DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,032,244. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claims is anticipated by the patented claims. For example, compare patented claim 1 with instant claim 1:
U.S. Pat. 11,032,244
App. No. 19/220,387
1. A computer-implemented method for ranking importance of assets of an entity, the assets comprising hosts associated with the entity, the method comprising:
1. A system for ranking importance of assets of an entity, the assets comprising hosts associated with the entity, the system comprising: one or more computing systems each comprising one or more processors and a memory, the one or more computing systems being programmed to perform operations comprising:
receiving at least one of:
receiving at least one of:
a first dataset comprising (i) a respective plurality of hostnames of a plurality of hosts and (ii) lookup counts for each hostname of the plurality of hostnames, the lookup counts obtained from a stream of a domain name system (DNS) queries;
a first dataset comprising (i) a respective plurality of hostnames of a plurality of hosts and (ii) lookup counts for each hostname of the plurality of hostnames, the lookup counts obtained from a stream of a domain name system (DNS) queries; or
a second dataset comprising source code for a plurality of websites indicating, for each website, whether a host of the website is configured to collect data from users, the websites associated with the entity; or
a second dataset comprising source code for a plurality of websites indicating, for each website, whether a host of the website is configured to collect data from users, the websites associated with the entity;
a third dataset comprising a plurality of authentication certificates associated with at least one of the plurality of hosts;
determining input data based on the received at least one first dataset, second dataset, or third dataset such that:
determining input data based on the received at least one first dataset or second dataset such that:
when the first dataset is received, determining a first input data comprising, for each host of the plurality of hosts, a ratio of (a) a number of lookup counts of the hostname of the host to (b) a maximum number of lookup counts of the plurality of hostnames for the entity;
when the first dataset is received, determining a first input data comprising, for each host of the plurality of hosts, a ratio of (a) a number of lookup counts of the hostname of the host to (b) a maximum number of lookup counts of the plurality of hostnames for the entity; and
when the second dataset is received, determining a second input data indicating, for each host of the website, whether the source code indicates that the host is configured to collect data from users of the website; and
when the second dataset is received, determining a second input data indicating, for each host of the website, whether the source code indicates that the host is configured to collect data from users of the website; and
when the third dataset is received, determining a third input data indicating, for the at least one host, whether the host has an authentication certificate; and
determining, for each host associated with the entity, a host importance ranking based on the determined input data.
determining, for each host associated with the entity, a host importance ranking based on the determined input data.
Instant dependent claims 2-23 are similarly anticipated by patented claims 2-23. Accordingly, claims 1-23 are rejected.
Claims 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,949,655. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claims is anticipated by the patented claims. For example, compare patented claim 1 with instant claim 1:
U.S. Pat. 11,949,655
App. No. 19/220,387
1. A computer-implemented method for ranking importance of assets of an entity, the assets comprising hosts associated with the entity, the method comprising:
1. A system for ranking importance of assets of an entity, the assets comprising hosts associated with the entity, the system comprising: one or more computing systems each comprising one or more processors and a memory, the one or more computing systems being programmed to perform operations comprising:
receiving at least one of:
receiving at least one of:
a first dataset comprising (i) a respective plurality of hostnames of a plurality of hosts and (ii) lookup counts for each hostname of the plurality of hostnames, the lookup counts obtained from a stream of a domain name system (DNS) queries; or
a first dataset comprising (i) a respective plurality of hostnames of a plurality of hosts and (ii) lookup counts for each hostname of the plurality of hostnames, the lookup counts obtained from a stream of a domain name system (DNS) queries; or
a second dataset comprising source code for a plurality of websites indicating, for each website, whether a host of the website is configured to collect data from users, the websites associated with the entity;
a second dataset comprising source code for a plurality of websites indicating, for each website, whether a host of the website is configured to collect data from users, the websites associated with the entity;
determining input data based on the received at least one first dataset or second dataset such that:
determining input data based on the received at least one first dataset or second dataset such that:
when the first dataset is received, determining a first input data comprising, for each host of the plurality of hosts, a ratio of (a) a number of lookup counts of the hostname of the host to (b) a maximum number of lookup counts of the plurality of hostnames for the entity; and
when the first dataset is received, determining a first input data comprising, for each host of the plurality of hosts, a ratio of (a) a number of lookup counts of the hostname of the host to (b) a maximum number of lookup counts of the plurality of hostnames for the entity; and
when the second dataset is received, determining a second input data indicating, for each host of the website, whether the source code indicates that the host is configured to collect data from users of the web site; and
when the second dataset is received, determining a second input data indicating, for each host of the website, whether the source code indicates that the host is configured to collect data from users of the website; and
determining, for each host associated with the entity, a host importance ranking based on the determined input data.
determining, for each host associated with the entity, a host importance ranking based on the determined input data.
Instant dependent claims 2-23 are similarly anticipated by patented claims 2-23. Accordingly, claims 1-23 are rejected.
Claims 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,348,485. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claims is anticipated by the patented claims. For example, compare patented claim 1 with instant claim 1:
U.S. Pat. 12,348,485
App. No. 19/220,387
1. A computer-implemented method for ranking importance of assets of an entity, the assets comprising Internet Protocol (IP) addresses associated with the entity, the method comprising:
1. A system for ranking importance of assets of an entity, the assets comprising hosts associated with the entity, the system comprising:
one or more computing systems each comprising one or more processors and a memory, the one or more computing systems being programmed to perform operations comprising:
receiving at least one of:
receiving at least one of:
a first dataset comprising (i) a first plurality of IP addresses associated with the entity and (ii) lookup counts for each IP address of the first plurality of IP addresses;
a first dataset comprising (i) a respective plurality of hostnames of a plurality of hosts and (ii) lookup counts for each hostname of the plurality of hostnames, the lookup counts obtained from a stream of a domain name system (DNS) queries; or
a second dataset comprising at least one service or application type associated with at least one IP address associated with the entity; or
a second dataset comprising source code for a plurality of websites indicating, for each website, whether a host of the website is configured to collect data from users, the websites associated with the entity;
a third dataset comprising fingerprints and/or cookies associated with a second plurality of IP addresses associated with the entity;
determining input data based on the received at least one first dataset, second dataset, or third dataset such that:
determining input data based on the received at least one first dataset or second dataset such that:
when the first dataset is received, determining a first input data comprising a ratio of (a) a number of lookup counts of the first plurality of IP addresses to (b) a maximum number of lookup counts of the first plurality of IP addresses;
when the first dataset is received, determining a first input data comprising, for each host of the plurality of hosts, a ratio of (a) a number of lookup counts of the hostname of the host to (b) a maximum number of lookup counts of the plurality of hostnames for the entity; and
when the second dataset is received, determining a second input data comprising a ranking of the at least one service or application type, the ranking determined by comparing each service or application type to a database of pre-ranked service or application types; and
when the second dataset is received, determining a second input data indicating, for each host of the website, whether the source code indicates that the host is configured to collect data from users of the website; and
when the third dataset is received, determining a third input data comprising a ratio of (a) a number of unique fingerprints and/or unique cookies of an IP address of the second plurality of IP addresses to (b) a maximum of numbers of unique fingerprints and/or unique cookies for the second plurality of IP addresses of the entity; and
determining, for each IP address associated with the entity, an IP address importance ranking based on the determined input data.
determining, for each host associated with the entity, a host importance ranking based on the determined input data.
Instant dependent claims 2-23 are similarly anticipated by patented claims 2-23. Accordingly, claims 1-23 are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Wing F Chan can be reached at (571) 272-7493. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights