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 Interpretation
During patent examination, pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” MPEP 2111; See also, MPEP 2173.02. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”). The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to consider fully the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN.
Provisional Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 17/892,915 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows, in the application, the subject matter is concerning automatically deploying versions of access modelling, reverse compatibility of existing models . Whereas, in the issued patent, the subject matter is training a first version of a machine learning model to generate a second version of the machine learning model.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Provisional Double Patenting – 17/892,915
The provisional non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Claim 1, an independent system claim, is rejected on the ground of provisional non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/892,915. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the majority of sections appearing verbatim in both claims.
Similarly, claim 11, an independent method claim, recites substantially similar limitations to claim 11 of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/892,915, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth below.
Instant Application Application Serial No. 17/892,915
1. A system for providing alimentary elements, the system comprising:
a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to:
receive a secondary input from a second user, wherein the secondary input includes a request for at least a compatible alimentary element of a first user;
generate an alimentary element program as a function of the compatible alimentary element and biological extraction associated with the first user;
locate an alimentary element originator as a function of a first position associated with the first user and the compatible alimentary element;
generate a queue of a plurality of alimentary elements from the at least an alimentary element originator; and
display the queue of the plurality of alimentary elements using a graphical user interface.
Claim 2 corresponds to
Claim 3 corresponds to
Claim 11. A method for providing alimentary elements, the method comprising:
receiving, using a computing device, a secondary input from secondary input from a second user, wherein the secondary input includes at least a request for a compatible alimentary element of a first user;
generating, using the computing device, an alimentary element program as a function of the compatible alimentary element and biological extraction associated with the first user;
locating, using the computing device, at least an alimentary element originator as a function of a first position associated with the first user and the compatible alimentary element;
generating, using the computing device, a queue of a plurality of alimentary elements from the at least an alimentary element originator; wherein the queue of alimentary elements comprises a plurality of alimentary element; and
displaying the queue of a plurality of alimentary elements using a graphical user interface.
1. A system for providing alimentary elements, the system comprising:
a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to:
receive a primary input relating to a first user for a compatible alimentary element input, wherein
the compatible alimentary element is selected as a function of a request received from the first user;
receive a secondary input relating to a second user for an alimentary element; and
generate an extensible alimentary element display, wherein generating the extensible alimentary element display further comprises:
locating at least an alimentary element originator as a function of the compatible alimentary element; and
displaying a queue of alimentary elements from the at least an alimentary element originator, the queue comprising a first alimentary element for the first user and a second alimentary element for the second user.
Claim 4 (in part)
Claim 4 (in part)
Claim 11. A method for providing alimentary elements, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a primary input relating to a first user for a compatible alimentary element, wherein the compatible alimentary element is selected as a function of a request received from the first user;
receiving, by the computing device, a secondary input relating to a second user for an alimentary element; and
generating, by the computing device, an extensionable alimentary element, wherein generating the extensionable alimentary display further comprises:
locating at least an alimentary element originator as a function of the compatible alimentary element; and
.
displaying a queue of a plurality of alimentary elements from the at least an alimentary element originator; the queue comprising a first alimentary element for the first user and a second alimentary element for the second user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D. TITCOMB whose telephone number is (571)270-5190. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (M-F).
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, Stephen C. Hong can be reached at 571-272-4124. 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.
WILLIAM D. TITCOMB
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2178
/WILLIAM D TITCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 9-18-2025