`EFS - Web 2.1.15
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 228
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 228
`
`

`

`PTO/SB/30EFS (07-09)
`Doc code: RCEX
`Approved for use through 07/31/2012. OMB 0851-0031
`Doc description: Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number.
`
`
`
`
`Signature of Registered U.S. Patent Practitioner
`
`
`
`Signature|/Stuart J. WEST/ Date (YYYY-MM-DD)|2011-09-02
`
`
`
`
`Name Registration Number|43258Stuart J. WEST
`
`
`
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.114. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to
`file {and by the USPTOto process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.11 and 1.14. This collection is
`estimated to take 12 minutes to complete, including gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time
`will vary depending upon the individual case. Any comments on the amountof time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for
`reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce,
`P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`If you need assistance in completing the form, cail 1-800-PTO-9199 and seiect option 2.
`
`EFS - Web 2.1.15
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 229
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 229
`
`

`

`Privacy Act Statement
`
`attached form related to a patent application or patent. Accordingly, pursuant to the requirements of the Act, please be
`advised that:
`(1) the general authority for the collection of this information is 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)}; (2) furnishing of the information
`solicited is voluntary; and (3) the principal purpose for which the information is used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`is to process and/or examine your submission related to a patent application or patent.
`If you do not furnish the requested
`information, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not be able to process and/or examine your submission, which may
`result in termination of proceedings or abandonmentof the application or expiration of the patent.
`
`The information provided by you in this form will be subject to the following routine uses:
`
`1.
`
`The information on this form will be treated confidentially to the extent allowed under the Freedom of Information
`Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Records from this system of records may be disclosed to the
`Departmentof Justice to determine whether the Freedom of Information Act requires disclosure of these records.
`
` The Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-579) requires that you be given certain information in connection with your submission of the
`
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to a
`court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement
`negotiations.
`
`A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a
`requestinvolving an individual, to whom the record pertains, whenthe individual has requested assistance from the
`Memberwith respect to the subject matter of the record.
`
`A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the Agency having need
`for the information in order to perform a contract. Recipients of information shall be required to comply with the
`requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
`
`A record related to an International Application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in this system of records
`may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization,
`pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
`
`A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to another federal agency for purposes of
`National Security review (35 U.S.C. 181) and for review pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 218(c)).
`
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services,
`or his/her designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA aspart of that agency's responsibility to
`recommend improvements in records managementpractices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and
`2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this
`purpose, and any other relevant(i.e., GSA or Commerce) directive. Such disclosure shall not be used to make
`determinations about individuals.
`
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the public after either publication of
`the application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or issuance of a patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 151. Further, a record may
`be disclosed, subject to the limitations of 37 CFR 1.14, as a routine use, to the public if the record was filed in an
`application which became abandonedor in which the proceedings were terminated and which application is
`referenced by either a published application, an application open to public inspections or an issued patent.
`
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, State, or local law
`enforcement agency, if the USPTO becomes aware of a violation or potential violation of law or regulation.
`
`
`
`EFS - Web 2.1.15
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 230
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 230
`
`

`

`
`
`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/Carolina Nunez
`
`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:
`
`Patent-Appeals-and-Interference:
`
`Post-Allowance-and-Post-Issuance:
`
`
`Extension-of-Time:
`
`Ptension = | month with °° pate
`
`“ee
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 231
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 231
`
`

`

`Sub-Total in
`Fee Code Quantity AmountDescription USD(S)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Total in USD ($)
`
`
`
`Miscellaneous:
`
`Request for continued examination
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 232
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 232
`
`

`

`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`10875514
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Mechanism for identifying and penalizing misbehaving flows in a network
`
`
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Vishnu Natchu
`
`Customer Number:
`
`43490
`
`
`
`Filer Authorized By: Stuart James West
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket Number: SABLE-01008
`
`Receipt Date:
`
`02-SEP-2011
`
`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 233
`
`
`
`
`
`Document
`
`eg
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 233
`
`

`

`AmendmentAfter Final
`
`20110902_ROA_SABLE-01008.
`pdf
`
`99f01 22449444ef7e6a5a2926a lb3eaaa721
`
`Request for Continued Examination
`(RCE)
`
`pdf
`
`Information:
`
`the application.
`
`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
`andof the 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
`
`Fee Worksheet (SBO6)
`
`fee-info.pdf
`
`398078e59ae1 1c4ead7aa9f742b0cee6824
`bose
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`This AcknowledgementReceipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTOofthe indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar toa
`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 shownonthis
`Acknowledgement Receiptwill establish the filing 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/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 234
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 234
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Application
`Inventor(s): Natchu, Vishnu
`
`Appln. No.:—11/022,599 Art Unit: 2462
`
`Confirm. No.: 8956
`Examiner:
`Wong, XavierS.
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`Filed: December 22, 2004
`Title: MECHANISM FOR IDENTIFYING AND
`PENALIZING MISBEHAVING FLOWSIN
`A NETWORK
`
`Customer No. 43490
`
`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION UNDER37 C.F.R. 81.111
`
`Mail Stop Amendment
`Commissionerfor Patents
`P.O. 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`This RESPONSEis in reply to the Office Action mailed May 16, 2011. The time for
`
`response wasset for three months and ended on August 16, 2011. A one-month extension of time
`
`is hereby requested and the required fee submitted. This response filed on September 2, 2011, is
`
`therefore timely. A Request for Continued Examination is also hereby requested and the
`
`required fee submitted.
`
`Response to Office Action
`Attorney Docket No: SABLE-01008US
`
`E-Filed
`9/2/2011 2:28 PM
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 235
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 235
`
`

`

`Remarks
`
`These remarks are in response to the Office Action mailed May 16, 2011. Thetotal
`
`numberof claims submitted for consideration is forty-four(44).
`
`Response to Office Action
`Attorney Docket No: SABLE-01008US
`
`E-Filed
`9/2/2011 2:28 PM
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 236
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 236
`
`

`

`Response to Rejections under 35 USC § 103
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 21, 22, 24-28, 30, 41, 42, and 44 were rejected as being unpatentable
`
`over Jacobson et al (US 2005/0226149 A1) in view of Malanet al (2002/0032717 Al). Claims
`
`3, 12-14, 18, 23, 32-34, and 38 were rejected as being unpatentable over Jacobson in viewof
`
`Malan,and in further view of Skirmont (US 6,252,848 B1). Claims 9 and 29 wererejected as
`
`being unpatentable over Jacobsonin view of Malan, and in further view of Zikanet al (US
`
`6,310,881 B1). Claims 11 and 31 were rejected as being unpatentable over Jacobson in view of
`
`Malan,and in further view of Afanador (US 6,167,041). Claims 15-17 and 35-37 were rejected
`
`as being unpatentable over Jacobson in view of Malan, and in further view ofScifres et al (US
`
`7,113,990 B2). Claims 19, 20, 39 and 40 were rejected as being unpatentable over Jacobson in
`
`view of Malan, and in further view of Kejriwal et al (US 6,934,250 B1). Claim 43 wasrejected
`
`as being unpatentable over Jacobson in view of Yazaki et al (US 2010/0110889 A1), and in
`
`further view of Malan.
`
`I,
`
`Jacobson is Not Analogous Prior Art
`
`Jacobson is not analogousprior art, and therefore cannot be used for an obviousness
`
`determination under § 103. A reference can only qualify as prior art for § 103 when itis
`
`analogousto the claimed invention. J re Klein, No. 2010-1411, slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. June 6,
`
`2011) (citing Innovention Toys, LLC vy. MGA Entertainment, IncNo 2010-1290, slip op. at 12
`
`(Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2011)). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogouspriorart: (1)
`
`whetherthe art is from the samefield of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2)
`
`if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whetherthe referencestill is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio,
`
`Response to Office Action
`Attorney Docket No: SABLE-01008US
`
`E-Filed
`9/2/2011 2:28 PM
`
`Splunk Inc.
`
`Exhibit1002
`
`Page 237
`
`Splunk Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 237
`
`

`

`381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Im re Deminski 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986)).
`
`A. F