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
This action is responsive to application filed March 19, 2025.
This application is a Continuation of: application 17727359 (now Patent 12323414).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
Drawings filed on 3/19/25 are acknowledged.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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).
A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No 12323414;
Claims 1-20 of US Patent No 120103312;
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each other. The claim sets of both the instant application and of Patent ‘414 and Patent ‘312, are drawn to managing pre-authentication.
For I: as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US Patent 12323414:
As a representative example, claim 1 of the instant application along with claim 1 of Patent `414 contain overlapping and equivalent limitations such as receiving first credentials and a request for authentication, generating an authentication confirmation, granting first level access, receiving a second request to access a second level and a session with an entity, receiving second credentials, authenticating the second credentials and analyzing communications, determining concepts and a subset of entities that match the concept, generating elevated authentication, receiving a selection of the subset of entities, granting a second level of access with e first entity, and establishing a channel for pre-authenticated session by transmitting control signals to the client and a second server.
The limitations of the dependent claims of the instant application are similarly found to have their equivalents in the dependent claims of Patent `414, and are deemed to be obvious variations over them.
For II: as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 12101312:
As a representative example, claim 1 of the instant application along with claim 1 of Patent `312 contain overlapping and equivalent limitations such as receiving first credentials and a request for authentication, generating an authentication confirmation, granting first level access, receiving a second request to access a second level and a session with an entity, receiving second credentials, authenticating the second credentials and analyzing communications, determining concepts and a subset of entities that match the concept, generating elevated authentication, receiving a selection of the subset of entities, granting a second level of access with e first entity, and establishing a channel for pre-authenticated session and transmitting signals to a server.
The limitations of the dependent claims of the instant application are similarly found to have their equivalents in the dependent claims of Patent `312, and are deemed to be obvious variations over them.
Without a terminal disclaimer, the patented claims will preclude issuance of the instant generic application.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights