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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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. See 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);and, 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over some claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,722.
Regarding claims 1-20, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,722 contain every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application and as such anticipate claim of the instant application. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because modifications are obvious.
Art Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reddy et al., US Pub. No.20160191415.
As to claim 1, Reddy discloses a method, comprising:
retrieving, by a system comprising a processor, respective metadata items associated with respective resource-related identifiers and retrieving, by the system and based on the respective metadata items, records comprising respective record data items from respective servers (providing
rule configuration for mobile devices and user terminals based on information received
from the application serve, the rule configuration platform set of rules associated with a
set of network resources associated with the application servers, the parameters or
components of a request may include, for example a domain name, an IP address, a
network resource identifier, see fig,3A, abstract, [0061] to [0062]) ;
determining, by the system and for a first resource-related identifier of the respective resource-related identifiers, that the first resource-related identifier does not have a corresponding first record included in the records, resulting in a first determination (mapping may identify updates that need to be applied to the request or to any of its components in order to comply with the one or more rules associated
with the network resource or the application server, see [0063] to [0064]) ,
generating, by the system and based on the first determination, a first missing record data item and determining, by the system, a first user associated with the first missing record data item, resulting in a second determination and inserting, by the system and based on the second determination, information into an audit report (retrieving and validating necessary information from the data store. If any vital configurations expected to be in the data store are missing, malformed (e.g. damaged), not reachable (the network could not be connected to, etc.), the server-specific plug-in 200B may setup its operating parameters based on pre-defined defaults, thus a configuration and a new different set of rules to be applied to a request for accessing the network resources by the server, see [0060] and [0066] to [0067]).
As to claim 2, Reddy discloses wherein the inserting of the information into the audit report includes inserting first information relating to the first missing record data item, inserting second information including a first user identifier associated with the first user, and inserting third information including first user contact information associated with the first user (allowed to insert, remove, or update the rules, see [0070] to [0071]).
As to claim 3, Reddy discloses the determining of the first user associated with the first missing record data item is based on user-related data stored in a first data store (generating a set of rules associated with the network resource based on the set of rule generation requests see [0070] to [0071]).
As to claim 4, Reddy discloses communicating, by the system, the audit report to a network operator for resolving the first missing record data item (see [0070 to [0071]).
As to claim 5, Reddy discloses, wherein the audit report includes an indication that a second record is verified as being included in the records (storing the mapping results in data store and report the results to the request modification module, see [0064] to [0066]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1-3 respectively.
As to claim 10, Reddy discloses the user-related data includes a name of the first user and an employment role or department associated with the first user (provide ancillary functions in support of the communications services and/or application services to users. See [0041] to [0043]).
As to claim 11, Reddy discloses communicating the audit report to a message account associated with a network operator (see [0041] to [0043]).
As to claim 12, Reddy discloses the audit report includes an indication that a second record is verified as being included in the records (available to only authorized devices/users, the provider of the application service may also deploy an authentication service., see [0043] to [0044]).
As to claim 14, Reddy discloses dividing the audit report into multiple audit reports on a per network function basis (see [0041] to [0044]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1-3 respectively.
As to claim 18, Reddy discloses communicating the audit report to an interface, a device, or a message account associated with a user identity for presentation via the interface, the device, or the message account (see [0109]).
As to claim 20, Reddy discloses the audit report includes an indication that a second record is verified as being included in the records (see [0041] to [0044]).
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) 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al., US Pub. No.20160191415 in view of Kumar et al,, US Pub. No.9,503,452.
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, Reddy further discloses the respective resource-related identifiers include a uniform resource identifier (URI) (see [0090]). Reddy does not specifically disclose a fully qualified domain name (FQDN). However, in a similar environment, Kumar discloses a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) (see col.17 line 12-35). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Kumar’s teachings into the computer system of Reddy to process data information because it would have established a mutually secured connection using Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) or Transport Layer Security in a communication network.
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m. to 5:00 P.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Sheema Umar, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. The fax phone number for this group is (571) 273-8300.
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).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for patents
P O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights