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 a response filed 2 February 2026, Applicant amends claim 1 and adds claims 2-26.
Claims 1-26 are presented for examination.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 2 February 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Pat 10715493, U.S. Pat 10944721, U.S. Pat 11063909, U.S. Pat 11374905 and U.S. Pat 12015590 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2 February 2026, in combination with the filed amendments, with respect to the claim rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior grounds of claim rejections under statutory double patenting are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2 February 2026, in combination with the filed amendments and the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer, with respect to the claim rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior grounds of claim rejections under non-statutory double patenting are withdrawn.
The remaining arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of claim rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-7, 9, 13-15, 17, 21-23 and 25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 13 recites “a packet filtering device” and it is unclear as to whether the language is referring to the previously recited packet filtering device or a distinct packet filtering device. When a claim is amenable to two or plausible claim constructions, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the Applicant considers to be the invention. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Claims 6, 7, 9, 13-15, 17, 21, 23 and 25 each recite “a packet” and it is unclear as to whether the language is referring to the previously recited packet or a distinct packet. When a claim is amenable to two or plausible claim constructions, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the Applicant considers to be the invention. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Claims 6, 14, 22 each recite “packets” and it is unclear as to whether the language is referring to the previously recited packet or distinct packets. When a claim is amenable to two or plausible claim constructions, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the Applicant considers to be the invention. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Claims 6, 21, 22 and 25 each recite “a first attribute” and it is unclear as to whether the language is referring to the previously recited attribute or a distinct attribute. When a claim is amenable to two or plausible claim constructions, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the Applicant considers to be the invention. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Claim 7 recites “an attribute” and it is unclear as to whether the language is referring to the previously recited attribute or a distinct attribute. When a claim is amenable to two or plausible claim constructions, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the Applicant considers to be the invention. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Any claim not specifically addressed above is being rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of a claim upon which it depends.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 10-12, 16, 18-20, 24 and 26 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTOL-892.
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 DARREN B SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-7pm EST, Monday-Thursday, 9am-5pm EST, Friday.
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, Joseph P Hirl can be reached at (571)272-3685. 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.
/DARREN B SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435