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
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Application filed on August 13, 2024, and Drawings filed on August 13, 2024.
2. Claims 1 are pending in this case. Claim 1 are independent claims.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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.
Double Patenting
1. 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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over and anticipated by claims 1 of U.S. Patent 10719187B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 under examination are anticipated, respectively, by claims 1 of the reference patent. Every limitation in the application under examination claims is recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences between the claims are highlighted below by bolding all limitations that differ, italicizing additional limitations, and underlining limitations that will be addressed below.
Instant Application
10719187B2
1. An apparatus comprising: at least one resource monitor configured to: monitor one or more resources of a network configured for low latency trading operations at a first level of specificity;
and report the monitored one or more resources to a database system at the first level of time-specificity, in which reporting include identifying a respective monitored time;
the database system configured to: receive the reported monitored one or more resources;
in response to receiving the reported monitored one or more resources, store the reported monitored one or more resources keyed by the respective monitored time at the first level of specificity;
receive a request, from a client program, for information about the one or more resources from a range of time; in response to receiving the request for information, transmitting, to the client program, data indicating the usage of the one or more resources over the range of time at the first level of specificity;
the client program configure to:
receive a selection of the one or more resources and the range of time;
in response to receiving the selection, transmitting, to the database system, the request for information;
receiving, from the database system, the data indicating the usage of the one or more resources over the range of time at the first level of specificity;
in response to receiving the data, render the data into a graphical representation of the data with a second level of specificity, in which the second level of specificity is less specific than the first level of specificity, in which the graphical representation of the data with the second level of specificity:
1) presents the information in a circular format with time increasing around the circle,
and 2) is divided into a plurality of slices of times in the range of time, in which each slice of the plurality of slices covers a portion of the range of time,
in which the plurality of slices sum to the whole range of time, in which each slice presents a level of resource usage at the second level of specificity;
receiving a selection of one slice of the plurality of slices of the graphical representation;
and in response to receiving the selection of the one slice of the plurality of slices, adjusting the graphical representation to focus on the portion of the range of time covered by the one slice, in which adjusting the graphical representation includes:
1) expanding the one slice to cover the circular format of the graphical representation, and 2) dividing the one slice into a plurality of subslices that each cover a portion the portion of the range of time covered by the one slice and in which the plurality of sub slices sum to the portion of time covered by the one slice, in which each subslice presents a level of resource usage over a respective covered time.
1. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor configured to control: monitoring one or more resources of a network configured for low latency trading operations at a first level of time-specificity;
and reporting the monitored one or more resources to a database system at the first level of time-specificity, in which the reporting includes identifying a respective monitored time;
the database system including at least one second processor configured to control: receiving the reported monitored one or more resources;
in response to receiving the reported monitored one or more resources, storing the reported monitored one or more resources keyed by the respective monitored time at the first level of specificity;
receiving a request, from a client program, for information about the one or more resources from a range of time; in response to receiving the request for information, transmitting, to the client program, data indicating the usage of the one or more resources over the range of time at the first level of specificity;
the client program including instructions which, when executed by a given processor, control to:
receive a selection of the one or more resources and the range of time;
in response to receiving the selection, transmit, to the database system, the request for information;
receive, from the database system, the data indicating the usage of the one or more resources over the range of time at the first level of specificity;
in response to receiving the data, render the data into a graphical representation of the data with a second level of specificity, in which the second level of specificity is less specific than the first level of specificity, in which the graphical representation of the data with the second level of specificity:
1) presents the information in a circular format with time increasing around the circle,
and 2) is divided into a plurality of slices of times in the range of time, in which each slice of the plurality of slices covers a portion of the range of time,
in which the plurality of slices sum to the whole range of time, in which each slice presents a level of resource usage at the second level of specificity;
receive a selection of one slice of the plurality of slices of the graphical representation;
and in response to receiving the selection of the one slice of the plurality of slices, adjust the graphical representation to focus on the portion of the range of time covered by the one slice, in which adjusting the graphical representation includes:
1) expanding the one slice to cover the circular format of the graphical representation, and 2) dividing the one slice into a plurality of subslices that each cover a portion of the portion of the range of time covered by the one slice and in which the plurality of subslices sum to the portion of time covered by the one slice, in which each subslice presents a level of resource usage over a respective covered time.
As shown in the mapping above, claim 1 of the reference patent includes all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application, while also reciting further limitations. Claim 1 of the instant application differs from claim 1 of the reference patent in that it recites one or more processor. These differences are not material differences between the claim language. The reference patent added processors to overcome possible 101 rejections but is not difference in other aspect when comparing to the current application.
35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
With regard to claims 1, this application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: resource monitor configured to, database system configured to, client program configure to in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Fig. 1 and paragraph 17.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Pertinent Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prophete, Pub. No.: 20160103592 A1: Visualization queries are implemented using a declarative language to encode query steps, widgets and bindings to capture and display query results in the formats selected by a user. An Explorer engine 110 displays real-time query results. When activated by an analyst-developer, Explorer engine 110 runs EQL queries against the data and includes the data in lenses. A lens describes a data visualization: a query plus a chart option for rendering the query. The EQL language is a real-time query language that uses data flow as a means of aligning results. It enables ad hoc analysis of data stored in EdgeMarts. A user can select filters to change query parameters and can choose different display options, such as a bar chart, pie chart or scatter plot—triggering a real-time change to the display panel—based on a live data query using the updated filter options. An EQL script consists of a sequence of statements that are made up of keywords (such as filter, group, and order), identifiers, literals, or special characters. EQL is declarative: you describe what you want to get from your query. Then, the query engine will decide how to efficiently serve it.
Noel, Pub. No.: US 20150040052 A1: Data values for various items are visualized in real-time or near real-time using radial-based techniques to produce data visualizations bearing some resemblance to, for example, pie charts, radial charts, etc. The data values are shown using indicators that encircle, or at least partially encircle, a central point. One or more characteristics of the indicator reflect the value that corresponds to the indicator. The characteristics may include, for instance, the color of the indicator and/or the distance of the indicator (or more specifically, a given point on the indicator) from the central point. The characteristics of the indicators change over time, in accordance with changes in the current values of the data items. A variety of indicators may be used, including, without limitation, points, icons, pie "wedges," filled or partially-filled sectors of an ellipse or semi-circle, arcs or lines that span between the sides of such sectors, and so forth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DI XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1758. The examiner can normally be reached 9Am-5Pm est M-F.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DI XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights