DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Application
The Preliminary Amendment filed November 4, 2024 has been entered. Claim 1 was amended. New claims 2-14 were added. Claims 1-14 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits. Claims 1-14 have been examined in the application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 4, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,107,674, claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,089,088 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,635,152. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application and claims of the patents could have been presented together.
Claims 1-14 of the current application are directed toward a method and storage device, the method comprising: receiving a software application from a remote computing device; executing a single instance of the software application in a virtual machine; receiving a request from each of a plurality of remote computing devices to access the single executing instance of the software application; and executing a multi-tenant application manager to provide, in parallel, access to functionality of the single instance of the software application to the requesting computing devices, to maintain communication with a plurality of tenant sessions respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of requests, and to render a snapshot of a user interface of the single instance of the software application for each tenant session.
For example, U.S. Patent No. 12,107,674 mentions method comprising: receiving a software application from a remote computing device; executing a single instance of the software application in a virtual machine; receiving a request from each of a plurality of remote computing devices to access the single executing instance of the software application; and in response to the plurality of requests, executing a multi-tenant application manager to provide, in parallel, access to functionality of the single instance of the software application to the requesting computing devices, to maintain communication with a plurality of tenant sessions respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of requests, and to render a snapshot of a user interface of the single instance of the software application for each tenant session. U.S. Patent No. 11,089,088 discloses a multi-tenant application manager, parallel access, plurality of tenant sessions, and plurality of requests. U.S. Patent No. 8,635,152 discloses a plurality of remote computing device access a single instance software application and plurality of requests.
As can be seen there are some differences between the claims; however, the differences are obvious and therefore, the claims are not patentably distinct from one another because the claims of the current application encompass the same subject matter as the patented claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20110280390 A1 by Lawson; Jeffrey et al. discloses METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR A MULTITENANCY TELEPHONY NETWORK ; wherein: a system and method for operating a telephony application platform including a load balancer that receives application requests, a scalable plurality of telephony resources that includes a communication gateway to at least one application server and a communication gateway to at least one telephony device, and a resource allocation that scales the plurality of telephony resources according to capacity requirements of the application requests.
USPGPub No. US 20070162335 A1 by Mekikian; Gary C. discloses Advertiser Sponsored Media Download and Distribution Using Real-Time Ad and Media Matching and Concatenation.
USPGPub No. US 20110299424 A1 by RIKITAKE; Nobuhiro et al. discloses SWITCHING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SETTING UP VIRTUAL LAN.
USPAT No. US 7580878 B1 to Nieto; Raymond A. discloses Data fusion for automated business decisions.
USPGPub No. US 20040225625 A1 by Van Gorp, John Christopher et al. discloses Method and system for calculating and distributing utility costs.
USPGPub No. US 20090187575 A1 by DaCosta; Behram discloses METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR USE IN PROVIDING INFORMATION TO ACCESSING CONTENT .
USPGPub No. US 20120144319 A1 by TAN; Min-Liang et al. discloses Collaboration Management System.
USPGPub No. US 20100250608 A1 by Malviya; Pankaj et al. discloses CREATION AND MANAGEMENT OF MULTI-TENANT APPLICATION SERVICES.
USPAT No. US 8635152 B2 to Das; Manuvir et al. discloses Multi tenancy for single tenancy applications.
USPAT No. US 11089088 B2 to Das; Manuvir et al. discloses Multi tenancy for single tenancy applications.
USPAT No. US 12107674 B2 to Das; Manuvir et al. discloses Multi tenancy for single tenancy applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday from 7:30 AM to 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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 05/19/2026
Prosecution Insights