DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a reply to the amendment filed on 06/08/2026, in which, claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 7-8 and 10-23 are amended. Claim(s) 9 and 14 are cancelled. No claim(s) are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objection:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to objection of claim(s) 8-15 have been considered. The objection of claim(s) 8-15 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim.
Double Patenting Rejection:
Applicant submitted a terminal disclaimer on 06/08/2026 to overcome DP rejection issued in the previous office action. However, the terminal disclaimer is disapproved because the person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant, patentee or an attorney or agent of record. 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b). (See FP 14.26.08) Please file a POA that gives power to the attorney who is signing the TD, along with another copy of the TD, or file a TD that is signed by the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims rejected under prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on 06/08/2026.
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 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 1-8 and 10-13 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-12 of Patent 12,155,626.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-8 and 10-13 are anticipated by claims 1-12 of Patent 12,155,626.
Instant Application 18/958,299
Patent US 12,155,626 B1
1. (Currently Amended) A computing platform, comprising:
a controller deployed within a cloud computing platform and maintained within a non-transitory storage medium;
a first virtual private cloud network communicatively coupled to the controller, the first virtual private cloud network includes at least a first egress filtering gateway configured to:
filter egress traffic data received from a first gateway;
route filtered egress traffic data to a public network in accordance with a first set of filter rules included as part of a first security policy provided by the controller, and
display analytics results including accepted and blocked filtering results for the first egress filtering gateway,
wherein the controller is configured to enable a discovery mode of operation to access an audit log maintained by the first egress filtering gateway, the audit log comprising information associated with the egress traffic data that has been accepted or precluded from transmission.
Claim 1. A computing platform, comprising:
a controller deployed within a cloud computing platform and maintained within a non-transitory storage medium;
a first virtual private cloud network communicatively coupled to the controller, the first virtual private cloud network includes at least a first egress filtering gateway configured to:
filter egress traffic data received from a first gateway; and
route filtered egress traffic data to a public network in accordance with a first set of filter rules included as part of a first security policy provided by the controller,
wherein the controller is configured to enable a discovery mode of operation to access an audit log maintained by the first egress filtering gateway, the audit log comprising information associated with the egress traffic data that has been accepted or precluded from transmission.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG-FENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/CHENG-FENG HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights