Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/636,107

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REMOTE STORAGE DEVICE SCANNING FOR DETECTING RESTRICTED CONTENT THEREIN

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Apr 15, 2024
Examiner
TRUONG, LAN DAI T
Art Unit
2444
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
701 granted / 770 resolved
+33.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
790
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
§103
44.7%
+4.7% vs TC avg
§102
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§112
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 770 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . DETAILED ACTION 1.This action is response to application filed on 06/04/2024. Claims 21-40 are pending. Allowable Subject Matter 2. Claims 21, 32 and 38, recite allowable subject matter. There are no prior arts of record, singly or in combination teaches the feature of claim(s) limitations in context of the claims as a whole. However, claims 21, 32 and 38 are not in allowance condition yet because of existing double patenting issues and those claims. The prior art Seinen (US 20190095632) teaches a system for managing electronic laboratory notebook which allows locally stored files to be used and severed by a remotely hosted website on the internet (Seinen abstract). The system includes a local storage server storing the at least one file and associate an ID. The local storage server generates a hash value in dependence on the at least one file by encrypting the hash value using the public key along with other meta data like file date, modification, encoding, in particular on the content of the at least one file. The encrypted hash value be transferred from the local storage server back to the client software, then the client software forwards the encrypted hash value, in particular as part of a message, to the ELN managing application, and/or in particular to the ELN host server (Seinen [0038]). But the Seinen does not teach a method of automatically identifying restricted content on a computer system, said method comprising: retrieving metadata from a storage device of a remote computer network, wherein the metadata comprises hash values associated with files stored on the storage device, wherein the retrieving metadata from the storage device of said remote computer network comprises retrieving only metadata from the storage device for files that have been added or modified since a previous scan; scanning the metadata; and flagging a respective file stored on the storage device when a hash value associated with said respective file substantially matches a hash value associated with known restricted content as determined by the scanning as claimed. The same reasons apply to claims 32 and 38. Claims 22-31, 33-37, and 39-40 are also objected because they depend on objected claims 21, 32 and 38. Double patenting 3. 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 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); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). 4. 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). 5. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 6. 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). 7. Claims 21-28, 32-37 and 38 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,962,625 because the examined application claim is anticipated by the reference claim(s). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both of them describe a similar method for flagging a respective file stored on the storage device when a hash value associated with said respective file substantially matches a hash value associated with known restricted. The current application 18636107 US Patent 11,962,625 Explanation 21. A method of automatically identifying restricted content on a computer system, said method comprising: retrieving metadata from a storage device of a remote computer network, wherein the metadata comprises hash values associated with files stored on the storage device, wherein the retrieving metadata from the storage device of said remote computer network comprises retrieving only metadata from the storage device for files that have been added or modified since a previous scan; scanning the metadata; and flagging a respective file stored on the storage device when a hash value associated with said respective file substantially matches a hash value associated with known restricted content as determined by the scanning. 22.The method as described in Claim 21, further comprising identifying a network location within said storage device associated with the hash value associated with said respective file. 23.The method as described in Claim 21, further comprising identifying a user associated with the hash value associated with said respective file. 24.The method as described in Claim 21, further comprising identifying a computer system associated with the hash value associated with said respective file. 25.The method as described in Claim 21, wherein the hash values comprise an MD5 hash. 26.The method as described in Claim 21, wherein the hash values comprise an SHA hash. 27.The method as described in Claim 21, further comprising identifying computer systems of the remote computer network that are powered off. 28.The method as described in Claim 21, further comprising identifying files of said computer network that are inaccessible. 1.A method of automatically identifying restricted content on a computer system, said method comprising: accessing a remote computer network; identifying a storage device of said remote computer network; retrieving metadata from the storage device of said remote computer network, wherein the metadata comprises hash values associated with files stored on the storage device, wherein the retrieving metadata from the storage device of said remote computer network comprises retrieving only metadata from the storage device for files that have been added or modified since a previous scan; retrieving hash values associated with known restricted content from a remote database, wherein a hash value uniquely identifies a respective file and is based on a digest thereof; comparing said hash values associated with files stored on the storage device to said hash values associated with known restricted content; and flagging the respective file stored on the storage device and indicating a file identifier associated with said respective file when a hash value associated with said respective file substantially matches at least one of said hash values associated with known restricted content. 2.The method as described in claim 1, further comprising identifying a network location within said storage device associated with the hash value associated with said respective file. 3.The method as described in claim 1, further comprising identifying a user associated with the hash value associated with said respective file. 4.The method as described in claim 1, further comprising identifying a computer system associated with the hash value associated with said respective file. 5.The method as described in claim 1, wherein the hash values comprise an MD5 hash. 6. The method as described in claim 1, wherein the hash values comprise an SHA hash. 7.The method as described in claim 1, further comprising identifying computer systems of the remote computer network that are powered off. 8. The method as described in claim 1, further comprising identifying files of said computer network that are inaccessible. See below for details 8. Explanation: In examiner’s view, ‘comparing said hash values associated with files stored on the storage device to said hash values associated with known restricted content’ of US Patent 16700908 reads on ‘scanning the metadata’ of the current application. Similar remarks apply to the instant claims 32-37 and 38. Conclusions 9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN DAI T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 Am to 3:00 PM. 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, Follansbee John A can be reached on 571-272-3964. 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. /LAN DAI T TRUON Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 15, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603854
ELECTRONIC TRACKING PROTECTION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603927
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING ACTIVE COMMUNICATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603898
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTRUSION DETECTION USING FEDERATED LEARNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596826
AUDIT LOG GENERATION AND PROCESSING FOR CLUSTER FILE SYSTEM SERVICEABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592935
SYSTEM TO PRESENT CONTEXT BASED CREATIVE TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+11.6%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 770 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month