DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 13, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, 15-19, and 21 are pending and are directed toward SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EXTERNAL DETECTION OF MISCONFIGURED SYSTEMS.
Any claim objection/rejection not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
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 . 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claims 1-3, 6-13, 15-19, and 21 have been fully considered, but they are persuasive in view of amended claims in regards to prior art rejections.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3, 6-13, 15-19, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US patent No. 10,812,520. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-22 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of US patent No. 10,812,520. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of US patent No. 10,812,520 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the US patent No. 10,812,520 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Claims 1-3, 6-13, 15-19, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of US patent No. 11,671,441. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-22 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-21 of US patent No. 11,671,441. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-21 of US patent No. 11,671,441 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the US patent No. 11,671,441 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Conclusion -Therefore, in view of the above reasons, Claims 1-3, 6-13, 15-19, and 21 are indicated as allowable, but Examiner maintains DP rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG KORSAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rupal Dharia can be reached on (571) 272-3880. The fax phone number for 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. 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.
/OLEG KORSAK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights