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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 4-6 and 14-16 in the reply filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 4-6 and 14-16 do not recite patentable distinct species, and that they “constitute related implementation choices within a common inventive concept”. This is found persuasive, and thus the prior restriction requirement is removed. Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are examined on the merits below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6, 11, and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8 recites “wherein interceptor” which should be changed to --wherein the interceptor--.
Claim 3, line 2 recites “further comprising” which should be changed to --and further comprising--.
Claim 4, line 2 recites “wherein IOs” which should be changed to --wherein the IOs--.
Claim 5, line 2 recites “wherein IOs” which should be changed to --wherein the IOs--.
Claim 6, line 3 recites “IOs” which should be changed to --the IOs--.
Claim 11, page 2, line 2 recites “wherein interceptor” which should be changed to --wherein the interceptor--.
Claim 13, line 2 recites “further comprising” which should be changed to --and further comprising--.
Claim 14, line 3 recites “wherein IOs” which should be changed to --wherein the IOs--.
Claim 15, line 3 recites “wherein IOs” which should be changed to --wherein the IOs--.
Claim 16, line 3 recites “IOs” which should be changed to --the IOs--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A method for performing protection in a computing system”, however the function “performing protection in a computing system” is unclear as there’s no clear subject that the “protection” is being performed on. Further, the remainder of method claim 1 recites the steps “detecting”, “entering”, “resuming”, and “performing”, but none of these steps elaborate on the “protection” aspect recited in the preamble.
Claim 1, line 3 recites “detecting an error condition in a computing system”, however there is insufficient antecedent basis for “a computing system” given the further recitation of “a computing system” at line 1.
Claim 1, lines 3-4 recite “… in a computing system by a detection engine that includes an interceptor … and a detector”, however it’s unclear if the “interceptor” and “detector” are intended to be included in the “computing system” or the “detection engine”.
Claim 1, lines 8-9 recite “… to store tracking data during the error handling mode associated with IOs (Inputs/Outputs) in the data path”, however it’s unclear if the “IOs” are intended to be associated with the “tracking data” or the “error handling mode”.
Claim 1, line 10 recites “resuming the communication between the interceptor and the detector…” however no previous recitation indicates that the “communication” was paused or stopped. Thus, it’s unclear as to how “resuming the communication” is to be interpreted in view of the prior limitations of claim 1, where the communication appears to never have been paused or stopped.
Claim 4, line 4 recites the limitation “stores pairs” however it’s unclear as to what the object the “pairs” refers to (i.e., pairs of data, pairs of information, etc.).
Claim 5, line 2 recites “the error tracking mode” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11, line 4 recites “detecting an error condition in a computing system”, however there is insufficient antecedent basis for “a computing system” given the further recitation of “a computing system” at line 3.
Claim 11, lines 4-5 recite “… in a computing system by a detection engine that includes an interceptor … and a detector”, however it’s unclear if the “interceptor” and “detector” are intended to be included in the “computing system” or the “detection engine”.
Claim 11, page 2, lines 2-3 recite “… to store tracking data during the error handling mode associated with IOs (Inputs/Outputs) in the data path”, however it’s unclear if the “IOs” are intended to be associated with the “tracking data” or the “error handling mode”.
Claim 11, page 2, line 4 recites “resuming the communication between the interceptor and the detector…” however no previous recitation indicates that the “communication” was paused or stopped. Thus, it’s unclear as to how “resuming the communication” is to be interpreted in view of the prior limitations of claim 11, where the communication appears to never have been paused or stopped.
Claim 14, line 3 recites the limitation “stores pairs” however it’s unclear as to what the object the “pairs” refers to (i.e., pairs of data, pairs of information, etc.).
Claim 15, line 2 recites “the error tracking mode” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Rivera” (US 9418222)
“Brandwine” (US 12197578)
“Stickle” (US 11170104)
“Hoff” (US 9122503)
“Rossman” (US 2025/0094579)
“Wang” (US 2024/0354411)
“Scaife” (US 2019/0228153)
“Licata” (US 2019/0108333)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B POTRATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 A.M. - 6 P.M. CST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. 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.
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights