DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed January 31, 2026. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Claims 1–2, 4–6, 8–9, 11–13, 15–16, and 18–19 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–2, 4–6, 8–9, 11–13, 15–16, and 18–19 under 35 U.S.C. 101. More particularly, the elements for “sending, via a network interface to the network, at least one message to each of the network-accessible computer system/asset and the plurality of related network-accessible computer systems/assets to establish communication,” “wherein the at least one message includes one or more inquiries to determine a communication protocol used by each of the network-accessible computer system/asset and the plurality of related network-accessible computer systems/assets,” and “transmitting, via a network interface to the network, one or more protocol-specific requests to each of the network-accessible computer systems/asset and the plurality of related network-accessible computer systems/assets, based on the information usable to select communication methods,” integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two because the additional elements embody improvements to the functioning of the computer and/or improvements to other technology. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–2, 4–6, 8–9, 11–13, 15–16, and 18–19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Response is further sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–2, 4–6, 8–9, 11–13, 15–16, and 18–19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. More particularly, Applicant’s remarks are persuasive in view of the amendments for “computing … a numeric ownership guess score for a domain associated with the organization, by: generating … comparing … increasing … decreasing … assigning … and computing.” Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–2, 4–6, 8–9, 11–13, 15–16, and 18–19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As amended, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “computing … a numeric ownership guess score” and subsequently recite “increasing the ownership guess score” and “decreasing the ownership guess score”. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “increasing the numeric ownership guess score” and “decreasing the numeric ownership guess score” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1–2, 4–6, 8–9, 11–13, 15–16, and 18–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As amended, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “computing a numeric ownership guess score for a domain”, “assigning a weight to each attribute according to its strength in predicting ownership”, and “computing the numeric ownership guess score based on the increases and decreases and the assigned weights”. Although paragraphs 61 and 64 of Applicant’s Specification generally disclose the recited elements, the Specification does not provide any disclosure explaining how Applicant computes a numeric ownership guess score. More particularly, the Specification does not disclose any computational process or algorithm for computing a numeric ownership guess score, generally, or any details describing how weights are assigned and used in combination with increases and decreases in the score, specifically. As a result, the Specification does not disclose the above claim elements in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2, 4–6, 9, 11–13, 16, and 18–19, which depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2, 4–6, 9, 11–13, 16, and 18–19 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1–2, 4–6, 8–9, 11–13, 15–16, and 18–19 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 1, 8, and 15 recite “one or more attributes of the domain record” in both the elements for “increasing” and “decreasing”. As a result, the scope of the claims is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitations to reference the first recitations or intends to introduce a second, different “one or more attributes”.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “increasing the ownership guess score when one or more attributes of the domain record match corresponding attributes of one or more domain records previously flagged as related to the organization” and “decreasing the ownership guess score when one or more second attributes of the domain record match corresponding attributes of one or more domain records previously flagged as not related to the organization”.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 further recite “its strength” in the element for “assigning”. Examiner submits that the term “its” renders the scope of the claims indefinite because it is unclear what previous element Applicant intends for the term “its” to reference.
Further, the term “strength” in the element for “assigning” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strength” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “assigning a weight to each attribute according to predictive value
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “the increases and decreases” and “the assigned weights” in the element for “computing the numeric ownership guess score”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “computing the numeric ownership guess score based on each increase in the numeric ownership guess score, each decrease in the numeric ownership guess score, and [[the]] each assigned weight
Finally, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “sending, via a network interface to the network, at least one message” and “transmitting, via a network interface to the network, one or more protocol-specific requests”. In view of the above, the scope of the claims is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation of “a network interface” to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce a second, different “network interface”.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “transmitting, via [[a]] the network interface to the network, one or more protocol-specific requests”.
In view of the above, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 4–6, 9, 11–13, 16, and 18–19, which depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2, 4–6, 9, 11–13, 16, and 18–19 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623