DETAILED ACTION
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 response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 for further examination. As a result, claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 are withdrawn from further prosecution.
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 1-2, 8-9, 15-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7-8, 14-15 of copending Application No. 18/484861 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding to claims 1, 8, 15: Claim 1, 7, or 14 in the copending application (please see the publication US 2025/0086012) teaches a system, comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores program code (lines 1-4) structured to cause the processor to:
reclaim resources from a user in response to the user logging out of a database (lines 7-8);
determine a plurality of login patterns for the user from historical data of user
interactions with the database, each login pattern of the login patterns corresponding to a respective time window of a plurality of time windows having a same start of predicted activity (lines 9-13);
calculate a plurality of probabilities corresponding to the determined login patterns
for the time windows, each calculated probability indicative of a likelihood that the user will log in to the database during the corresponding time window of the time windows (lines 14-18);
in response to a set of the calculated probabilities being determined to have a
predetermined relationship with a confidence threshold, select from the set the probability having a greatest likelihood (lines 19-23); and
reallocate the resources to the user at a time associated with the time window
corresponding to the selected probability (lines 24-31).
Regarding to claim 2, 9, 16: wherein to calculate the plurality of probabilities, the program code is further structured to cause the processor to: calculate the probability for a login pattern corresponding to a time window as a ratio of: a number of days the user was logged into the database during the time window over a historical time period in the historical data; or a number of days of the historical time period (Claim 2, 8, 15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claims is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that wherein the time associated with the time window is at a predetermined amount of time prior to the start of predicted activity corresponding to the selected probability is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The most pertinent prior art is cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. 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.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights