DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant's submission of the amendment dated 1/2/2026.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
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).
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12,147,315. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
US 12,147,315
1. A method, comprising:
generating, by a system, a delta snapshot that indicates one or more changes to an intent policy model from a first time to a second time;
updating, by the system, a stored data structure to include the delta snapshot in a portion of a data structure;
identifying, by the system and based on a message indicating that the system is to deploy an updated version of the intent policy model at a deployment time to a device, a previous deployment time at which the system deployed a previous version of the intent policy model to the device; generating, by the system and based on the delta snapshot, the previous deployment time, and the deployment time, a differential deployment snapshot; and
generating, by the system and based on the differential deployment snapshot, device-level configuration information for a device, wherein the device-level configuration information includes the one or more changes to the intent policy model.
1. A method, comprising:
generating, by a system, an initial delta snapshot that indicates one or more first changes to an intent policy model from an initial time to a first time;
storing, by the system, the initial delta snapshot in a first portion of a data structure; generating, by the system and after storing the initial delta snapshot, a first delta snapshot that indicates one or more second changes to the intent policy model from the first time to a second time; storing, by the system, the first delta snapshot in the first portion of the data structure; generating, by the system and after storing the first delta snapshot, a second delta snapshot that indicates one or more third changes to the intent policy model from the second time to a third time; storing, by the system, the second delta snapshot in the first portion of the data structure; determining, by the system and after storing the second delta snapshot, that additional delta snapshots are not to be stored in the first portion of the data structure; generating, by the system, based on determining that additional delta snapshots are not be stored in the first portion of the data structure, and based on the initial delta snapshot, the first delta snapshot, and the second delta snapshot, an accumulated delta snapshot that indicates the one or more first changes, the one or more second changes, and the one or more third changes to the intent policy model from the initial time to the third time; storing, by the system, the accumulated delta snapshot in a second portion of the data structure;
identifying, based on a message indicating that the system is to deploy an updated version of the intent policy model at a deployment time to a device, a previous deployment time at which the system deployed a previous version of the intent policy model to the device; and generating, based on the data structure, the previous deployment time, and the deployment time, a differential deployment snapshot.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, after storing the accumulated delta snapshot, a message indicating that the system is to deploy an updated version of the intent policy model at a deployment time to a device; identifying, based on the message, a previous deployment time at which the system deployed a previous version of the intent policy model to the device; and generating, based on the data structure, the previous deployment time, and the deployment time, a differential deployment snapshot.
6. The method of claim 4, further comprising: generating, based on the differential deployment snapshot, device-level provisioning configuration information for the device; and providing the device-level provisioning configuration information to the device, wherein providing the device-level provisioning configuration information permits the updated version of the intent policy model to be deployed on the device.
It would have been obvious to modify claim 1 of the instant invention for the benefit of obtaining the invention as specified in claim 1 of the instant application, as device-level configuration information obviously includes changes to the intent policy which is to be deployed.
The other independent claims correspond as follows:
Instant Application
US 12,147,315
Claim 8
Claim 10
Claim 15
Claim 17
Further, the dependent claims of both cases contain substantially similar limitations.
An attempt was made to resolve the double patenting rejection via a call to Rebecca Bachner on 2/19/2026. A message was left, but the call has not been returned as of 3/3/2026.
STATEMENTS OF REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1,
the cited prior art does not teach or suggest:
“identifying, by the system and based on a message indicating that the system is to deploy an updated version of the intent policy model at a deployment time to a device, a previous deployment time at which the system deployed a previous version of the intent policy model to the device;
generating, by the system and based on the delta snapshot, the previous deployment time, and the deployment time, a differential deployment snapshot; and generating, by the system and based on the differential deployment snapshot, device-level configuration information for a device, wherein the device-level configuration information includes the one or more changes to the intent policy model.” as recited in claim 1. The cited prior art does not teach creating a differential deployment snapshot based on the data structure, the previous deployment time, and the deployment time, a differential deployment snapshot as required by claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 and the corresponding dependent claims contain allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 8,
the cited prior art does not teach or suggest:
“identify, based on a message indicating that the system is to deploy a previous version of the intent policy model to a device, a previous deployment time at which the system deployed the previous version of the intent policy model to the device; and
generate, based on the data structure and the previous deployment time, a rollback deployment snapshot; and
generate, based on the rollback deployment snapshot, device-level rollback configuration information for the device,
wherein the device-level rollback configuration information includes the previous version of the intent policy model.” as recited in claim 8.
The cited prior art does not teach generating a rollback deployment snapshot based on the data structure and the previous deployment time and also to generate device-level rollback configuration information based on the device-level rollback configuration information for the device. Therefore, claim 8 and the corresponding dependent claims contain allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 15, does not teach to:
“generate, based on the at least one portion, a deployment snapshot; and generate, based on the deployment snapshot, device-level configuration information for a device, wherein the device-level configuration information includes the one or more changes to the intent policy model” as recited in claim 15.
Therefore, claim 15 and the corresponding dependent claims contain allowable subject matter.
The dependent claims are allowable as they depend from an allowable base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
RELEVANT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant's art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references include:
Bushman (US 2016/0092311) teaches UTILIZING AN INCREMENTAL BACKUP IN A DECREMENTAL BACKUP SYSTEM.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. ' 707.07(i):
SUBJECT MATTER CONSIDERED ALLOWABLE
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-22 are considered patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record, though a double patenting rejection remains outstanding as noted above.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Giardino whose telephone number is (571) 270-3565 and can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Jared Rutz can be reached on (571) 272 - 5535. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/MARK A GIARDINO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights