DETAILED ACTION
Claims 25-48 are pending. Claims 1-24 are canceled. This application is a Continuation of 18/584,989 filed on February 22, 2024, as Patent 12,348,554 which claims priority to the Provisional 63/486,617 filed on February 23, 2023.
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 .
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 25-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as follows:
Claim 1 Claim 1 of Patent 12,348,554
establishing connectivity with a plurality of security-relevant subsystems within a computing platform;
receiving an initial notification of a security event from one of the security-relevant subsystems, wherein the initial notification includes a computer- readable language portion that defines one or more specifics of the security event;
iteratively processing the initial notification using a generative Al model and a formatting script to produce a summarized human-readable report for the initial notification;
prompting a user to provide feedback concerning the summarized human- readable report; and
revising the formatting script based upon, at least in part, provided feedback;
wherein the formatting script is revised, at least in part, to produce a new summarized human-readable report with updated recommended mitigation actions
establishing connectivity with the plurality of security-relevant subsystems within the computing platform;
receiving an initial notification of a security event from one of the security-relevant subsystems, wherein the initial notification includes a computer-readable language portion that defines one or more specifics of the security event;
iteratively processing the initial notification using a generative AI model and a formatting script to produce a summarized human-readable report for the initial notification;
prompting a user to provide feedback concerning the summarized human-readable report; and
revising the formatting script based upon, at least in part, provided feedback;
wherein the formatting is revised, at least in part, to produce a new summarized human-readable report with updated recommended mitigation actions
Claims 33-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as presented above.
Claims 41-48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as presented in claims 25-32 rejection.
This is an anticipation double patenting rejection.
Claims 25-32 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7 of copending Application No. 19,432,628 in view of claim 1 Patent No. 12,348,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features. For example, claims 1 and 4-7 recite all features of claim 25 of the instant application except establishing connectivity with the plurality of security-relevant subsystems within the computing platform and to produce a new summarized human-readable report with updated recommended mitigation actions which recited in claim 1 of Patent No. 12,348,554;
Claims 33-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 11-14 of copending Application No. 19,432,628 in view of claim 1 Patent No. 12,348,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as presented above.
Claims 41-48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 and 18-20 of copending Application No. 19,432,628 in view of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as presented in claims 25-32 rejection.
Claims 25-32 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7 of copending Application No. 19,301,460 in view of claim 1 Patent No. 12,348,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features. For example, claims 1 and 4-7 recite all features of claim 25 of the instant application except establishing connectivity with the plurality of security-relevant subsystems within the computing platform and to produce a new summarized human-readable report with updated recommended mitigation actions which recited in claim 1 of Patent No. 12,348,554;
Claims 33-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 11-14 of copending Application No. 19,301,460 in view of claim 1 Patent No. 12,348,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as presented above.
Claims 41-48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as ,being unpatentable over claims 15 and 18-20 of copending Application No. 19,301,460 in view of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as presented in claims 25-32 rejection.
This is a obviousness double patenting rejection.
Examiner Comment
There is no art rejection since the claims recite same allowed features of parent application as Patent 12,348,554.
Prior art of record not relied upon but pertinent to Applicant’s Disclosure
Pub 20170054745
Pub 20230164158
Pub 20210273960
Inquiry communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1994. 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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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.
/TRI M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights