DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
In the response filed on September 14, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 2, 10, 11, and 20. Claim 1 was previously cancelled. Claims 2-22 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Non-Provisional Non-Statutory Anticipation-type Double Patenting, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Each of the instant claims are still anticipated by at least one of claims 1-17 of US patent No. 11,593,824. The rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Non-Provisional Non-Statutory Double Patenting have been maintained accordingly.
v Applicant’s arguments and amendments, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-9, 11-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “claim 2 is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed invention is directed to enabling near real time querying of cost (e.g., worth) and availability of registration of a domain name in combination with steps to update cost, or worth, of a domain name based on a change to data stored in memory (e.g., the one or more inputs in memory). In particular, the claimed invention is directed towards a method and a computer system for computing and updating an initial lifetime worth for a domain name without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the domain name, and thus, enables near real time querying... Hence, it is respectfully submitted that claim 2 covers a particular technical solution to a technical problem and a technical solution is provided by one or more additional elements (e.g., a memory, which is a non-abstract additional element)... These recitations clearly provide the improvement described in the specification of computing and updating an initial lifetime worth for a domain name based on a change to one or more inputs stored in memory without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the domain name”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Updating the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name based on a change to the one or more inputs from a domain data source does not necessarily require accessing the one or more inputs stored in the memory. All that is required is that the updated value is based on a change to the one or more inputs that were stored in the memory. For example, the system could access new/changed data from the domain name data source (i.e., data that represents a change to the one or more inputs that were previously obtained from the domain name data source and saved to memory) to compute the updated worth and this would constitute compute the updated worth based on a change to the one or more inputs. Regardless, and based on the language of the claims, this updating could be performed in response to a subsequent request/query from a requestor for a domain valuation for the first domain name (i.e., it is a calculation of a new or “updated” initial lifetime worth for the domain name based in some way on the one or more inputs that were stored in the memory and that have changed). There is no requirement for the updating to be done before a query from a requestor is received, or for the updated initial worth for the first domain name to be stored in memory (e.g., cache memory) so that it may be retrieved in near-real time responsive to a subsequent query from a requestor. In other words, the mere requirement for the method to comprise a step of “updating, by the one or more processors, the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to obtain an updated initial lifetime worth, wherein the updated initial lifetime worth is updated based on a change to the one or more inputs” does not address the improvement/solution referred to by Applicant’s arguments and specification (enabling near real time querying of cost without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the domain name). It is clear from Applicant’s specification that this solution is found in the sequence of steps/function (e.g., determining, storing, updating, storing in memory, retrieving without determining a new worth), a sequence which significantly comprises storing the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain in memory, and retrieving the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name from the memory in response to a subsequent request. This storing/retrieving from the memory facilitates provisioning the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to the requestor (or different requestor) without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the first domain name, thereby enabling the system to deliver an accurate estimated domain valuation to online requestors within certain time constraints (e.g., service level agreements such as 50 ms or 100 ms). The memory (a non-abstract additional element) is used to provide the improvement. Applicant’s specification confirms that it is the cache memory that helps provide this improvement (Fig 1 tag 170 & [0030]-[0032], [0035]-[0037]). As such, claims 2-22 fail to cover a particular technical solution to the alleged technical problem, and there is no such technical solution provided by one or more additional elements.
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered, and are persuasive. Examiner is persuaded that Minardos does not disclose or suggest "storing the one or more inputs in memory" and "updating, by the one or more processors, the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to obtain an updated initial lifetime worth, wherein the updated initial lifetime worth is updated based on a change to the one or more inputs" in combination with the other claim limitations. Although each of the limitations may have been known, per se, there would not have been a motivation to combine all of the recited features as presently claimed other than with impermissible hindsight.
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(s) 2-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 2-10, 21, and 22 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), while claim(s) 11-20 is/are drawn to systems (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 2-22 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 2 (representative of independent claim(s) 11) recites/describes the following steps;
Identifying...based on data from a data source, a keyword;
generating...a plurality of domain names based on the keyword, wherein the plurality of generated domain names includes the first domain name, wherein the plurality of generated domain names correspond to a combination of the keyword with another word or another identified keyword;
obtaining…one or more inputs from a domain name data source, wherein the one or more inputs comprise data related to comparable historical domain names, data from a linguistic model analysis, data from a linguistic frequency list, data related to a second-level domain to top-level domain relationship analysis, or a combination thereof;
applying...to an initial lifetime worth model, the one or more inputs and the plurality of generated domain names, wherein the initial lifetime worth model comprises a plurality of attributes;
applying, based on the initial lifetime worth...model, a plurality of weights respectively to the plurality of attributes to determine an initial lifetime worth for the first domain name;
receiving...a first query from a requestor;
in response to the first query: determining...the first domain name based on the plurality of generated domain names, based on the determining, identifying...the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name; and providing...the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to the requestor; and
Updating...the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to obtain an updated initial lifetime worth, wherein the updated initial lifetime worth is updated based on a change to the one or more inputs
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth generating a plurality of potential domain names based on a keyword, determining an initial lifetime worth for a domain name using certain obtained information and a valuation model, providing the determined initial lifetime worth value to a requestor, and updating the worth based on updated data, which amounts to a fundamental economic principle or practice and/or a commercial or legal interactions (specifically an advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations). This is an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior and/or a business relation, because the lifetime worth values are values that buyers could/should pay for a product (domain name rights) or that sellers could/should sell or advertise the sale of a product (domain name rights) for. The eleven steps represent a process of generating these price values and providing them to requesters. As is known in the art, often times the process of generating and providing these appraisal values is itself a sales activity, because many times requestors are paying to receive the lifetime worth values. This is similar to the idea of offer-based price optimization, which pertains to marketing, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Applicant’s own published disclosure explains that the valuations provided by the system can be useful for parties as part of a process for registering/renewing a domain name (e.g., inform or suggest to them of how much value the domain name is predicted to have, which can inform how much they should pay to register or renew registration for the domain name(s) - i.e., purchasing the rights for domain names (see [0005] “Domain names can be registered by internet users known as "registrants" through many different companies known as "registrars". Registrars compete with one another to register domain names for registrants. That is, an internet user interacts with a registrar to obtain a domain name, thereby becoming a registrant for the domain. The registrar chosen by the registrant asks the registrant to provide various contact and technical information that makes up the registration. The registrar then keeps a record of the contact information and submits the technical information to the registry”, [0007] “In some examples, the method can further comprise determining that the domain name is not currently registered. In some examples, the method can further comprise providing an offer to register the domain name.”, [0029] “offer better real-time suggestions to the registrant” [0057]-[0058] “the lifetime value of a domain name is output by presenting them to a user for registration or renewal. Such embodiments may be implemented by, or in coordination with a registrar or registry, which can implement the registration or renewal process. Such embodiments may present the user with a graphical user interface by which the user may select the domain name and register or renew it using the same interface. The registration or renewal may be accomplished using standard domain name registration or renewal techniques. By using the above-described features, a registry and/or registrar may see an increase in the registration or renewal rates by increasing or reducing prices for domains depending on predicted initial and overall lifetime value. For example, pricing for domains with a high lifetime value can be increased with the expectation that such domains are going to be in high demand and will be purchased even at the higher price. Inversely, a registry or registrar may want to decrease renewal pricing for domains with low lifetime value with the goal of encouraging registrants to retain their domains”). Applicant’s own claims (CLAIM 3), explains that the one or more processors can provide an offer to register the first domain name in combination with providing the updated initial lifetime worth for the domain name. Further, Applicant’s own arguments on the record acknowledge that the claimed process enables “near real time querying of cost and availability of registration of a domain name”. These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, additionally encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) generating a plurality of potential domain names based on a keyword, determining an initial lifetime worth for a domain name using certain obtained information and a valuation model, providing the determined initial lifetime worth value to a requestor, and updating the worth based on updated data (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 2 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 11 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“by one or more processors...by the one or more processors…….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors” (claim 2)
“an initial lifetime worth computer model” (claims 2 and 11)
“computer system comprising one or more electronic processors; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more electronic processors executes a method…” (claim 11)
“over a communication network...over the communication network” (claims 2 and 11)
“by the one or more processors” (claims 3 and 5)
“in the memory...from the memory” (claims 10 and 20)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “by one or more processors...by the one or more processors…….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors (claim 2) and/or using “computer system comprising one or more electronic processors; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more electronic processors executes a method…” (claim 11) and/or “over a communication network” (claims 2 and 11) and/or “an initial lifetime worth computer model” (claims 2 and 11) and/or “by the one or more processors” (claims 3 and 5) and/or “in the memory...from the memory” (claims 10 and 20) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own published disclosure explains that these elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., paragraphs [0059]-[0068] “can be any type of computer devices, such as desktops, laptops, servers, DNS servers…mobile devices…implemented or performed with a general-purpose processor…a processor can be any conventional processor…”) This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of and/or “over a communication network...over the communication network” (claims 2 and 11) and/or “an initial lifetime worth computer model” (claims 2 and 11) additionally serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments such as the internet . This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem.
Dependent claims 4, 6-9, 12-19, 21, and 22 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 4, 6-9, 12-19, 21, and 22 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “by one or more processors...by the one or more processors…….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors….by the one or more processors” (claim 2) and/or using “computer system comprising one or more electronic processors; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more electronic processors executes a method…” (claim 11) and/or “over a communication network” (claims 2 and 11) and/or “an initial lifetime worth computer model” (claims 2 and 11) and/or “by the one or more processors” (claims 3 and 5) and/or “in the memory...from the memory” (claims 10 and 20) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of and/or “over a communication network...over the communication network” (claims 2 and 11) and/or “an initial lifetime worth computer model” (claims 2 and 11) additionally serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Dependent claims 4, 6-9, 12-19, 21, and 22 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 4, 6-9 and 12-19 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Examiner notes claims 10 and 20 are no longer deemed patent eligible because there is no technical problem being solved based on storing the updated initial lifetime worth in the memory, and there is no longer a step of obtaining the updated initial lifetime worth from the memory in response to a subsequent request without calculating a new initial lifetime worth for the first domain name .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
v Claims 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The requirement for an adequate disclosure ensures that the public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent, and sets forth the minimum requirements for the quality and quantity of information that must be contained in the patent to justify the grant.
v Claims 2 and 11 have been amended to require “obtaining, by the one or more processors and over a communication network, one or more inputs from a domain name data source, wherein the one or more inputs comprise data related to comparable historical domain names, data from a linguistic model analysis, data from a linguistic frequency list, data related to a second-level domain to top-level domain relationship analysis, or a combination thereof; storing the one or more inputs in memory... updating, by the one or more processors, the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to obtain an updated initial lifetime worth, wherein the updated initial lifetime worth is updated based on a change to the one or more inputs”. The underlined limitations contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s specification only mentions storing the domain names and associated valuations or value ranges for the domain names in the cache memory (see the published application at paragraphs [0030], [0032]-[0033], [0035]-[0037], Fig 1 tag 170 – paragraphs [0030] and [0033] and Fig 1 are particularly informative that the values or valuations mentioned in the other paragraphs as being updated and/or stored in the memory/cache are the valuations of the domain names). There is no suggestion or mention of storing the obtained inputs that were obtained from the domain data sources in the cache memory or other memory.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the written description of the invention provides support for “storing the one or more inputs in memory... “. The disclosure does not support this particular embodiment. A skilled artisan would not have understood that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole at the time the application was filed. Per the MPEP section 2163 “if a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. This conclusion will result in the rejection of the claims affected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, first paragraph.”
Each of the dependent claims are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on one of these claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
v Claims 10 and 20 require “wherein obtaining the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name comprises retrieving the updated initial lifetime worth from the memory” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no previous step of obtaining the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name in the claims. As such, reference to this step lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Therefore, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly and distinctly claim the subject matter which the application regards as the invention. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “storing the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name in the memory, wherein obtaining the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name comprises retrieving the updated initial lifetime worth from the memory.” will be interpreted as being “storing the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name in the memory
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 claims at issue 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); 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. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
v Claims 2-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 15/672,664, which has issued as US patent No. 11,593,824. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Each of the instant claims are anticipated by at least one of claims 1-17 of US patent No. 11,593,824. The exact limitations of each of these claims are not being reproduced here for clarity and brevity, as the Examiner believes the anticipation would be self-evident to a PHOSITA.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
