DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed on 11/19/2024.
3. Acknowledgement is made of Continuing Data: This application is a CON of 17/804,067 filed 05/25/2022, now PAT 12,169,714.
4. Claims filed 12/26/2024 (Preliminary Amendment) have been acknowledged. Claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-37 have been newly added and are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
6. 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 Omum, 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).
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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 9, 13, 21-37 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,714. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations. This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness type double patenting rejection.
Instant Application 18/952,611
Patent No. 12,169,714
1. A method comprising: receiving an application code including an external initialization code component; emulating the external initialization code component in a simulated local computing environment; recording, by a processing circuitry, an action by the external initialization code component to the application code during code initialization; and generating, based on the action, a set of instructions for a static analyzer to perform static analysis on the application code.
1. A method comprising: receiving an application code comprising an external initialization code component, the application code deployed in a cloud computing environment; simulating a local computing environment in which to execute the application code; emulating the external initialization code component in the simulated local computing environment; recording, by a processing circuitry, an action by the external initialization code component to the application code during code initialization; and generating, based on the action, a set of instructions for a static analyzer to perform static analysis on the application code using the set of instructions.
Same interpretation for the other set of claims.
The examiner recognizes that the instant application discloses a broader version for a static analyzer instruction generator based on action of external initialization code during runtime. The related US Patent No. 12,169,714 performs a similar actions, with the inclusion of simulation of the internal environment. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that they are functionally similar and not patentably distinct from each other; the claims as presented can be instrumented individually, or in combination without limitations, or without departing from the spirit and scope of the inventions as specified in Applicant’s Specifications. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the limitations and their differences are obvious variations of the invention defined in the claim of instant application: 18/952,611.
8. Please see M.P.E.P. 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-9]; 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-9]: III. “Plain Meaning” Refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art”
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination, and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claims (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-I]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCISCO JAVIER APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7164. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4.
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, James Trujillo can be reached on (571)272-3677. 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.
/FRANCISCO J APONTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
09/04/2026.
Prosecution Insights