DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/896,486 filed on 9/25/2024. The preliminary amendment presented on 5/7/2025, which cancels claims 1-16 and adds new claims 17-28, hereby acknowledged. Claims 17-28 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claims 17-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,268,957 (hereinafter Patent ‘957). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Patent ‘957 teaches as follows:
Applicant’s Claims 17 and 23
Patent ‘957’s claim 1
A method for use in monitoring one or more platforms of one or more data systems, comprising:
A method for use in monitoring one or more platforms of one or more data systems, comprising:
first evaluating, by a processor using a first rule block, structured data received from one or more platforms over at least one communications network;
wherein the first rule block is configured to fire when a predetermined first threshold number of a quantitative value of a first field has been reached;
first evaluating, by a processor using a first rule block, structured data received from one or more platforms over at least one communications network;
dynamically adjusting the first threshold number upwardly or downwardly based on first historical results;
first determining, from the first evaluating, that a result is one of at least first and second outcomes;
first determining, from the first evaluating, that a result is one of at least first and second outcomes;
accessing, by the processor, a linking relationship object in the first rule block to identify a data field in the structured data;
accessing, by the processor, a linking relationship object in the first rule block to identify a data field in the structured data;
extracting, by the processor, a content of the data field from the structured data;
extracting, by the processor, a content of the data field from the structured data;
second evaluating, by the processor using a second rule block, structured data associated with the extracted content received from the one or more platforms;
second evaluating, by the processor using a second rule block, structured data associated with the extracted content received from the one or more platforms;
second determining, from the second evaluating, whether a result is one of at least first and second outcomes; and
analyzing the results of the first and second determining to determine an event of interest.
second determining, from the second evaluating, whether a result is one of at least first and second outcomes; and
analyzing the results of the first and second determining to determine an event of interest.
Patent ‘957 does not explicitly teach of adjusting threshold based on historical results.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Patent ‘957 to include adjusting a threshold based on historical results in order to efficiently reduce false alarms.
Rest of dependent claims 18-22 and 24-28 are rejected for the dependency on rejected claims 17 and 23 respectively.
Claims 17-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 9,780,995 (hereinafter Patent ‘995). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Patent ‘995 teaches similar limitations as presented above.
Claims 17-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,576,243 (hereinafter Patent ‘243). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Patent ‘243 teaches similar limitations as presented above.
Claims 17-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,543,694 (hereinafter Patent ‘694). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Patent ‘694 teaches similar limitations as presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeong S Park whose telephone number is (571)270-1597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00-4:30 ET.
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, Rebecca E Song can be reached at 571-270-3667. 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.
/JEONG S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417 July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights