This action is in response to the amendments filed on 11/28/2025, in which claims 1-20 remain cancelled, claims 21, 24, 26, 32, 40 are presented for the examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 29-31, 37-39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under double patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant should add limitations such as, how the expected response is generated , what type of deviation is detected, what type of functionality is modified and how the modification is performed to place application in condition for allowance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
There are no specific arguments presented with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is proper because the pending claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of reference application. The rejection is based on a comparison of the claimed subject matter, not merely a conclusory assertion. As shown in Office’s claim comparison, the claims of reference application teach or fully encompass the limitations of the instant claims, such that one of the ordinary skill in the art would have found the instant claims to be at least obvious variations of the reference claims.
Applicant’s argument that the Office did not expressly provide a separate 103 analysis is unpersuasive. A double patenting rejection does not require a full prior-art obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103, but rather requires a determination of whether the instant claims are patentably distinct from the claims of the reference application.
Accordingly, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained.
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 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,580. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,067,580. That is, claim 21 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,580.
claim 32 is generic to all that is recited in claim 12 of US Patent No. 12,067,580. That is, claim 32 is anticipated by claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,580.
claim 40 is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,067,580. That is, claim 42 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,580.
All the dependent claims 22-31, 33-39 are rejected for the same rationale as claims 21.
Instant application 18/772585
Referenced Patent 12,067,580
21. (New) An apparatus, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain an element of response data from a programmatic interface, the element of response data being generated by the programmatic interface based on an element of input data;
determine that the element of response data deviates from an expected response of the programmatic interface to the element of input data; and
perform operations that modify at least one functionality of the programmatic interface based on the determination that the element of response data deviates from the expected response of the programmatic interface.
1. (Original) An apparatus, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to: based on data associated with a triggering event, provide an element of input data to a programmatic interface, and obtain an element of response data from the programmatic interface, the element of response data being generated by the programmatic interface based on the element of input data;
determine that the element of response data deviates from an expected response of the programmatic interface to the element of input data, and
generate exception data characterizing the determined deviation; and
perform operations that modify at least one functionality of the programmatic interface in accordance with the exception data.
32. (New) A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining an element of response data from a programmatic interface using at least one processor, the element of response data being generated by the programmatic interface based on an element of input data;
determining, using the at least one processor, that the element of response data deviates from an expected response of the programmatic interface to the element of input data; and
performing operations, using the at least one processor, that modify at least one functionality of the programmatic interface based on the determination that the element of response data deviates from the expected response of the programmatic interface.
12. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method, comprising: based on data associated with a triggering event, and using at least one processor, providing an element of input data to a programmatic interface, and
obtaining an element of response data from the programmatic interface, the element of response data being generated by the programmatic interface based on the element of input data; using the at least one processor,
determining that the element of response data deviates from an expected response of the programmatic interface to the corresponding element of input data, and generating exception data characterizing the determined deviation; and
performing, using the at least one processor, operations that modify at least one functionality of the programmatic interface in accordance with the exception data.
40. (New) A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method, comprising:
obtaining an element of response data from a programmatic interface, the element of response data being generated by the programmatic interface based on an element of input data;
determining that the element of response data deviates from an expected response of the programmatic interface to the element of input data; and
performing operations that modify at least one functionality of the programmatic interface based on the determination that the element of response data deviates from the expected response of the programmatic interface.
1. (Original) An apparatus, comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to: based on data associated with a triggering event, provide an element of input data to a programmatic interface, and
obtain an element of response data from the programmatic interface, the element of response data being generated by the programmatic interface based on the element of input data;
determine that the element of response data deviates from an expected response of the programmatic interface to the element of input data, and generate exception data characterizing the determined deviation; and
perform operations that modify at least one functionality of the programmatic interface in accordance with the exception data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23, 25-28, 32-36, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2022/0108069, referred herein after Lee).
As per claim 21, 32, 40, Lee discloses an apparatus, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to: obtain an element of response data from a programmatic interface, the element of response data being generated by the programmatic interface based on an element of input data (Fig. 4, step 412, [0093], [0094], output data); the element of input data having a structure or a composition consistent with a corresponding one of an expected structure or an expected composition of data consumable by the programmatic interface ([0030], FI computing system adaptively trained machine learning or artificial intelligence process to customer-specific input datasets that include portions of the pre-processed elements of customer, account, and/or compliance workflow data);
determine that the element of response data deviates from an expected response of the programmatic interface to the element of input data; and ([0099], [0100]);
perform operations that modify at least one functionality of the programmatic interface based on the determination that the element of response data deviates from the expected response of the programmatic interface (Fig. 4, step 422, [0099], [0100]).
As per claim 22, 33, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to provide the element of input data to the programmatic interface, the element of input data comprising event data associated with a triggering event, and the element of input data being consumable by the programmatic interface ([0014]-[0015]).
As per claim 23, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: access a triggering event queue maintained within the memory, the triggering event queue comprising data associated with a plurality of triggering events ([0014], [0015]), the data associated with each of the triggering events comprising a corresponding element of temporal data; and ([0042], [0045]);
obtain the event data associated with the triggering event from the triggering event queue based on the corresponding element of temporal data ([0042], [0045], [0048], [0067]).
As per claim 25, 34, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: detect an error message within the element of response data (Fig. 4, step 414, 416, [0095], [0096]); and
determine that the element of response data deviates from the expected response based on the error message (Fig. 4, step 414, 416, [0095], [0096]-[0097], [0100]).
As per claim 26, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 25, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: establish, based on the error message, that at least one of a structure or a composition of the element of response data deviates from a corresponding one of an expected structure or an expected composition; and (Fig. 4, step 422, [0099], [0100]);
determine that the element of response data deviates from the expected response based on the established deviation of the at least one of the structure or the composition of the element of response data from the corresponding one of the expected structure or the expected composition ([0099], [0100]).
As per claim 27, 35, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain, from the memory, an element of session data associated with the element of input data, the element of session data comprising information that characterizes the expected response of the programmatic interface to the element of input data; and ([0093]-[0096]);
based on the element of session data, determine that the element of response data deviates from the expected response of the programmatic interface ([0043]-[0046]).
As per claim 28, 36, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein: the apparatus further comprises a communications interface coupled to the at least one processor; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: generate exception data characterizing the deviation ([0032]-[0034]);
perform the operations that modify the at least one functionality of the programmatic interface in accordance with the exception data; and
transmit, via the communications interface, at least the exception data to a computing device operable by a developer of the programmatic interface ([0099], [0100]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KAMINI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached on 571-272-0631. 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.
/KAMINI B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114