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 .
This communication is in response to Preliminary Amendment filed on February 17, 2026. Claim 1 is pending. Claims 2-95 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/17/2026 and 5/1/2026 are 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 and 2 of Patent 11,816,112 contains every element of claim 1 of the instant application and as such anticipates claim 1 of the instant application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
accessing a stored signature for the first process, wherein the signature includes a plurality of features, and wherein the signature specifies a frequency and weight for each of the plurality of features;
receiving a stream of event data having a plurality of events;
selecting a window of event data that includes a subset of the plurality of events;
calculating a first similarity between the signature for the first process and the event data within the window; and
identifying the first process in the stream of event data when the first similarity is within a predetermined measure of similarity.
Step 1: The claim as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claim 1 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “selecting a window of event data that includes a subset of the plurality of events” is a mental step. One can mentally select a subset of data within a time interval. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitations “calculating a first similarity between the signature for the first process and the event data within the window” and “identifying the first process in the stream of event data when the first similarity is within a predetermined measure of similarity” are mental steps. One can mentally calculate a measure of similarity between two sets of data within a time interval and select data based on the calculated measure of similarity. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 1 recites the limitations “accessing a stored signature for the first process, wherein the signature includes a plurality of features, and wherein the signature specifies a frequency and weight for each of the plurality of features” and “receiving a stream of event data having a plurality of events”. These limitations are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the " accessing” and “receiving” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory} above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7,346,629 issued to Kapur et al (hereafter Kapur), and further in view of US 2020/0206920 by Ma et al (hereafter Ma), both disclosed by Applicant in IDS dated 2/17/2026.
Referring to claim 1, Kapur discloses a method of identifying a first process in a stream of event data [Abstract], the method comprising:
accessing a stored signature for the first process, wherein the signature includes a plurality of features, and wherein the signature specifies a frequency and weight for each of the plurality of features [superunit signatures, stored in unit dictionary 172/406, include signatures of the superunit, relationship attributes between units (concepts), frequency, and membership weights, col. 8, line 32- col. 10, line 21; Fig 4, element 406; superunit seed signature is determined, Fig 7, element 704 and specification; Fig 9 and specification];
receiving event data having a plurality of events [wherein unit dictionary 172 is generated by a concept discovery process based on analysis of a number of previous queries to generate a concept network, col. 8, lines 42-61; query log file 402 is analyzed to generate the concept network, col. 10, lines 44-55];
selecting event data that includes a subset of the plurality of events [superunit seed module 412 performs analysis of the queries using concept network to create clusters of related units that can be used as seeds, col. 12, lines 8-17; seed (initial superunit) received from seed module, col. 17, lines 27-32, Fig 7, element 702];
calculating a first similarity between the signature for the first process and the event data [candidate units (not in the signature or superunit) are evaluated to determine whether they match the signature of the initial superunit, col. 17, lines 33-48, col. 18, lines 1-27, Fig 7, elements 704-706]; and
identifying the first process in the event data when the first similarity is within a predetermined measure of similarity [candidate units that match the signature (e.g. that have a membership score that exceeds some threshold) are added to the superunit, col. 18, lines 28-30, Fig 7, element 708].
Referring to claim 1, Kapur discloses all of the above claimed subject matter, and also discloses that a plurality of previous queries (reads on: events) stored within a query log are analyzed to generate a concept network [col. 8, lines 42-61; col. 10, lines 44-55] however remains silent as to the events being from a received stream of events; and that the subset of event data analyzed for similarity lies within a selected window of event data.
Ma discloses receiving and recording a plurality of event streams, each event stream corresponding to a human user interacting with a computing device to perform one or more tasks [para 22, Fig 3, element 302, para 72] and that a sliding event window of length N corresponding to the expected length (number of events) of traces (tasks) represented in the event streams is identified [para 160]. Ma also discloses that the event stream is concatenated and parsed into subsequences using the sliding window length N and that feature vectors are calculated using a distance metric for each subsequence starting at each position with the event stream [para 161, 163] and that clusters of non-overlapping subsequences are identified according to similarity based on an overall distance matrix [para 163].
Kapur and Ma are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- clustering of event data.
It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the queries within the query log of Kapur to include a stream of event data within a specified window, as taught by Ma because analyzing a stream of query data would enable improving the efficiency of performing repetitive tasks of users over a long period of time and with large numbers of different users' interactions corresponding to a set of tasks performed repeatedly within an enterprise [Ma, para 3, 6].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the queries of Kapur with the streaming event data within a window of Ma because it would achieve predictable results. Furthermore, Kapur's clustering of query (event) data is further refined by Ma's clustering of event (trace) data specifically within a sliding event window of a length N.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Achleitner (US 20210185059) directed to: label guided unsupervised learning based network level application signature generation [Fig 4 and related portions of specification];
Zenz (US 20190379677) directed to: an intrusion detection system including comparison of signatures to determine if a data is of a malicious event [Abstract; Fig 4 and related portions of specification].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S/
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
