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 . This Office Action is in reply to communication filed on 09/05/2024. Claimed priority is granted from US patent Application 17/882,793, now US Patent 12114164 B2.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2024 was filed simultaneously with the original application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,164 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the subject matter of the instant application is not patentably distinct from the subject matter of claimed in the reference patent because it constitutes an obvious variation of identifying and refining user-associated entities based on network-derived characteristics.
Both the instant claim and the reference patent are directed to:
Analyzing data associated with user equipment and user accounts to identify and refine a subset of entities based on measured connectivity or usage characteristics.
a) Both begin with entities associated with user accounts (devices or accounts)
b) Both analyze network-related data collected from user equipment
c) Both apply evaluation criteria (thresholds or mode outputs)
d) Both produce a refined subset of candidate entities
Thus, the claims share the same underlying inventive concept, differing only in implementation details.
CLAIM ANALYSIS
Limitation-by-Limitation Correspondence (CLAIM MAPPING)
Instant Application Claim 1
Reference Patent Claim 1
Examiner Finding
“Identifying a plurality of devices connected to a user equipment device, wherein each... is associated with a user account
“collecting...from a respective user equipment device associated with each respective user account of a plurality of user accounts”
The paten necessarily identifies devices associated with user accounts in order to collect usage data.
“determining a first signal strength ... for each of the plurality of devices”
“collecting ...data describing broadband internet usage”
Signal strength constitutes a recognized network connectivity parameter, and therefore is a type of usage-related data collected from user equipment
“identifying a subset ...having signal strength below a threshold”
“identifying ...at least one candidate user account...based on the n-dimensional metric”
The patent selects a subset based on a computed metric, which inherently involves threshold-based classification
“determining a second signal strength...determining a change between the firs...and second”
“machine learning (ML) model trained on broadband internet usage data”
The ML model necessarily captures temporal and behavioral variations in usage data, including changes over time
“determining that the change...is more than a second threshold”
“identifying ...candidate user accounts based on the metric”
The ML model applies decision boundaries, which correspond to threshold-based evaluation of features
“determining that the second signal strength...is more that the first threshold”
Same as above
Multiple thresholds in the application correspond to multi-dimensional decision criteria in the ML model.
“removing the first device from the subset”
“generating a list of candidate accounts”
Selection of candidates inherently includes exclusion of non-qualifying entities, equivalent to removal from a set
B) The differences are directed to implementation choices
The data type:
Application : Signal strength
Patent: broadband usage data
Signal strength is a well-known parameter of network connectivity, and therefore constitutes an obvious subset of usage-related data.
Decision mechanism:
Application: Explicit threshold comparisons
Patent: machine learning model
A machine learning model defines implicit decision rules. Expressing those rules explicitly via thresholds is a predictable and obvious alternative implementation.
Temporel Feature (Change over time)
Application: explicit comparison (Time 1 and Time 2)
Patent: learned behavioral patterns
Temporal variation in network behavior is a fundamental feature captured by ML models. Explicitly reciting such variation is a routine feature extraction.
C) No Patentable Distinction, Same invention, Different Expression
The claimed steps of measuring signal strength, comparing values over time, and applying threshold represent specific parameter selection and rule formalization within the broader analytical framework already disclosed in the reference patent.
The instant claim decomposes the decision-making process into explicit steps while the patent abstracts the same process through a machine learning model. This is a difference in the claim language, but not in the invention itself.
Claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of US patent 12,114,164 B2. The analysis above to show the rejection of claim 1 over the reference is exemplary. Claims 2-20, including Independent claim 11, follow the same pattern and are rejected as they disclose similar subject matter as claims 2-24 of the patent. By this rationale, claims 1-20 are rejected.
CONCLUSION
THIS IS A NON-FINAL REJECTION. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jude Jean-Gilles whose telephone number is 571-272-3914. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, from 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on 571-272-4170. 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.
/JUDE JEAN GILLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
March 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights