DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims StatusClaims 1-20 are pending and have been rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to 112 Rejection and 103 Rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 Rejection and 103 Rejection has been withdrawn.
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 LongL 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 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 USPQ644 (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).
Claim 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, 17,19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, 17 of Application 18/531376. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of instant Application No. 18/531217 correspond to elements the Application 18/531376. The above claim of the present application would have been obvious over claims Application 18/531376 of the Application 18/531376 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the Application 18/531376. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18/531217
Application 18/531376
Claims 1, 9 & 17 A system comprising: a first computing network comprising a first application computing platform exchanging data with a second application computing platform via an application programming interface (API), wherein the first computing network performs operations based on first network security policy information; a second computing network comprising the second application computing platform, wherein the API controls data exchange to and from the second application computing platform; a security escrow computing system comprising: a processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the security escrow computing system to: receive, from the second computing network, second network security policy information associated with the second computing network; determine, based on analysis of the second network security policy information, whether the first network security policy information complies with the first network security policy information; and set, based on a first level of compliance, a flag indicating whether the first application computing platform is allowed to access data from the second application computing platform via the API, wherein API function calls are enabled or disabled, wherein data exchange between the first application computing platform and the second application computing platform is enabled or disabled based on the flag.
Claims 1, 9 & 17 A system comprising: a first computing network comprising a first application computing platform exchanging data with a second application computing platform via an application programming interface (API), wherein the first computing network performs operations based on first network security policy information; a second computing network comprising the second application computing platform, wherein the API controls data exchange to and from the second application computing platform; a security escrow computing system comprising: a processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the security escrow computing system to: receive, from the second computing network, second network security policy information associated with the second computing network; generate, based on analysis of the second network security policy information, a user interface screen comprising information identifying whether the first network security policy information complies with the second network security policy information; and set, automatically and based on a first level of compliance, a flag indicating whether the first application computing platform is allowed to access data from the second application computing platform via the API, wherein API function calls are enabled or disabled, wherein data exchange between the first application computing platform and the second application computing platform is enabled or disabled based on the flag.
Claims 3 &11
wherein enabling the flag enables data exchange via the API when a first level of compliance indicates that the first network security policy complies with the second network security policy.
Claims 3 & 11
wherein enabling the flag enables data exchange via the API when a first level of compliance indicates that the first network security policy complies with the second network security policy.
Claims 4, 12 & 19
wherein disabling the flag disables data exchange via the API when a first level of compliance indicates that the first network security policy fails to comply with the second network security policy.
Claims 4 & 12
wherein disabling the flag disables data exchange via the API when a first level of compliance indicates that the first network security policy fails to comply with the second network security policy.
Claims 5, 13 & 20 wherein the flag comprises a parameter that corresponds to a range of compliance levels between the first network security policy and the second network security policy, wherein a partial compliance value enables partial data exchange between disables data exchange via the API between the first network security policy fails to comply with the second network security policy.
Claims 5 &13
wherein a first user interface screen generated by the security escrow computing system comprises compliance information comprising a compliance indication, a partial compliance indication, and a non-compliance indication and wherein the flag comprises a parameter that corresponds to a range of compliance levels between the first network security policy and the second network security policy, wherein the instructions cause the security escrow computing platform to cause display, on a user device associated with the second computing network, the user interface screen, partial compliance value enables partial data exchange between disables data exchange via the API between the first network security policy fails to comply with the second network security policy.
Claims 8 & 16 wherein the instructions further cause the security escrow computing system to predict, whether the first network security policy may be subject to security vulnerabilities and, based on a security vulnerability prediction, enable or disable API function calls.
Claims 8 & 16 wherein the instructions further cause the security escrow computing system to predict, whether the first network security policy may be subject to security vulnerabilities and, based on a security vulnerability prediction, enable or disable API function calls.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 event a 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-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA M PENA-SANTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-0627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached at 5712723889. 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.
/TANIA M PENA-SANTANA/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
/CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights