CTNF 19/091,117 CTNF 81108 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Claim(s) 1-20 has/have been examined.Claim(s) 1-20 have been rejected. Novel Subject Matter The claims recite novel subject matter while being rejected as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and/or being double patenting. Within each claim as a whole the examiner deems the novel limitation to be: based on determining that the computing device is associated with the first organization, identify an executable action associated with preventing occurrence of the future fault and causing the computing device to perform the executable action. The closest prior art is considered to be Chattopadhyay which teaches predicting SLA parameters including network traffic properties associated with a parameter and predicting a SLA violation based on a parameter exceeding a limit and Vesterinen which teaches adjusting QoS of a user device to allocate a greater percentage of resources to user devices that have a premium subscription level. The examiner notes that determining a subscription level of a device, as in Vesterinen, differs from determining that a device is associated with an organization. Specification The specification filed March 26, 2025 is objected to because the title is not descriptive of the claimed invention. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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). 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. 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). 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. 08-34 Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-1 of U.S. Patent 12,282,379. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as described below. Regarding claim 1, this claim recites limitations found in claim 1 of Patent 12,282,379 (note that the claimed “executable action” is anticipated by the limitation of “routing over the second network” in the Patent). Regarding claims 2, 3, and 4, these claim recite limitations respectively found in claims 6, 2 and 8 of Patent 12,282,397. Regarding claims 6 and 7, these claim recite limitations respectively found in claims 11 and 10 of Patent 12,282,397. Regarding claim 11, this claim recites limitations found in claim 1 of Patent 12,282,397 (the Patent claims routing data over a second network). Regarding claims 12 and 13, these claims recite limitations found in claims 1 and 2, respectively, and are respectively rejected on the same grounds as claims 1 and 2. Regarding claims 15, 16 and 17, these claims recite limitations respectively found in claims 11, 4, and 3, and are respectively rejected on the same grounds as claims 11, 4 and 3. Regarding claim 19, this claim recites limitations found in claim 6 of Patent 12,282,397. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below is an evaluation using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Regarding claim 1, Step 1 is satisfied because method steps are processes. At step 2a prong 1, an abstract idea is recited: steps of the claim could be performed as a mental process. These steps include: receiving data; determine, based on the data, a value of a characteristic associated with a network; access historical data associated with the network; predict, based on the value and historical values, a future fault; determine that the computing device is associated with a first organization; and identify an executable action. At step 2a prong 2, additional elements are claimed but they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites a processor and computer-readable media. These elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they only apply the mental process to a generic computer system. The claim recites a computing device which provides data via a network and receives an executable action. The computing device does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not result in use of the judicial exception in a way that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The computing device contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method in a data gathering step and a step of executing a determined result of the mental process. At step 2b, additional elements are claimed but they do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites a processor and computer-readable media. These elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are conventional computing devices which are only generally linked to the abstract idea without meaningfully limiting the mental process. The claim recites a computing device which provides data via a network and receives an executable action. The computing device does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because component is a generally claimed conventional component and contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method in a data gathering step and a step of executing a determined result of the mental process. Regarding claims 2-3, 5, 9, 10, these claims recite additional limitations of the mental process but their inclusion does not push the mental process beyond what can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claims do not recite additional elements which must be evaluated in step 2a prong 2 or step 2b. Regarding claim 4, this claim recites use of a machine learning model. This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the machine learning model is a generic component and like a computer, may be used for performing what would otherwise be a mental process. In this case the implementation of the machine learning model is generic and only generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). Regarding claim 7, this claim recites use of a firewall. The examiner takes official notice that use of a firewall is well known in the art. See, for example, attached NPL reference Wikipedia’s Firewall. Use of a firewall does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the limitation does not use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking and the limitation recites extra-solution activity that is well-known. Use of a firewall does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is well-understood, routine and conventional. The use of a firewall contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method. Regarding claim 8, this claim recites a second computing device for a second action. This device does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because does not result in use of the judicial exception in a way that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and because it contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method in a data gathering step and a step of executing a determined result of the mental process. Regarding claim 11, this claim recites that the executable action includes generating an alert. Generating an alert does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is post solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole. Generating an alert does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) Regarding claims 12, 13 and 15 these claims recite limitations found in claims 1, 2 and 11, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1, 2, and 11. Regarding claim 14, this claim recites additional limitations of the mental process but their inclusion does not push the mental process beyond what can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claim additionally recites causing the computing device to send notifications to users. This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is considered insignificant post solution activity akin to generating a notification of a result. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because sending notifications based on the result of an analysis only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment without meaningfully limiting the abstract idea. Regarding claims 16 and 17, these claims recite limitations found in claims 4 and 3, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds as claims 4 and 3. Regarding claims 18 and 19, these claims recite limitations found in claims 1 and 2 and are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1 and 2. Regarding claim 20, this claim recites limitations found in claim 8 and is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Eschet teaches priorities are assigned to user devices and when available link bandwidth fluctuates or during network resource saturation the devices with high priorities may receive more resources than lower priority devices. Sahlqvist teaches rerouting data through a second network after a transmission timeout failure . Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SCHELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-8186. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9AM-5:00PM (Pacific Time). 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. Please note that all agendas or related documents that Applicant would like reviewed should be sent at least one full business day (i.e. 24 hours not including weekends or holidays) before the interview . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-0631. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is 571-273-8186. The examiner may be e-mailed at joseph.schell@uspto.gov though communications via e-mail are not permitted without a written authorization form (see MPEP 502.03). 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://pair-direct.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. JS/JOSEPH O SCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/091,117 Page 2 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/091,117 Page 4 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/091,117 Page 5 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/091,117 Page 6 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/091,117 Page 7 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/091,117 Page 8 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/091,117 Page 9 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/091,117 Page 10 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/091,117 Page 11 Art Unit: 2114
Prosecution Insights