Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/478,117

SERVICE LEVEL VERIFICATION IN DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM AND ENFORCEMENT

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Sep 29, 2023
Examiner
KORSAK, OLEG
Art Unit
2492
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
DELL PRODUCTS, L.P.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
804 granted / 941 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
980
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§103
35.0%
-5.0% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 941 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 11, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are pending and are directed toward SERVICE LEVEL VERIFICATION IN DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM AND ENFORCEMENT. Any claim objection/rejection not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.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 arguments in view of amended claims are moot, because of new grounds of DP rejection. 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, 3-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US patent No. 12,401,579. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1, 3-14, 16-19, and 21-23 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of US patent No. 12,401,579. Specifically, in regards to Claim 1 of instant application: Claim 1, A method of managing operation of a distributed system, the method comprising (A method of managing operation of a distributed system, the method comprising, Claim 1,‘579): identifying, by a management controller of a first network device of the distributed system, that a control plane of the first network device is suspected of being compromised (making, by a management controller of a first network device, an identification that a control plane of the first network device is suspected of being compromised, Claim 1,‘579); generating, by the management controller, a request for performance of a network service test (identifying, by the management controller and based on the identification, a subscription for services provided by the first network device; obtaining, by the management controller and based on the subscription, a network data package, Claim 1,‘579); sending, by the management controller and while impersonating the control plane, the request to a second network device to initiate the performance of the network service test to obtain a metric indicating a level of network service provided by the first network device that is governed by a corresponding subscription (injecting, by the management controller, the network data package into a data plane of the first network device to initiate transmission of network data units based on the network data package; monitoring, by the management controller, processing of the network data units by the data plane to obtain at least one metric indicating a level of network service provided by the first network device; Claim 1,‘579); making a determination, by the management controller, regarding whether the level of the network service is commensurate with the corresponding subscription (making a determination, by the management controller, regarding whether the level of the network service is commensurate with the subscription, Claim 1,‘579); in a first instance of the determination where the level of network service is not commensurate with the corresponding subscription (in a first instance of the determination where the level of network service is not commensurate with the subscription, Claim 1,‘579): performing, by the management controller, a control plane independent enforcement action to conform operation of the first network device to be commensurate with the corresponding subscription to obtain an updated data plane (performing, by the management controller, a control plane independent enforcement action to conform operation of the first network device to be commensurate with the subscription to obtain an updated data plane, Claim 1,‘579); and providing, by the updated data plane, network management services to manage network traffic flowing through the distributed system (providing, by the updated data plane, network management services to manage network traffic flowing through the distributed system. Claim 1,‘579). The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of US patent No. 12,401,579 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims 1-20 of US patent No. 12,401,579 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 3-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are indicated as allowable over prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims of instant application are of the same scope as allowed claims of US 12,401,579. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Aug 07, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 12, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 19, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 19, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 20, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 25, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Dec 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Apr 08, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 14, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587555
METHODS FOR USING ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR FOR RISK RATINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587572
MULTI-VENDOR WEB SECURITY CONTROL INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12572629
Secure Messaging Service with Digital Rights Management Using Blockchain Technology
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574365
METHOD,APPARATUS,STORAGE MEDIUM AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR NETWORK AUTHENTICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563042
Performing Security Protocol Transitions While Executing An Execution Environment Of A Virtual Cloud Network
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+8.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 941 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