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 .
Claim 1 is pending.
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0037324 issued to Calum Anders McKay Grant et al (hereinafter referred to as Grant).
As to claim 1, Grant discloses one or more hardware processors and memory (see Grant: Para 0101), networked to communicably couple through a secure connection to a classified data database, the classified data database comprising an aggregated plurality of classified data records captured from a plurality of classified data sources (databases in an enterprise facility network(s), see Grant: Para. 0050, and classified/confidential documents in the enterprise facility network, see Grant: Para. 0071); and
the memory in communication with the processor (see Grant: Para. 0101), the memory storing an execution environment, the execution environment comprising:
an input port for receiving, from an entity, data associated with one or more requested operations (detection of a data request, such as from out of the company or client, see Grant: Para. 0076);
a search engine for searching the classified data records of the classified database (searching for data, see Grant: Para. 0073); and
a logic execution module for:
executing a set of cyber-security logic rules against the received data and one or more of the classified data records (comparing the operation on the tag associated data with policy specified restrictions, see Grant: Para. 0076); and
based on a positive comparison between the received data to the one or more classified data records, writing to memory one or more instructions for initiation of one or more termination actions of the one or more requested operations (based on a matched tag and determining the operation is restricted according to the policy, the operation is allowed and processed or denied and cancelled, see Grant: Para. 0076).
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,853,375. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See mapping below (underlined for notes):
Current Application 18/528,344
U.S. Patent No. 11,853,375
1. A search and retrieval data processing system for retrieving classified data for execution against a cyber-security logic rules, comprising:
one or more hardware processors and memory, networked to communicably couple through a secure connection to a classified data database, the classified data database comprising an aggregated plurality of classified data records captured from a plurality of classified data sources; and
the memory in communication with the processor, the memory storing an execution environment, the execution environment comprising:
an input port for receiving, from an entity, data associated with one or more requested operations;
a search engine for searching the classified data records of the classified database; and (see mapping copied below)
a logic execution module for:
executing a set of cyber-security logic rules against the received data and one or more of the classified data records; and
a search engine for searching the classified data records of the classified database; (limitation copied from above, the positive comparison is searching for the data records)
based on a positive comparison between the received data to the one or more classified data records, writing to memory one or more instructions for initiation of one or more termination actions of the one or more requested operations.
1. A data processing system for retrieving classified data for execution against a cyber-security logic rules, comprising:
one or more hardware processors and memory, networked to communicably couple through a secure connection to a classified data database, the classified data database comprising a plurality of classified data records captured from a plurality of classified data sources that are controlled to provide sole access to one or more entities in lawful possession of the classified data exclusive of access by the public; and
the memory in communication with the processor, the memory storing an execution environment, the execution environment comprising:
an input port for receiving, from a Payment Service Provider with which a transaction initiator has initiated transactions related to financial data, data associated with one or more comparisons related to the initiated transactions related to financial data, wherein the data associated with the one or more comparisons includes a unique identifier of a proposed value sender, a unique identifier of a proposed value receiver, or a transaction identifier associated with the transaction initiator; and
a logic execution module for:
determining, based at least on executing a set of cyber-security logic rules against the received data associated with the one or more initiated transactions related to financial data and one or more of the classified data records, that a positive comparison exists between the unique identifier of the proposed value sender, the unique identifier of the proposed value receiver, or the transaction identifier associated with the transaction initiator that was included in the received data associated with the one or more initiated transactions related to financial data and one or more unique identifiers that are included in the one or more of the classified data records; and
based on determining that a positive comparison exists between the unique identifier of the proposed value sender, the unique identifier of the proposed value receiver, or the transaction identifier associated with the transaction initiator that was included in the received data associated with the one or more initiated transactions related to financial data and the one or more unique identifiers that are included in the one or more classified data records, writing to memory one or more instructions for initiation of one or more termination actions relating to the one or more initiated transactions related to financial data.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,899. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, for similar reasoning to the mapping above.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,443,001. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, for similar reasoning to the mapping above.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,885,133. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, for similar reasoning to the mapping above.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract exceeds 150 words in length.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK E HERSHLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-6pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on (571) 270-1698. 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.
/MARK E HERSHLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights