Detailed Office 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claims 4, 10, 17 use the language “adaptable encoding methods”; claims 5, 11, 18 use the language “adaptive decoding methods”. These languages as used in these claims are too broad.
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 – 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,218,697.
US Application number 18/773,930
US Patent Number 12,218,697
(Claim 1)
A system for event-driven data communication with protocol adaption, comprising: a plurality of computing devices each comprising at least a processor, a memory, and a network interface; wherein a plurality of programming instructions stored in one or more of the memories and operating on one or more of the processors of the plurality of computing devices causes the plurality of computing devices to: receive requests for propagation information from applications; generate propagation information comprising protocol descriptors; encapsulate the generated propagation information into packets; transmit the packets between applications; decode received propagation information at receiving applications; and process communication protocols based on decoded protocol descriptors.
(Claim 1)
A system for event-driven data communication with protocol prediction and translation, comprising: a plurality of computing devices each comprising at least a processor, a memory, and a network interface; wherein a plurality of programming instructions stored in one or more of the memories and operating on one or more of the processors of the plurality of computing devices causes the plurality of computing devices to: receive requests for propagation information from applications; generate propagation information comprising protocol descriptors; encapsulate the generated propagation information into packets; transmit the packets between applications; decode received propagation information at receiving applications; process communication protocols based on decoded protocol descriptors; analyze network traffic between the applications; predict upcoming communication needs based on a plurality of historical patterns and current network contexts; determine if a protocol switch would optimize system performance; update the protocol descriptors in the propagation information to an optimal protocol if a protocol switch is beneficial; translate between the optimal protocol and a protocol supported by a communicating application; and facilitate communication using the optimal protocol after translation is complete.
(Claim 2)
The system of claim 1, wherein the programming instructions further cause the plurality of computing devices to: receive training and policy data; utilize subsets of the training data and policy data to train machine learning algorithms; generate the protocol descriptors using the trained algorithms; integrate protocol descriptors into a flexible protocol framework; and embed the protocol descriptors into propagated information.
(Claim 3)
The system of claim 2, wherein the generated propagation information indicates locations of protocol descriptors within the memory.
(Claim 4)
The system of claim 1, wherein the generated propagation information is encoded using adaptable encoding methods.
(Claim 5)
The system of claim 1, wherein receiving applications decode received propagation information using adaptive decoding methods.
(Claim 6)
The system of claim 5, wherein the decoded information is further utilized based on protocol descriptors.
(Claim 7)
A method for adaptive event-driven data communication, comprising the steps of: receiving requests for propagation information from applications; generating propagation information comprising protocol descriptors; encapsulating the generated propagation information into packets; transmitting the packets between applications; decoding received propagation information at receiving applications; and processing communication protocols based on decoded protocol descriptors.
(Claim 4)
A method for event-driven data communication with protocol prediction and translation, comprising the steps of: receiving requests for propagation information from applications; generating propagation information comprising protocol descriptors; encapsulating the generated propagation information into packets; transmitting the packets between applications; decoding received propagation information at receiving applications; processing communication protocols based on decoded protocol descriptors; analyzing network traffic between the applications; predicting upcoming communication needs based on a plurality of historical patterns and current network contexts; determining if a protocol switch would optimize system performance; updating the protocol descriptors in the propagation information to an optimal protocol if a protocol switch is beneficial; translating between the optimal protocol and a protocol supported by a communicating application; and facilitating communication using the optimal protocol after translation is complete.
(Claim 8)
The method of claim 7, further comprising the steps of: receiving training and policy data; using a subset of the training and policy data to train machine learning algorithms; generating the protocol descriptors using the trained algorithms; integrating protocol descriptors into a flexible protocol framework; embedding the protocol descriptors into propagated information.
(Claim 9)
The method of claim 8, wherein the generated propagation information indicates locations of protocol descriptors within memory.
(Claim 10)
The method of claim 7, wherein the generated propagation information is encoded using adaptable encoding methods.
(Claim 11)
The method of claim 7, wherein receiving applications decode received propagation information using adaptive decoding methods.
(Claim 12)
The method of claim 11, wherein the decoded information is further utilized based on protocol descriptors.
(Claim 13)
A computer-readable, non-transitory medium comprising a plurality of programming instructions that, when operating on a plurality of computing devices each comprising at least a processor, a memory, and a network interface, cause the plurality of computing devices to carry out the method of claim 7.
(Claim 14)
One or more non-transitory computer-storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system employing a system for event-driven data communication with protocol adaption, cause the computing system to perform the method of claim 7.
(Claim 15)
The media of claim 14, wherein the programming instructions further cause the plurality of computing devices to: receive training and policy data; utilize subsets of the training data and policy data to train machine learning algorithms; generate the protocol descriptors using the trained algorithms; integrate protocol descriptors into a flexible protocol framework; and embed the protocol descriptors into propagated information.
(Claim 16)
The media of claim 15, wherein the generated propagation information indicates locations of protocol descriptors within the memory.
(Claim 17)
The media of claim 14, wherein the generated propagation information is encoded using adaptable encoding methods.
(Claim 18)
The media of claim 14, wherein receiving applications decode received propagation information using adaptive decoding methods.
(Claim 19)
The media of claim 18, wherein the decoded information is further utilized based on protocol descriptors.
(Claim 2)
The system of claim 1, wherein the optimal protocol and the protocol supported by a communicating application are translated using a Large Language Model.
(Claim 3)
The system of claim 1, further comprising: a codebook generator integrated with at least one of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the codebook generator is configured to: receive training data and protocol formatting policies; process the training data and protocol formatting policies using a machine learning engine to generate a protocol appendix; append the protocol appendix to a codebook; and update the protocol appendix based on predictions generated by a protocol predictor or translations performed by a translator.
(Claim 5)
The method of claim 4, wherein the optimal protocol and the protocol supported by a communicating application are translated using a Large Language Model.
(Claim 6)
The method of claim 4, further comprising: a codebook generator integrated with at least one of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the codebook generator is configured for: receiving training data and protocol formatting policies; processing the training data and protocol formatting policies using a machine learning engine to generate a protocol appendix; appending the protocol appendix to a codebook; and updating the protocol appendix based on predictions generated by a protocol predictor or translations performed by a translator.
(Claim 7)
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system employing an asset registry platform for event-driven data communication with protocol prediction and translation, cause the computing system to: receive requests for propagation information from applications; generate propagation information comprising protocol descriptors; encapsulate the generated propagation information into packets; transmit the packets between applications; decode received propagation information at receiving applications; process communication protocols based on decoded protocol descriptors; analyze network traffic between the applications; predict upcoming communication needs based on a plurality of historical patterns and current network contexts; determine if a protocol switch would optimize system performance; update the protocol descriptors in the propagation information to an optimal protocol if a protocol switch is beneficial; translate between the optimal protocol and a protocol supported by a communicating application; and facilitate communication using the optimal protocol after translation is complete.
(Claim 8)
The media of claim 7, wherein the optimal protocol and the protocol supported by a communicating application are translated using a Large Language Model.
(Claim 9)
The media of claim 7, further comprising: a codebook generator integrated with at least one of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the codebook generator is configured to: receive training data and protocol formatting policies; process the training data and protocol formatting policies using a machine learning engine to generate a protocol appendix; append the protocol appendix to a codebook; and update the protocol appendix based on predictions generated by a protocol predictor or translations performed by a translator.
Claim 14 of US Application 18/764,685 as dependent claim of claim 7 equates claim 7 of US Patent Number 12,218,697 except the bolded area in the US Patent.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the issued patents make obvious the claims of the pending application in that the limitations claimed in the pending application are found in the issued patents even though they are not necessarily presented in the same order as those in the issued patents. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN BRUNER JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-1804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM-5:00 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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571-272-2105. 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.
/JEAN B JEANGLAUDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845