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 .
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The use of the word “comprising” in the abstract should be avoided.
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 – 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,166,506.
US application Number 18/807,587
US Patent Number 12,166,506
Claim 1)
A system for handling data with a virtual management layer, comprising: a computing device comprising at least a memory and a processor; a first plurality of programming instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computing device to: organize a plurality of incoming data into multiple data sets within a virtual management layer, where this layer assigns a system for processing each data set; process these data sets through their assigned systems, each of which transforms the respective data sets; and direct the transformed data sets to a designated output.
(Claim 1)
A system for multi-type data compression or decompression with a virtual management layer, comprising: a computing device comprising at least a memory and a processor; a plurality of programming instructions stored in the memory and operable on the processor, wherein the first plurality of programming instructions, when operating on the processor, cause the computing device to: organize a plurality of incoming data types into a plurality of data sets in a virtual management layer, wherein the virtual management layer allocates a compression or decompression system for each data set; process the plurality of data sets through each data set's corresponding compression or decompression system where the compression or decompression system outputs a plurality of compressed or decompressed data sets; and output the plurality of compressed or decompressed data sets to a desired output location.
(Claim 2)
The system of claim 1, wherein data sets that have similarities can be flagged or marked by a manager before processing.
(Claim 2)
The system of claim 1, wherein a plurality of associated data sets may be flagged or marked as similar before entering the compression or decompression system by a data manager.
(Claim 3)
The system of claim 2, wherein flagged or marked data sets are regrouped after processing.
(Claim 3)
The system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of associated data sets that have been flagged or marked are regrouped together in a compressed or decompressed data manager after compression or decompression has taken place.
(Claim 4)
A method for handling data with a virtual management layer, comprising: organizing a plurality of incoming into multiple data sets within a virtual management layer, which assigns a processing system for each data set; processing these data sets through their assigned systems, each of which transforms the respective data sets; and directing the transformed data sets to a designated output.
(Claim 4)
A method for multi-type data compression or decompression with a virtual management layer, comprising: organizing a plurality of incoming data types into a plurality of data sets in a virtual management layer, wherein the virtual management layer allocates a compression or decompression system for each data set; processing the plurality of data sets through each data set's corresponding compression or decompression system where the compression or decompression system outputs a plurality of compressed or decompressed data sets; and outputting the plurality of compressed or decompressed data sets to a desired output location.
(Claim 5)
The method of claim 4, wherein data sets that have similarities can be flagged or marked by a manager before processing.
(Claim 5)
The method of claim 4, wherein a plurality of associated data sets may be flagged or marked as similar before entering the compression or decompression system by a data manager.
(Claim 6)
The method of claim 5, wherein the flagged or marked data sets are regrouped after processing.
(Claim 6)
The method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of associated data sets that have been flagged or marked are regrouped together in a compressed or decompressed data manager after compression or decompression has taken place.
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