Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/160,880

MANAGING DYNAMIC UPDATES FOR SECURITY GROUPS

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jan 27, 2023
Examiner
POPHAM, JEFFREY D
Art Unit
2432
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
DISH NETWORK L.L.C.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
37%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 9m
To Grant
61%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 37% of cases
37%
Career Allow Rate
175 granted / 469 resolved
-20.7% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 9m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
500
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§103
45.4%
+5.4% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 469 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
Remarks Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 13-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-12 are rejected below. 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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/8/2025. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 9/26/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. NPL documents 1 and 2 cannot be found in the file. It is noted that similar documents with a different date are within the file, but it is unclear if these are the documents intended to be referenced or not. If Applicant intends to reference those that are on the record, Applicant can provide an updated IDS with the appropriate dates. If Applicant intends to reference different references, they must be provided with an IDS. 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 10 and 11 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. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the message queues subscribed to the notification service". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 is rejected at least based on its dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miller (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0373405). Regarding Claim 1, Miller discloses an automated process for implementing IP based filtering between a first network function and a second network function, comprising: Initializing a prefix list associated with a first network function (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 18-21, 32, 35, 37, 45, 50-52, as well as many citations below, as well as associated figures; anywhere Miller discusses security tables, address lists, address ranges/prefixes/CIDR, including IP addresses (which can be prefixes), etc., associated with a network function, such as a VM, service, service provider network, etc., as examples. It is noted that all of the initializing steps in any claims are met simply by the element existing, showing it has been initialized); Initializing a message queue associated with the first network function (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 35, 37, 49, 53, 55, 58, 80, 83, 91, 92, 96, 97, 98, 101, 103, 108, 111, 112, 121, 125, 126, 127, 133, 135, 136, 139, 140-142, 149, 151, 152, 157, and associated figures; initializing of any message queue associated with the network function, such as a data store storing message contents for a worker to grab, any network communications involving at least one message queue (e.g., in the NIC or network stack), as is known in the art, or the like, as examples. It is also noted that any memory in which a message is stored for any period of time is, itself, a message queue as well, since it includes a list of at least one message); Running a worker to maintain the prefix list, wherein the worker consumes messages from the message queue and edits the prefix list (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 35, 37, 49, 53, 55, 58, 80, 83, 91, 92, 96, 97, 98, 101, 103, 108, 111, 112, 121, 125, 126, 127, 133, 135, 136, 139, 140-142, 149, 151, 152, 157, and associated figures; this could be explicit reference to the worker/combined workers within the reference, the network manager, address auditor, and/or address merger (which may be combined, as in paragraph 101), or the like, that take messages as inputs, and result in editing of a security table or list, for example); Initializing a notification service associated with a second network function, wherein the message queue is subscribed to the notification service (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 35, 37, 49, 53, 55, 58, 80, 83, 91, 92, 96, 97, 98, 101, 103, 108, 111, 112, 121, 125, 126, 127, 133, 135, 136, 139, 140-142, 149, 151, 152, 157, and associated figures; any element that notifies any of the above-described queues, for example, such as in explicit notifications, messages, updated lists, DNS info, or the like, as examples); Instantiating an instance of the second network function, wherein an IP address is assigned to the second network function in response to being instantiated (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 15, 18, 19, 25, 28, 30, 37, 45, 49, 55, 56, 80, 83, 89, 100, 117, 125, 126, and associated figures; instantiating new VM, service, or the like, resulting in a new IP address being added, for example); Broadcasting, by the notification service, a messages including the IP address to message queues subscribed to the notification service (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 35, 37, 49, 53, 55, 58, 80, 83, 91, 92, 96, 97, 98, 101, 103, 108, 111, 112, 121, 125, 126, 127, , 133, 135, 136, 139, 140-142, 149, 151, 152, 157, and associated figures; message with IP address to the queue(s) described above, for example); Consuming, by the worker and from the message queue, the message including the IP address (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 35, 37, 49, 53, 55, 58, 80, 83, 91, 92, 96, 97, 98, 101, 103, 108, 111, 112, 121, 125, 126, 127, , 133, 135, 136, 139, 140-142, 149, 151, 152, 157, and associated figures; the above-described worker grabbing the message contents, IP address, or the like, for example); and Updating, by the worker and in response to the message, the prefix list to allow communication between the first network function and the second network function on the IP address (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 18-21, 32, 35, 37, 45, 50-53, 55, 58, 59, 80, 92-96, 106-108, 111, 112, 117, 119-121, 125-133, and associated figures; updating the above-described lists, for example). Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is a process claim that is broader than process claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding Claim 2, Miller discloses that updating the prefix list to allow communication includes adding an identifier that includes the IP address to the prefix list (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 18-21, 32, 35, 37, 45, 50-53, 55, 58, 59, 80, 92-96, 106-108, 111, 112, 117, 119-121, 125-133, and associated figures). Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is a process claim that is broader than process claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding Claim 3, Miller discloses terminating the instance in response to a declining load on the first network function (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 18, 20, 37, 57-59, 90-98, 117, 121, 139-143, 149-152, and associated figures; removing address and terminating a VM, service when no longer needed, or the like, for example). Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 is a process claim that is broader than process claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding Claim 4, Miller discloses broadcasting, by the notification service, a second message indicating termination of the instance having the IP address to the message queues subscribed to the notification service (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 18, 20, 37, 57-59, 90-98, 117, 121, 139-143, 149-152, and associated figures; message regarding address removal, termination, or the like, going to all relevant parties that need to receive such as notification, for example). Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is a process claim that is broader than process claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding Claim 5, Miller discloses consuming, by the worker and from the message queue, the second message including termination of the instance having the IP address (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 18, 20, 37, 57-59, 90-98, 117, 121, 139-143, 149-152, and associated figures; worker, as above, grabbing message from queue, for example); and Updating, by the worker and in response to consuming the message, the prefix list to block communication between the first network function and the second network function on the IP address (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 18, 20, 37, 57-59, 90-98, 117, 121, 139-143, 149-152, and associated figures; updating list to remove IP address/prefix, for example). Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is a process claim that is broader than process claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding Claim 6, Miller discloses initializing a security control associated with the first network function, wherein the security control creates rules based on the prefix list (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 18-21, 32, 35, 37, 45, 50-53, 55, 58, 59, 80, 92-96, 106-108, 111, 112, 117, 119-121, 125-133, and associated figures; security table, security group, etc., at the resource, which sets forth rules based on the lists, for example). Regarding Claim 12, Miller discloses that a security group associated with the second network function creates rules based on the prefix list (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 18-21, 32, 35, 37, 45, 50-53, 55, 58, 59, 80, 92-96, 106-108, 111, 112, 117, 119-121, 125-133, and associated figures; security table, security group, etc., at the resource, which sets forth rules based on the lists, for example). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey D Popham whose telephone number is (571)272-7215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:30. 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 Nickerson can be reached at (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. /Jeffrey D. Popham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12481750
A METHOD OF PROCESSING TRANSACTIONS FROM AN UNTRUSTED SOURCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12425407
Identity And Access Management Using A Decentralized Gateway Computing System
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12380240
PROTECTING SENSITIVE DATA IN DOCUMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 05, 2025
Patent 12326934
DETECTING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVATION OF AN APPLICATION IN A COMPUTER DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 10, 2025
Patent 12235936
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATIC DIGITAL COPY FOR PHYSICAL MEDIA PURCHASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 25, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
37%
Grant Probability
61%
With Interview (+23.8%)
4y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 469 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month