DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 04/09/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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 §§ 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,439,985 (US 10439985 B2, hereinafter “Patent 1”), claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,412,001 (US 11412001 B2, hereinafter “Patent 2”), claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,522,890 (US 11522890 B2, hereinafter “Patent 3”), and claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,203 (US 12309203 B2, hereinafter “Patent 4”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are broader in every aspect than the corresponding claims of Patent 1 (US 10439985 B2), Patent 2 (US 11412001 B2), Patent 3 (US 11522890 B2), and Patent 4 (US 12309203 B2) and are therefore anticipated by claims 1-28 of Patent 1 (US 10439985 B2), claims 1-20 of Patent 2 (US 11412001 B2), claims 1-20 of Patent 3 (US 11522890 B2), and claims 1-19 of Patent 4 (US 12309203 B2).
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 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1-20, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea of comparing data and displaying results of compared data based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole. The claims disclose comparing network communications and generating rules based on the compared data but do not recite any steps beyond providing the generated rules. Without steps describing further use of the generated rules or details regarding the generation of the rules, the claims only amount to the abstract idea of comparing data and displaying results of compared data. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply utilizing machine learning or algorithms does not constitute adding steps or features beyond the abstract idea of comparing data and displaying results of compared data. The involvement of machine with the steps is merely nominally, insignificantly, or tangentially related to the performance of the steps. Without reciting additional elements beyond the abstract idea of comparing data and displaying results of compared data, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “without labels …” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the phrase refers to “generating network communication rules”, “observed communications”, or “the data”, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Examiner suggests Applicant to consider utilizing a wherein clause or a separate limitation in order to clarify the association of the phrase and clearly overcome the rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the generated rules” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the phrase refers to “automatically generated rules”, “network communication rules”, or both, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Regarding claims 2-20, which claim dependency from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Parvataneni et al. (US 2020/0366559 A1: System and Methods for Service Policy Optimization for Multi-Access Edge Computing Services), Cogill et al. (US 2018/0103888 A1: Detecting and Explaining Driver Confidence), and Gupta et al. (US 2020/0328978 A1: Dynamic Policy Implementation for Application-Aware Routing Based on Granular Business Insights).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm EST.
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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights