DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendment filed March 31, 2026 for the application # 18/360,687 filed on July 27, 2023. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 are pending and are directed toward DISTRIBUTED INTERFACE FOR DATA CAPTURE FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.
Any claim objection/rejection not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
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 . 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
“It is true” argument - Applicant argues that it is true that PLANETPRESS may describe many different plugins capable of handling various tasks and acting as a dispatcher, but PLANETPRESS does not describe the workflow configuration being received with the component-specific tasks and associated component plugins already dictated, nor would this necessarily be obvious to a POSITA (REMARKS, page 8).
Response: Examiner provided motivation to combine both references (NFOAM, 12/31/25, page 5): you create tasks that control your document management workflow. You create a set of different tasks that make up processes that carry out various actions, such as receive data, analyze it and the send it to the appropriate printer. (PLANETPRESS, page 10). And plugins for specific tasks were explicitly disclosed by PLANETPRESS, page 11: “In fact, the PlanetPress Suite Workflow Tools plugin based architecture enables almost limitless customization. You can create or purchase compatible plugins, drop them in any of the PlanetPress Suite Workflow Tools plugin folder and use them to perform other operations.” Thus a a solution was provided for need of customization. Which requires tools for specific tasks. And these tools are compatible plugins. Thus, all requirements are satisfied, and the cited by Examiner prior art references clearly teach the claimed limitation as well as a motivation to combine.
“equivalent” argument - Applicant argues that while both limitations involve the use of graphs, the use of graphs is different between the pending claims of the instant application and the claims of the '682 Patent. (REMARKS, page 8).
Response: As preliminary subject matter even if the same structure is used for different purposes, it is still the same structure. Examiners considers “a distributed computational graph module.” to be at least functionally the same as the claimed “graph-based information storage service”. It should be noted that that claimed term “graph-based information storage service” was not disclosed in Specification. The closest term is “a distributed computational graph module” (Specification, [0010]), which is the same “a distributed computational graph module” of US 11,831,682.
Conclusion: Examiner maintains rejections.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of US patent No. 11,831,682 in view of PLANETPRESS (PlanetPress Workflow Tool Reference Guide, 2009/10/21, 307 pages). Specifically:
1. (Currently amended) A system for providing a distributed connection interface for data capture from cloud-based service sources (A system for highly scalable distributed connection interface for data capture from cloud-based service sources Crabtree, Claim 1) comprising:
server comprising a first plurality of programming instructions stored in a memory of, and operating on a processor of, a computing device, wherein the first plurality of programming instructions, when operating on the processor, cause the computing device to (a component input server comprising a first plurality of programming instructions stored in the memory of, and operating on the processor of, the computing device, wherein the first plurality of programming instructions, when operating on the processor, cause the computing device to: Crabtree, Claim 1):
receive a connector workflow configuration from a host service (receive a connector workflow configuration from a representational state transfer (REST) server; Crabtree, Claim 1);
create a new execution run of a connector workflow process based on send the connector workflow configuration (send the connector workflow configuration to an execution server; Crabtree, Claim 1), wherein the new execution run is created on to an available execution server (the execution server comprising a second plurality of programming instructions stored in the memory of, and operating on the processor of, the computing device, Crabtree, Claim 1), wherein the connector workflow process comprises a plurality of transformation stages based on the received connector workflow configuration (create instances of component plugins to start a connector workflow process based on the connector workflow configuration; Crabtree, Claim 1), and
Crabtree does not teach wherein the connector workflow configuration specifies one or more component-specific tasks to be performed by one or more associated component plugins, and similar one of the one or more component-specific tasks using the associated component plugin; however PLANETPRESS teaches wherein the connector workflow configuration specifies one or more component-specific tasks to be performed by one or more associated component plugins (PlanetPress Suite Workflow Tools acts as a sort of dispatcher. On the one hand, it retrieves data and controls plugins that retrieve data from watched locations, and on the other hand it sends data and controls plugins that send data to various devices, for printing or to generate documents that can then be emailed or faxed PlanetPress Suite Workflow Tools can also perform a variety of operations on the data using its action plugins. In fact, the PlanetPress Suite Workflow Tools plugin based architecture enables almost limitless customization. You can create or purchase compatible plugins, drop them in any of the PlanetPress Suite Workflow Tools plugin folder and use them to perform other operations. You can even find free unsupported plugins on the Objectif Lune Web site. PLANETPRESS, page 11).
MOTIVATION you create tasks that control your document management workflow. You create a set of different tasks that make up processes that carry out various actions, such as receive data, analyze it and the send it to the appropriate printer. (PLANETPRESS, page 10).
Crabtree in view of PLANETPRESS further teaches:
monitor a state of the connector workflow process during the execution run (restart a connector workflow process in the event of workflow stoppage using the stored state of the connector workflow process; Crabtree, Claim 1);
store the monitored state of the connector workflow process (store a state of the connector workflow process, Crabtree, Claim 1) using a graph representation in a graph-based information storage service (The system of claim 1, wherein the connector workflow configuration is a data processing workflow generated from a distributed computational graph module. Crabtree, Claim 3); and
return a result of the connector workflow process to the host service, wherein the result includes the state of the connector workflow process (receive the stored state details from the execution server; receive the output of the connector workflow and generate a workflow report from the output. Crabtree, Claim 1).
The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-10 of US patent No. 11,831,682 in view of PLANETPRESS because each element of the claims of the present application is obvious by the claims 1-10 of US patent No. 11,831,682 in view of PLANETPRESS and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 are indicated as allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims of instant application are of the same scope as allowed claims of US 11,831,682 in view of PLANETPRESS.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
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 OLEG KORSAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1938. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:00 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached on (571) 272-3880. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/OLEG KORSAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights