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
Office Action is in response to the reply filed by Applicant on 8/19/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Office Action is Non-Final
Response to Arguments
A) Applicant’s arguments and amendments, regarding 35 USC 101 for being an Abstract idea has been considered and deemed persuasive. As a result, these rejections have been Withdrawn.
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, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,876. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 18 are anticipated, without use of a secondary reference, by claims 1, 10 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,876.
Regarding claims 2-9, 11-17, 19 and 20; claims 2-9, 11-17, 19 and 20are also rejected under Double Patenting for similar reasons respectively and are dependent on claims 1, 10 and 118 and therefore inherit the rejection from issues of the independent claims.
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,239. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 18 are anticipated, without use of a secondary reference, by claims 1, 12 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,239.
Regarding claims 2-9, 11-17, 19 and 20; claims 2-9, 11-17, 19 and 20are also rejected under Double Patenting for similar reasons respectively and are dependent on claims 1, 10 and 118 and therefore inherit the rejection from issues of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s reasons for indicating Allowable Subject Matter:
The instant Application contains allowable subject matter similar to reasons as parent Applications 18/489,097, filed 10/18/2023, now U.S. Patent # 12,250,239, and 16/778,585, filed 01/31/2020, now U.S. Patent # 11,824,876. And considering Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 8/19/2026.
An updated search was conducted on 8/31/2026 with the respect to the amendments, and the claims are still in condition for Allowance.
The closest prior art fails to disclose, teach or even suggest “comparing, by at least one processor of the anomaly detection system, a maximum similarity value to a threshold, wherein: the maximum similarity value is a maximum of a plurality of similarity values between a flow vector and a plurality of flow clusters associated with the network device, the threshold is based on a minimum confidence threshold, the flow vector is based on two or more initial flow vectors that are associated with a behavioral model of the network device generated based on processing a plurality of records of the network device, and the two or more initial flow vectors and the flow vector are stored in a memory; and in response to the maximum similarity value being less than the threshold:
detecting, by the at least one processor of the anomaly detection system, the anomaly
in the network device; and generating, by the at least one processor of the anomaly detection system, a new flow cluster based on the flow vector, wherein the new flow cluster is stored in the memory for a subsequent anomaly detection,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 18.
The limitations of the instant application are not taught by conventional means. Applicant’s use of network flows, flow clusters, flow vectors and determining a maximum similarity are not typical in conventional means. Conventional means will have monitored generic network data and a threshold to determine an anomaly. The instant application, takes into account other factors in order to determine a similarity and determine if the factors equate to a maximum similarity. This offers the benefit over conventional means since it incorporates more factors and maximum similarity would be subjected to the keeper of the network. Claims are not in condition for Allowance due to pending Double Patenting rejection.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODERICK TOLENTINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2661. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 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, Luu Pham can be reached on 571-270-5002. 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.
RODERICK . TOLENTINO
Examiner
Art Unit 2439
/RODERICK TOLENTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights