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 .
This office action is in response to claims filed 1/29/2025, claims 1-20 have been examined. This office action is Non-Final.
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,647. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 is anticipated by Patent No. 12,244,647 claims 1-20. Therefore, patent no. 12,244,647 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application 19/040,744. It has been held that a generic invention is anticipated by “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ 2d 2010 (Fed.Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma (2020/0145432) in view of Peng et al (2013/0121252).
As per claim 1, a system, comprising: a processor configured to:
monitor network traffic on a mobile network at a security platform to identify a new session (Verma: para. 0229, 0234);
enforce a security policy on the new session at the security platform to apply context-based security in the mobile network (Verma: para. 0231, determining a security policy to apply at the security platform to the new session, the security policy can be enforced based on network slice information); and
a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions (Verma: para. 0030).
Verma does not explicitly disclose determine user-IP mapping information associated with the new session stored at the security platform; and push new and updated user-IP mapping information to the security platform from a cloud-based data store.
However, analogous art of Peng discloses determine user-IP mapping information associated with the new session stored at the security platform; and push new and updated user-IP mapping information to the security platform from a cloud-based data store (Peng: para. 0021, 0063, mapping the user identifier with IP address).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determine user-IP mapping information associated with the new session stored at the security platform; and push new and updated user-IP mapping information to the security platform from a cloud-based data store of Peng with Verma, the motivation is that provides timeliness and reliability of a push message (Peng: para. 0020).
As per claim 2, Verma and Peng disclose the system recited in claim 1, wherein the context-based security includes subscriber-ID is based security (Verma: Step 508, para. 0232).
As per claim 3, Verma and Peng disclose the system recited in claim 1, wherein the context-based security includes equipment-ID based security (Step 508, para. 0232).
As per claim 4, Verma and Peng disclose the system recited in claim 1, wherein the context-based security includes network slice- ID based security (Verma: Step 608, para. 0237).
As per claim 5, Verma and Peng disclose the system recited in claim 1, wherein the security platform is configured with a plurality of security policies to apply subscriber-ID based security, equipment-ID based security, and/or network slice-ID based security in the mobile network (Verma: Step 508, para. 0232, Step 608, para. 0237).
As per claim 6, Verma and Peng disclose the system recited in claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: perform level threat identification and prevention in the mobile network (Verma: para. 0134).
As per claim 7, Verma and Peng disclose the system recited in claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: perform application identification and control in the mobile network (Verma: para. 0039, 0135).
As per claim 8, Verma and Peng disclose the system recited in claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: perform URL filtering in the mobile network (Verma: para. 0060, 0071).
As per claim 9, Verma and Peng disclose the system recited in claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: block the new session from accessing a resource based on the security policy (Verma: para. 0033).
As per claim 10, Verma and Peng disclose the system recited in claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: allow the new session to access a resource based on the security policy (Verma: para. 0217).
As per claims 11 and 16, rejected under similar basis as claim 1 above.
As per claims 12-14, 17-19, rejected under similar basis as claims 2-4 respectively.
As per claims 15 and 20, rejected under similar basis as claim 9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENISE E JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3791. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Philip J Chea can be reached at (571) 272-3951. 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.
6/22/2026
/J.E.J/Examiner, Art Unit 2499 /PHILIP J CHEA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights