Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 07/18/2024 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 2 independent claims and 18 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Remarks
The Examiner contacted the attorneys of record to have them file an Electronic Terminal Disclaimers (eTD) for the double patenting rejection on June 08/2026. No one got back to the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,810,050 B2 [application No. 15/201,087], Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the patented application, which lead to the same claimed invention, thus they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the co-pending application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims presented contain the same limitations claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the patented application to create the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,656,915 B2 [application No. 17/074,500], Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the patented application, which lead to the same claimed invention, thus they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the co-pending application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims presented contain the same limitations claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the patented application to create the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,079,667 B2 [application No. 18/135,007], Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the patented application, which lead to the same claimed invention, thus they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the co-pending application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims presented contain the same limitations claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the patented application to create the instant application.
Prior Art Made of Record
The following is a related prior art made of record, found from the search and considered relevant to applicant’s disclosure but does not teach the claimed limitations as detailed by applicant:
- Vasilevsky et al. teaches a level of abstraction is created between a set of physical processors and a set of virtual multiprocessors to form a virtualized data center. This virtualized data center comprises a set of virtual, isolated systems separated by a boundary referred as a partition. Each of these systems appears as a unique, independent virtual multiprocessor computer capable of running a traditional operating system and its applications. In one embodiment, the system implements this multi-layered abstraction via a group of microkernels, each of which communicates with one or more peer microkernel over a high-speed, low-latency interconnect and forms a distributed virtual machine monitor. Functionally, a virtual data center is provided, including the ability to take a collection of servers and execute a collection of business applications over a compute fabric comprising commodity processors coupled by an interconnect. Processor, memory and I/O are virtualized across this fabric, providing a single system, scalability and manageability. According to one embodiment, this virtualization is transparent to the application, and therefore, applications may be scaled to increasing resource demands without modifying the application.
- Dawson et al. teaches a method for automatically building a locally managed virtual node grouping to handle a grid job requiring a degree of resource parallelism for execution within a grid environment are provided. The grid environment includes multiple resource nodes which are identified by physical location as physically disparate groups each managed by a grid manager. The grid managers include a grid virtual node grouping subsystem that enables a particular grid manager receiving a grid job that requires a particular degree of resource parallelism for execution to build a virtual node grouping of resources from across the grid environment and locally manage the resources included in the virtual node grouping. In particular, the particular grid manager accesses, from the other grid managers, a current availability and workload of each of the physically disparate resource nodes. The particular grid manager selects a selection of resource nodes to build into a virtual node grouping for executing the grid job. The virtual node grouping is built by the other grid managers enabling the particular grid manager to acquire temporary management control over the selection of resource nodes for a duration of the execution of the grid job within the virtual node grouping.
Conclusion
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. 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.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights