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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 18/589,792 filed on Feb. 28, 2024, which is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 17/217,733, filed on Mar. 30, 2021, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,949,678, the entire contents of which are incorporated by reference herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Provisional Patent Application on 03/19/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to a Non-Provisional Patent Application received on 03/19/2025. In the application, preliminary amended claims 1-20 dated 04/09/2025 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Specification
Applicant’s submitted specification has been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
Drawings
Applicant’s submitted drawings have been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception—an abstract idea—without reciting additional elements sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite “a method”, “a system”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and therefore falls within the statutory category of a process under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One — Judicial Exception
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the abstract idea of:
Collecting and evaluating requests and interaction information to determine whether access to a resource is authorized and restricting access based on that determination.
Specifically, the claim recites:
“Determining at least a first attribute and a second attribute associated with the request”;
“determining a first confidence score based in part on evaluating the first attribute relative to the second attribute”;
“detecting interaction data representing interactions by the client device with the digital resource”;
“determining a second confidence score based at least in part on the interaction data”; and
“based at least in part on the second confidence score, detecting unauthorized scraping of the digital resource.”
These limitations recite a mental process, including observations, evaluations, and judgments. The limitations involve obtaining information concerning a request, evaluating relationships between attributes, observing subsequent conduct, assessing that conduct, and determining whether the conduct is authorized. Such evaluations and judgments can be conceptually performed in the human mind, for example, by a person evaluating information accompanying a request, assigning a degree of confidence to the request, observing subsequent conduct, and determining whether the conduct is unauthorized.
The recitation of a “confidence score” does not remove the limitations from the mental process grouping because the claim does not specify any particular mathematical formula, algorithm, model, or technical procedure for calculating the score. The score merely expresses the result of the claimed evaluation or judgment.
The claimed concept is analogous to the abstract idea identified in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which collecting and analyzing records of computer activity to detect suspicious behavior was held abstract. The Federal Circuit explained that collecting information and analyzing it through mental steps or mathematical algorithms, without more, falls within the abstract-idea category.
Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 20 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
The additional elements beyond the identified abstract idea include:
“receiving, over a network, a request from a client device to access a digital resource”;
performing the information-gathering and evaluation in connection with a client device and digital resource;
detecting interaction data resulting from the client device’s interaction with the digital resource; and
“limiting access of the client device to the digital resource.”
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Receiving a request over a network and detecting interaction data constitute generic data-gathering activities that merely provide the information upon which the abstract evaluation is performed. The recitations of a “network,” “client device,” and “digital resource” merely place the abstract idea in a computer-network environment. They do not require a particular network architecture, specialized device, improved data structure, or specific technical mechanism for gathering or processing the information.
The limitation of “limiting access of the client device to the digital resource” merely applies the result of the abstract authorization determination. The claim does not specify how access is limited, such as through a particular packet-filtering procedure, network-monitoring architecture, access-control protocol, traffic-routing technique, or modification to the operation of the client device, server, or network.
Similarly, the claim does not recite:
A particular algorithm for determining either confidence score;
Particular rules governing the relationship between the attributes;
A defined threshold for classifying behavior as unauthorized;
A particular behavioral model for distinguishing scraping from legitimate activity; or
A specific technological procedure for blocking or throttling the client device.
Instead, the claim uses generic computer and network components as tools for performing the abstract information-gathering, evaluation, and decision-making process. Merely implementing an abstract idea using generic computer components or limiting the idea to a computer-network environment does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223–24 (2014); FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096–97.
Although the claim concerns network security, limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not itself establish a technological improvement. Unlike the claims in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the present claims do not recite a specific network-monitoring architecture, security profile, or particular technique that changes or improves the operation of the computer or network. The claim instead recites the desired results of determining confidence scores, detecting scraping, and limiting access.
Therefore, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
The additional elements are next considered individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Individually, the additional elements require only ordinary computer-network functions:
Receiving a request over a network;
Obtaining attributes associated with the request;
Monitoring interaction data;
Processing information;
Producing an authorization determination; and
Restricting access based on that determination.
The generic use of a network and client device to receive, transmit, and process information does not provide an inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26. Likewise, generic computer implementation of collecting and analyzing activity records to detect misuse was found insufficient in FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096–97.
Considered as an ordered combination, the claim merely places the abstract steps in their ordinary logical order: receive a request, evaluate request information, initially determine that the request is authorized, monitor subsequent conduct, determine that the conduct is unauthorized, and restrict access. The ordered combination does not recite a nonconventional arrangement of computer components or a specific technological procedure for accomplishing these results.
At most, the computer and network allow the abstract evaluation to be performed more rapidly or on a greater quantity of information than could be processed manually. An improvement in speed or efficiency resulting solely from the use of a general-purpose computer does not constitute an inventive concept. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to the abstract idea of collecting and evaluating request and interaction information to determine whether access is authorized and restricting access based on that determination. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claims have been analyzed and fail to overcome the above rejection that claims recite an Abstract Idea and therefore dependent claims are ineligible as well.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safruti et al., (US20160080345A1) in view of Bailey et al., (US20170339184A1) and further in view of Xu et al., (US20190166141A1).
Regarding claim 1, Safruti discloses:
a method for controlling client access to a network-accessible digital resource. In particular, Safruti teaches:
receiving, over a network, a request from a client device to access a digital resource, including a client request for a service or webpage (¶¶ 21, 64);
determining attributes associated with the request and client device, including device model or type, operating system, browser or user-agent type and version, device capabilities, IP address, and geographic location (¶¶ 35, 43, 46–47, 65);
comparing the collected attributes and test results with expected application or user-agent profiles to determine whether the attributes and behavior are consistent with the asserted client characteristics (¶¶ 35, 43, 65);
generating a security score based on that comparison and, when the score satisfies an authorization criterion, generating or maintaining a token that permits access to the requested resource (¶¶ 33, 65–66);
monitoring interaction data after access is granted, including mouse movements, clicks, page activity, action timing, page sequence, and other user activity (¶¶ 56, 67, 70);
determining a further security score based on the subsequently monitored interaction data and updating, modifying, or revoking the authorization token when the subsequent behavior is inconsistent with legitimate behavior (¶¶ 10, 67, 72); and
limiting or denying access by modifying or revoking the token or otherwise refusing access to the resource (¶¶ 10, 12, 33, 67, 72).
Safruti thus teaches an initial confidence or security determination authorizing access followed by continuing interaction monitoring, a subsequent security determination, and restriction of access when the subsequent behavior is unauthorized.
Safruti does not expressly describe the initial score as being calculated by evaluating a first request attribute “relative to” a second request attribute in the precise language of claim 1. However, Bailey, teaches extracting multiple attributes or “anchor values” from a digital interaction, calculating pairwise association scores between first and second attributes, and combining the association scores into an overall score (¶¶ 129–30, 132–35, 145, 149, 155–57). The attributes include network address, device identifiers, location, time zone, device model, operating system, user-agent information, network type, connection type, and network speed.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Safruti’s multi-attribute security score using Bailey’s known pairwise attribute-association technique. Safruti already seeks to determine whether different asserted and observed client characteristics are mutually consistent. Bailey’s pairwise comparison would predictably improve the reliability of that determination by identifying inconsistent or weakly associated client attributes.
The combination of Safruti and Bailey fails to disclose labelling the detected unauthorized automated activity as “scraping.”
However, Xu teaches that automated clients and headless browsers request webpages, gather data from them, and request additional pages, and expressly identifies such activity as unauthorized website or content scraping (¶¶ 4–5). Xu further teaches collecting client behavior data, generating a score representing the likelihood that a request is automated, and diverting or preventing processing of requests determined to be automated (¶¶ 25, 47–51, 163, 165, 173–76).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention configures Safruti’s in view of Bailey an anomalous-client detection to identify the automated data-gathering behavior described by Xu as unauthorized scraping. Both references address distinguishing legitimate browser activity from malicious or automated activity based on client characteristics and post-access behavior. The combination would have predictably protected the digital resource from a known form of automated misuse using Safruti’s existing scoring and access-revocation mechanism.
Regarding claim 11, it is a system claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to receiving the request, extracting a third attribute associated with the client device, the third attribute being different than the first attribute and the second attribute, wherein determining the first confidence score is further based in part on evaluating the third attribute relative to the first attribute and the second attribute (Bailey teaches identifying a first anchor attribute X and a second anchor attribute Y and determining a pairwise association score. When the relationship between X and Y is weak or incomplete, Bailey teaches identifying a third anchor attribute Z and calculating associations involving X, Y, and Z, including combining multiple pairwise relationships into an overall score (¶¶ 155–57).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extract Bailey’s third attribute in response to the request and include its relationships with the first and second attributes in Safruti’s initial security score. Bailey expressly teaches the third attribute to improve an otherwise uncertain association determination. The modification therefore would have predictably increased confidence in the initial authorization decision.
Regarding claim 12, it is a system claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected under similar grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the interaction data comprises a number of user inputs within a period of time (Xu teaches that automated behavior may be detected using the frequency or rate of client input events, including mouse, touch, keyboard, and transition events (¶¶ 47–51). Determining an event rate necessarily entails determining a number of events occurring during a period of time).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the claimed invention to use Xu’s event-count or event-rate measurement as Safruti’s interaction data because the measurement provides a known indication of automation.
Regarding claim 13, it is a system claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected under similar grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the client attribute comprises a number of inputs within a predetermined time period, a number of external links accessed within a predetermined time period, sign in credentials of the client device, or a search history of the client device (Xu teaches collecting and evaluating client input events, including mouse, touch, keyboard, click, and navigation events, and determining the frequency or rate of such events (¶¶ 47–51, 65–73)).
It would have been obvious to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use that client attribute in Safruti’s score because Xu teaches that unusually rapid or repetitive inputs indicate automation.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the client device attribute comprises a type of the client device, a type of an internet browser installed on the client device, or a type of operating system installed on the client device (Safruti teaches expressly teaches obtaining: the model or type of client device; the type and version of the user agent or Internet browser; and the type and version of the operating system (¶¶ 35, 46–47, 64–65)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the network attribute comprises a speed of network connection used by the client device, or a type of communication network used by the client device (Bailey teaches network-information attributes including routing or network type, proxy or connection type, network operator or carrier, and network speed (¶¶ 152–54)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Bailey’s network speed or network/connection type in Safruti’s initial score because both references teach using network and client characteristics to distinguish or associate digital interactions. Such attributes would provide additional evidence concerning whether a request is consistent with the asserted client profile.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the location attribute comprises a geographical location of a source of an interaction with the digital resource, a number of interactions received from a geographical location, travel route data, or travel itinerary data (Safruti teaches enriching client test and request data with the IP address and geographic location associated with the client request (¶¶ 46–47). Bailey similarly teaches location attributes including GPS location, country, state, city, postal code, and other geographic information (¶ 145)).
Because claim 8 recites the listed location attributes as alternatives, disclosure of the geographic location of the source is sufficient. It would have been obvious to use that location when computing Safruti’s score because Safruti expressly teaches using it as part of the enriched client profile.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the time attribute comprises a session duration, a time zone of an interaction with the digital resource, a time spent interacting with the digital resource, a number of times the digital resource was accessed within a predetermined time period, a number of travel requests received within a predetermined time period or travel schedule data (Bailey expressly identifies “time zone” as an attribute associated with the location or context of a digital interaction (¶ 145). Safruti also teaches collecting action timing and maintaining information across webpages and client sessions (¶¶ 56, 61, 67)).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu discloses:
The system of claim 11, wherein evaluating the first attribute relative to the second attribute comprises determining that the first attribute is compatible with the second attribute (Bailey: [0155-0157]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu discloses:
The system of claim 11, the operations further comprising:
in response to determining the first confidence score, updating a database configured to store the first attribute and the second attribute such that the database stores recent attribute data (Safruti: [0065-0066]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu discloses:
The system of claim 11, the operations further comprising:
in response to receiving the request, extracting a third attribute associated with the client device, the third attribute being different than the first attribute and the second attribute, wherein determining the first confidence score is further based in part on evaluating the third attribute relative to the first attribute and the second attribute (Bailey: [0155-0157]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu discloses:
The system of claim 11, wherein the first attribute is a geographical location and the second attribute is a language (Safruti: [0035], [0043], and [0046-0047]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu discloses:
The system of claim 11, wherein the first attribute is a geographical location and the second attribute is a time zone (Safruti: [0035], [0043], and [0046-0047]).
Claim(s) 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safruti et al., (US20160080345A1) in view of Bailey et al., (US20170339184A1) in view of Xu et al., (US20190166141A1) and further in view of Senci et al., (US20190139048A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu fail to disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the business attribute comprises a revenue generated, an estimated travel request, or a selected currency.
However, Senci discloses:
wherein the business attribute comprises a revenue generated, an estimated travel request, or a selected currency (Senci teaches collecting transaction attributes from an online client request, including transaction amount and a “transaction currency code” (¶¶ 17–20). Senci also uses collected transaction and device data to assign a numerical risk score indicating the likelihood of fraudulent or unauthorized activity (¶¶ 23–27). A transaction currency code corresponds to the claimed “selected currency.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Senci’s currency attribute among the business attributes evaluated by the combined Safruti-Bailey-Xu system. Currency is a conventional transaction characteristic, and an unexpected relationship between currency and client, device, network, or location attributes can indicate abnormal or unauthorized activity. The combination would have predictably improved anomaly detection for commercial digital resources.
Claim(s) 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safruti et al., (US20160080345A1) in view of Bailey et al., (US20170339184A1) in view of Xu et al., (US20190166141A1) and further in view of Kuperman et al., (US20170222979A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu fail to disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein limiting access of the client device to the digital resource comprises partially blocking access to a payment section of the digital resource.
However, Kuperman discloses:
assigning different portions of a web resource to different access tiers and generating a client score based on the client’s behavior and accessed URIs (¶¶ 70–73). Kuperman specifically teaches:
permitting a client to populate and view a shopping cart at a lower tier;
challenging or denying the client access to a higher-tier checkout URI; and
permitting continued access to tier-two functionality while restricting access to tier-one functionality based on the client score (¶¶ 73, 75–79).
Kuperman therefore teaches partially restricting access to a digital resource by allowing access to a shopping cart or other functionality while blocking or challenging access to the checkout portion. A checkout page is a payment section within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term.
It would have been obvious to implement Safruti’s score-based access restriction using Kuperman’s tiered-access technique. Both references determine whether a client is malicious based on client behavior and restrict access based on that determination. Kuperman’s partial restriction would predictably preserve access to less-sensitive functionality while protecting the more-sensitive checkout or payment section.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Safruti, Bailey, and Xu fail to disclose:
The system of claim 11, wherein limiting access of the client device to the digital resource comprises partially blocking access to a portion of the digital resource.
However, Kuperman discloses:
wherein limiting access of the client device to the digital resource comprises partially blocking access to a portion of the digital resource ([0070], [0073], and [0075-0079]).
It would have been obvious to implement Safruti’s score-based access restriction using Kuperman’s tiered-access technique. Both references determine whether a client is malicious based on client behavior and restrict access based on that determination. Kuperman’s partial restriction would predictably preserve access to less-sensitive functionality while protecting the more-sensitive checkout or payment section.
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, 11, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. US11949678B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims recite subject matter which recite similar concepts as patented claims. In comparison, the instant claims recite subject matter which is broader than the patented claims.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 11, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. US11949678B2 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Additionally, claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. US12316635B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims recite subject matter which recite similar concepts as patented claims. In comparison, the instant claims recite subject matter which is broader than the patented claims.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 10, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. US12316635B1 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights