DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the original application filed on February 27, 2025.
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 .
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-19 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,601,449. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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 20-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,601,449. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and ‘449 is directed to the method of filtering/evaluating events related to an electronic device.
Claims 20-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,338. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and ‘338 is directed to the method of filtering/evaluating events related to an electronic device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 20-21 are directed to a method of evaluating events related to an electronic device. The steps of “receiving a stream of pre-filtered events ……”, “determining that a first of the event satisfies a condition……”, “creating a document that includes said first event …..”, determining that a second of the events satisfies another condition ….”, “adding said second event to the document ….”, “taking a security action in relation to the electronic device”, “analyzing a stream of pre-filtered event …”, continuing to analyze said events ….”, “adding said second event to the document ….” And “deleting the document and repeating the method …” are steps merely directed to basic post office activity of monitoring events and taking a security action based on the monitoring steps. Further, the claims do not require the use of a machine and may simply be performed mentally by a human being and therefore, the claim is abstract idea without any addition elements. The claimed electronic device is a general purpose computer and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, as put forth above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an electronic device to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims are not patent eligible (see MPEP 2016.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made or record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is Chien (US 8,370,931). Chien discloses:
Multi-behavior matching in a computer system is performed in order to identify suspicious sequences of activities. System behavior is captured using driver hooks. A behavior monitoring system determines the process to which the system behavior belongs by processing a table. This includes using the process ID and thread ID of the system behavior as lookups into the table. A multi-behavior matching algorithm is applied to determine if there is any matching suspicious behavior by matching sets of rules (a policy) to system events caused by a particular process. A state machine is used to keep track of matching policies. Options to the rules and policies (such as "offset," "depth," "distance," "within," "ordered" and "occurrence/interval") are used to refine when a rule or policy is allowed to produce a positive match, reducing false positives.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TESHOME HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-3159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at (571) 270-1050. 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.
/TESHOME HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights