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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the application filed on November 28, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 represent SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF NETWORK OPERATION METRICS AND GENERATION OF NETWORK OPEARATION METRICS VISUALIZATIONS.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
18/943,451
12,149,614
1. A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media having thereon computer-executable instructions that are structured such that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform the following: retrieve a value of a device identifier of the computing system; generate a device claim asserting the value of the device identifier; associate the device claim with an identifier of a user of the computing system; generate and attach proof code to the device claim to generate a verifiable device credential (VDC), the proof code proving that the VDC is issued by the computing system that is associated with the user; and present the VDC to a second computing system as part of an identity protection system, wherein when the second computing system receives the VDC, the second computing system is caused to use the proof code to verify whether the VDC was issued by a computing system associated with the user
1. A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media having thereon computer-executable instructions that are structured such that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform the following: retrieve a value of a device identifier of the computing system; generate a device claim asserting the value of the device identifier; associate the device claim with an identifier of a user of the computing system; generate and attach proof code to the device claim to generate a verifiable device credential (VDC), the proof code proving that the VDC is issued by the computing system that is associated with the user; and present the VDC with additional user information to a second computing system as part of an identity protection system, wherein the second computing system is associated with a relying entity or a credential issuer and when the second computing system receives the VDC, the second computing system is caused to use the proof code to verify whether the VDC was issued by a computing system associated with the user and to analyze the user information with the device identifier to determine whether the device is an authorized device of the user based on previous communication or transaction records.
2. Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No(s). 12,149,614, issued to Murdoch. Although the conflicting set of claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a comparison between the two set of claims shows that the instant claims 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of patent(s) ‘614.
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EL HADJI SALL whose telephone number is (571)272-4010. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-8:30 (flexible).
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, Ario Etienne can be reached on 5712724001. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/EL HADJI M SALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457