Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
.DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This Final action is in response to communications filed on 07/14/2025, claim 22, 29 and 36 have been amended per Applicant’s request. Therefore, 22-42 are presently pending in the application and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-The applicants’ remarks on page 9-11 with respect to:
“Claims 22-42 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11363043. As neither application has been indicated to recite allowable subject matter, Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be held in abeyance pending the holding of such allowable subject matter. At such time, Applicant is amenable to filing any terminal disclaimers, as may be appropriate..”
Have been carefully considered but are non-persuasive;
The examiner maintains his rejection as the claims are still directed to subject matter disclosed in US Patent No. 11363043 and additionally based on the amendments US Patent No. 10735444 and 10848512. The examiner has attempted to compact prosecution as noted in the attached interview summary; however an electronic terminal disclaimer has not been filed and approved thus the rejection has been maintained.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2026 and 01/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 22-42 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11363043. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application, while broader is fully anticipated by the patent. For example, while the US Patent contains additional limitations, all of the limitations of the instant application are disclosed in each claim.
Claims 22-42 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10735444. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application, while broader is fully anticipated by the patent. For example, while the US Patent contains additional limitations, all of the limitations of the instant application are disclosed in each claim.
Claims 22-42 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10848512.. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application, while broader is fully anticipated by the patent. For example, while the US Patent contains additional limitations, all of the limitations of the instant application are disclosed in each claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 29 and 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claims references “results sets” but should state “result sets.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 22, 29 and 36 states recites the limitation using artificial intelligence / machine learning” however it is unclear as to whether or not one or both are used. The examiner recommends amending the claim to state “combining a plurality of result sets from the plurality of security-relevant subsystems, including processing the plurality of result sets using at least one of artificial intelligence or machine learning to identify one or more commonalities amongst the plurality of result sets, and homogenizing the plurality of results sets to form an aggregated security-relevant result set;”.
Regarding claims 25, 32 and 39 the claim states utilizing “artificial intelligence or machine learning” however the independent claim states “using artificial intelligence / machine learning” thus rendering an issue of clarity. The examiner recommends amending the language to state “processing the platform information to generate processed platform information includes:processing the platform information using at least one of artificial intelligence or machine learning to identify one or more patterns or trends within the platform information.”
Dependent claims are rejected for failing to overcome the rejection from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 22-42 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed and approved to overcome the double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action.
Claim(s) 22-42 would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432