DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an application filed on November 13, 2024, in which claims 2 through 21 are pending, and ready for examination.
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for domestic benefit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 18/362,876 filed on July 31, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,177,241, which claims domestic benefit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/652,085 filed on February 22, 2022, now U.S. Patent No. 11,716,341, which claims domestic benefit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/482,082 filed on September 22, 2021, now U.S. Patent No. 11,290,478, which claims domestic benefit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/069,415 filed on October 13, 2020, which claims domestic benefit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/525,415 filed on July 29, 2019, now U.S. Patent No. 10,841,325, which claims domestic benefit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/058,810 filed on August 8, 2018, now U.S. Patent No. 10,462,171, which claims domestic benefit from Provisional Application Nos. 62/550,439 filed on August 25, 2017, 62/545,917 filed on August 15, 2017, and 62/542,288 filed on August 8, 2017.
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on February 24, 2025.
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 .
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 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,241. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reason(s):
Claim 2 of the instant application is merely a broader recitation of that which this is claimed in Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,241, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,241 further reciting “[wherein monitoring] at least one of the process or the network communications of…”. That is to say, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,241 anticipates independent claim 2 of the instant application. This analysis is equally applicable to independent claim 12 of the instant application.
Dependent claims 3-11 and 13-21 are each rejected as they articulate various limitations and features that are further recited in the dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,241.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 3-8 and 11 recite(s), “The computer-implemented method of claim 1”; however, claim 1 has been canceled. Thus, the scope of these claims cannot be ascertained, and they are indefinite.
Claims 9 and 10 are each dependent (either directly or indirectly) from claim 8, and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Herz, et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0091573
Baradaran, et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0126718
Ghanea-Hercock, U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0255157
Desai, et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0188189
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. Brant Murphy whose telephone number is (571)272-6433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached at 571-272-3685. 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.
/J. BRANT MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
January 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights