DETAILED 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 .
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Initially it should be noted that this application is a continuation of Application Number 17/528,122, filed November 16, 2021, now US Patent 12,066,884, having the same Assignee and inventor.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,884. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
For claim 1, U.S. 12,066,884 patent claim 5 anticipates claim 1 limitations as demonstrated by the following table:
Instant Application
U.S. 12,066,884
comments
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining,
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining,
same
by a
by at least one
Similar/anticipates
computing device, historical data from prior executions of one or more batch processes;
computing device, historical data from prior executions of one or more batch processes,
same
the historical data comprising batch object data, incident data, and change order data; training, by the at least one
predicting, by the computing device,
computing device,
a machine learning model to predict
one or both of
at least one future failure
at least one future failure
same
or at least one future flag
in execution of a future batch process;
in execution of a future batch process,
same
the training comprising: extracting, by the at least one computing device, sets of features from the historical data, each feature of the sets of features relating to a failure in a historical execution of at least one batch process of the one or more batch processes, each set comprising a plurality of: a set of execution features, a set of object features, a set of workflow features, or a set of incident features; pre-processing, by the at least one computing device, the sets of features to generate a training dataset; and training, by the at least one computing device, the machine learning model with the training dataset;
generating, by the
generating, by the
same
at least one
computing device,
computing device,
same
based on current data of at least one future batch process,
descriptive
analytics
analytics
regarding one or more of: a mapping dependency, a history of information of files, or real-time information of the files; a
same
associated with a predicted future failure;
See limitation A below
utilizing, by the
and utilizing, by the
same
at least one
computing device, a
computing device, the
same
trained
machine learning model and the
machine learning model and the
same
descriptive
analytics to predict one or more
analytics to predict one or more
same
future failures and/or
See limitation A above
future flags in execution of the
future flags in execution of the
same
at least one
future batch process;
future batch process;
same
and generating, by
and generating, by
same
the
at least one
similar/anticipates
computing device,
computing device,
same
an
at least one
similar/anticipates
alert identifying the
alert identifying the
same
one or more
future failure and the one or more future flags;
future failures and/or future flags.
similar
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
removing, by the computing device, features related a manual restart of a process from the sets of features; selecting, by the computing device, a first feature related to processes that have run successfully and second feature related to processes that have incurred failure; and splitting, by the computing device, the features into a first training dataset and a second training dataset, the first training dataset related to a first set of features and the second training dataset related to a second set of features.
removing features related a manual restart of a process from the sets of features;
selecting first sets of features related to processes that have run successfully and second sets of features related to processes that have incurred failure; and
splitting the sets of features into a first training dataset and a second training dataset, the first training dataset related to the first sets of features and the second training dataset related to the second sets of features, the first and second training dataset included in the training dataset.
similar
For independent claim 9, the claims are anticipated by respective claims 9 and 25 of the patent for similar reasons. Claim 9 is a system.
For independent claim 17, the claims are not patentably distinct and thus this is an obvious type double patenting over claims 5 and 25. Claim 17 is a medium.
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.
Claim 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
For claim 17, the term “future flags” is a noun/object fragment limitation where an operation is expected, which causes the claim to be unclear and thus indefinite. It is suggested the fragment be deleted. Dependent claims inherit rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, and 17-20 would be allowable if all 35 USC § 112 and, Double Patenting rejections are overcome.
2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and all 35 USC § 112 and, Double Patenting rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Peacock et al. (US 2020/0252430 A1) is the closest art which teaches removing features related to manual reset and analytics but not the other limitations.
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 YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 at 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 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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights