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 .
The instant application having Application No. 19/062,254 filed on 03/27/2023 is presented for examination by the Examiner. Claims 2-21 are currently pending in the present application.
Drawings
The drawings filed 02/25/2025 are accepted for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 05/12/2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Double Patenting
5. 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.
6. Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of the U.S. Patent No.2024/0330268 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-21 of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims 1-20 of the U.S. Patent No. 2024/0330268 A1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of data processing at the time the invention was made to modify the invention as claimed in the instance application by substituting determining, by a first routine, a first correlation between the first datagram and a second datagram that is stored in a second data structure with determining a correlation associated with the first datagram and a second datagram, and updating the first datagram to represent the correlation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by James Iain Jonathan HOLMES (US-2023/0280882-A1).
As per claim 2, HOLMES teaches “A system comprising”:
“one or more processors,” (fig. 1); and
one or more computer readable media storing computer executable instructions that,
when executed, cause the system to perform operations, the operations comprising:
retrieving a first datagram from a first data structure,” ([0045]);
“determining that the first datagram fails to satisfy a completion condition,” ([0045], [0047]);
“determining a correlation associated with the first datagram and a second datagram; and
updating the first datagram to represent the correlation,” ([0043], [0047]);
“subsequent to updating the first datagram, determining that the first datagram satisfies the completion condition,” ([0047], [0049]); and
“based on determining that the first datagram satisfies the completion condition, storing the first datagram in a second data structure,’ ([0047], [0049]).
As per claim 3, HOLMES further shows “wherein the completion condition is associated with a
presence of one or more data fields,” ([0049], [0051]).
As per claim 4, HOLMES teaches “the operations further comprising: based on storing the first datagram in the second data structure, removing the first datagram from the first data structure,” ([0049]).
As per claim 5, HOLMES teaches “wherein: the first data structure stores a first set of datagrams retrieved from a third data structure,” ([0045], [0049]); and
“the third data structure is configured to store datagrams received by the system,” ([0045], [0049]).
As per claim 6, HOLMES teaches “the second data structure is configured to store datagrams
retrieved that satisfy the completion condition,” ([0047], [0049]).
As per claim 7, HOLMES teaches “wherein the completion condition is associated with an
Incident,’ ([0047], [0049]).
As per claim 8, HOLMES teaches “generating alert based on storing the first datagram in the second data structure,” ([0045]).
As per claim 9, HOLMES teaches “A computer-implemented method comprising:”
“retrieving a first datagram from a first data structure,” ([0045]);
“determining that the first datagram fails to satisfy a completion condition,” ([0045], [0047]);
“determining a correlation associated with the first datagram and a second datagram,” ([0043], [0047], [0051]); and
“updating the first datagram to represent the correlation,” ([0043], [0047]);
“subsequent to updating the first datagram, determining that the first datagram satisfies the
completion condition,” ([0047], [0049]); and
“based on determining that the first datagram satisfies the completion condition, storing the first datagram in a second data structure,” ([0047], [0049]).
As per claim 10, HOLMES further shows “wherein the completion condition is associated with a presence of one or more data fields,” ([0049], [0051]).
As per claim 11, HOLMES further shows “based on storing the first datagram in the second data structure, removing the first datagram from the first data structure,’ ([0049]).
As per claim 12, HOLMES further shows “wherein: the first data structure stores a first set of datagrams retrieved from a third data structure,” ([0045], [0049]); and
“the third data structure is configured to store datagrams received by a system executing the computer-implemented method,” ([0045], [0049]).
As per claim 13, HOLMES further shows “the second data structure is configured to store datagrams retrieved that satisfy the completion condition,” ([0047], [0049]).
As per claim 14, HOLMES further shows “wherein the completion condition is associated with an incident,” ([0047], [0049]).
As per claim 15, HOLMES further shows “generating alert based on storing the first datagram in the second data structure,” ([0045]).
As per claim 16, HOLMES teaches “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising”:
“retrieving a first datagram from a first data structure,” ([0045]);
“determining that the first datagram fails to satisfy a completion condition,” ([0045], [0047]);
“determining a correlation associated with the first datagram and a second datagram,” ([0043], [0047], [0051]); and
“updating the first datagram to represent the correlation,” ([0043], [0047]);
“subsequent to updating the first datagram, determining that the first datagram satisfies the completion condition,” ([0047], [0049]); and
“based on determining that the first datagram satisfies the completion condition, storing the first datagram in a second data structure,” ([0047], [0049]).
As per claim 17, HOLMES further shows “wherein the completion condition is associated with a presence of one or more data fields,” ([0049], [0051]).
As per claim 18, HOLMES further shows “the operations further comprising: based on storing the first datagram in the second data structure, removing the first datagram from the first data structure,” ([0049]).
As per claim 19, HOLMES further shows “wherein: the first data structure stores a first set of datagrams retrieved from a third data structure,” ([0045], [0049]); and
“the third data structure is configured to store datagrams received by the one or more processors,” ([0045], [0049]).
As per claim 20, HOLMES further shows “the second data structure is configured to store datagrams retrieved that satisfy the completion condition,” ([0047], [0049]).
As per claim 21, HOLMES further shows “wherein the completion condition is associated with an incident,” ([0047], [0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections as set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1757. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 6-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Mar. 11, 2026
/KIM T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153