USPTO Office Actions and Early Peer-to-Patent Results

As of today, the USPTO has examined 10 applications from Peer-to-Patent.

The assignees for these patent applications are as follows:

3 applications from IBM
2 applications from Intel
1 application from HP
1 application from Red Hat
1 application from Sun Microsystems
1 application from Microsoft
1 application from GE

Average time from patent application filing date to mailing of first office action: Approximately 25 months
11/329773 (IBM) - 25 months (Non-final rejection)
11/316245 (IBM) - 25 months 16 days (Non-final rejection)
11/290893 (IBM) - 26 months 9 days (Non-final rejection)
11/291378 (Intel) - 26 months 10 days (Final rejection)
11/286585 (Intel) -24 months 11 days (Non-final rejection)
11/286554 (HP) - 26 months 20 days (Non-final rejection)
11/164393 (Red Hat) - 24 months 15 days (Non-final rejection)
11/329656 (Sun) - 24 months 27 days (Non-final rejection)
11/296194 (Microsoft) - 26 months 1 day (Non-final rejection)
11/301399 (GE) - 25 months 26 days (Non-final rejection)

The examiner in each application cited every Peer-to-Patent prior art submission as having been considered:
28 instances of patent prior art
33 instances of non-patent prior art

In 2 cases, the examiners relied primarily upon a prior art reference submitted by Peer-to-Patent in rejecting the applications patentability:

1) 11/286554 (HP): "Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Intel Active Management Technology Quick Reference Guide in view of Govindarajan et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20070011491."
"Intel Active Management Technology Quick Reference Guide" was submitted by Peer-to-Patent reviewer Steven Pearson.
A rejection under 35 USC 103(a) is a rejection on the grounds that the invention disclosed by the patent application would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.

2) 11/329773 (IBM): "Claims 1, 15 are rejected under 35 USC 102(b) as being anticipated by Housley, Cryptographic Message Syntax (published June 1999)."
Housley, "Cryptographic Message Syntax", was submitted by Peer-to-Patent reviewer Rob Cameron.
A rejection under 35 USC 102(b) is a rejection on the grounds that the invention disclosed by the patent application is not novel because it was described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the application date.