Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/933,535

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING REMOTE SECURITY ASSESSMENT OF FIREWALLED COMPUTER

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Oct 31, 2024
Examiner
POWERS, WILLIAM S
Art Unit
2496
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Qualys Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
540 granted / 680 resolved
+21.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
695
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.4%
+4.4% vs TC avg
§102
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 680 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claims 1-40 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The IDS filed 10/31/2024 has been 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. Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 or US Patent No. 11,102,234; claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,706,242; and claims 1-25 of US Patent No. 12,137,113. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant application are anticipated by the patented limitations. In the case of the ‘113 patent the instant limitation “one or more connections” (in each independent claim) differs from the ‘113 limitation “connection” (in each independent claim). Both limitations only require a single connection. The instant limitation “computing application” (in each independent claim) is different from the ‘113 limitation “Internet application” (in each independent claim). An “Internet application” is a “computer application” and just broadens the scope of application types. In the case of the ‘242 patent the instant limitation “scanner client” (in the independent claims) differs from the ‘242 limitation “thin scanner client” (in the independent claims). A “thin scanner client” is a “scanner client” and just broadens the scope of scanner client types. The instant limitation “computing application” (in each independent claim) is different from the ‘242 limitation “Internet application” (in each independent claim). An “Internet application” is a “computer application” and just broadens the scope of application types. In the case of the ‘234 patent the instant limitation “scanner client” (in the independent claims) differs from the ‘234 limitation “thin scanner client” (in the independent claims). A “thin scanner client” is a “scanner client” and just broadens the scope of scanner client types. The instant limitation “computing application” (in each independent claim) is different from the ‘234 limitation “Internet application” (in each independent claim). An “Internet application” is a “computer application” and just broadens the scope of application types. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-40 will be allowed once an approved terminal disclaimer is filed and a final search and consideration of the limitations is performed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S POWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:30. 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, Jorge L Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571) 272-7624. 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. /WILLIAM S POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 31, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585787
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ANALYZING CONTAMINATION PATHS TO ANALYZE VULNERABILITIES IN IOT DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585788
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ANLAYZING VULNERABILITY IN IOT DEVICES THROUGH PREPROCESSING IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION OF CONTAMINATION PATHS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580885
Method and device for detecting the use of an uncertified domain name server
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580759
METHOD OF UTILIZING PHYSICAL OBJECTS IN A BLOCKCHAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574839
NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+2.8%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 680 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month