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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-34 are presented for examination.
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 1-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,475,042. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims contain the same scopes and only differ in minor limitations, which are found obvious.
Pending claims
Patented claims
Correspondence
1
1
Pending claims recites “wherein the local database comprises a representation, the representation comprising a sync table representing the database synced table in final updated form”, which contain the same scope as the patented claim’s “wherein the table in the local database comprises a <SObject> synched table.” It is obvious that the updated database table is the final updated form when the latest data is used for update.
2-4
2-4
Identical claims
5
5
Identical scope
6
6
Identical claim
7-8
1
Obvious as SQL and CRM database are well known in the art.
9
7
Pending claims recites “wherein the local database comprises a representation, the representation comprising a sync table representing the database synced table in final updated form”, which contain the same scope as the patented claim’s “wherein the table in the local database comprises a <SObject> synched table.” It is obvious that the updated database table is the final updated form when the latest data is used for update.
10-13
8-11
Identical claims
14
12
Identical scope
15
13
Identical claim
16-17
9
Obvious as SQL and CRM database are well known in the art.
18
14
Pending claims recites “wherein the local database comprises a representation, the representation comprising a sync table representing the database synced table in final updated form”, which contain the same scope as the patented claim’s “wherein the table in the local database comprises a <SObject> synched table.” It is obvious that the updated database table is the final updated form when the latest data is used for update.
19-21
15-17
Identical claims
22
18
Identical scope
23
19
Identical claim
24-25
14
Obvious as SQL and CRM database are well known in the art.
26
20
Pending claims recites “wherein the local database comprises a representation, the representation comprising a sync table representing the database synced table in final updated form”, which contain the same scope as the patented claim’s “wherein the table in the local database comprises a <SObject> synched table.” It is obvious that the updated database table is the final updated form when the latest data is used for update.
27-30
21-24
Identical claims
31
25
Identical scope
32
26
Identical claim
33-34
20
Obvious as SQL and CRM database are well known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beckford et al, US 9,747,288
Kothule et al, US 2012/0173485
Lew et al, US 2009/0265261
Fomitchev, US 2009/0173783
Huang et al, US 2008/0082579
Ramanujam et al, US 2003/0182327
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire Three MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY S LIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3968.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. 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).
KENNY S. LIN
Examiner
Art Unit 2416
/Kenny S Lin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
August 21, 2025