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 .
This is in response to Application filed 08/28/24. Claims 1 – 9 have been examined and are pending,
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 – 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 9 of copending Application No. 18/817711 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application teaches similarly and is no more than an obvious variation of eachother.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Please refer below to Mapping of co-pending Applications showing similarities.
18/817690
18/817711
a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the system to:
[AltContent: arrow]obtain, by a processor, initial actuation data associated with user actuation of a webpage object, the webpage object being associated with a server-side data object;
[AltContent: arrow]obtain, by the processor, server-side data associated with the actuation data and with the server-side data object; generate, by the processor, contextual data object actuation display data including:
generating, by the processor, a user-friendly plain language description of the user [AltContent: arrow]actuation based on the initial actuation data and on the server-side data; and cause, by the processor, display of the contextual data object actuation display data.
a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the system to:
obtain, by a processor, initial actuation data associated with user actuation of a webpage object, the webpage object being associated with a server-side data object;
obtain, by the processor, server-side data associated with the actuation data and with the server-side data object; generate, by the processor, contextual data object actuation display data
based on the initial actuation data and on the server- side data; cause, by the processor, display of the contextual data object actuation display data; and record, by the processor, the initial actuation data associated with the user actuation of the webpage object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Verco US 20050278698 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 7, Verco anticipates A system comprising: a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the system to (see FIG.1):
obtain, by a processor, initial actuation data associated with user actuation of a webpage object, the webpage object being associated with a server-side data object [0014 discloses, “…The interactive menu module reacts to actuation on the client system and posts back to the remote server …”];
obtain, by the processor, server-side data associated with the actuation data and with the server-side data object [0015, see: ”...software system used in acquiring information from a remote server to a client system…”];
generate, by the processor, contextual data object actuation display data including: [0015, see “… generating dynamic HTML/DHTML context windows…”];
generating, by the processor, a user-friendly plain language description of the user actuation based on the initial actuation data and on the server-side data; and cause, by the processor, display of the contextual data object actuation display data [0036, see, “…the interactive menu module object 501 as it is displayed on the client-side browser screen, … The interactive menu module object 501, when rendered as a DHTML menu has menu items that react to actuation on the client-side…”].
Regarding claims 2, 5 and 8, the system according to claim 1, wherein the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the system to:
access, by the processor, code associated with the user actuation; and translate, by the processor, the code to the user-friendly plain language description based on the server-side data [0013, “…The remote server translates classes and objects into HTML/DHTML code by taking the ASPX tag and embedding HTML code…”].
Regarding claims 3, 6 and 9, the system according to claim 2, wherein the webpage object is associated with a web application, and wherein the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the system to:
translate, by the processor, the code to the user-friendly plain language description based on the server-side data and based on data associated with the server-side data object and with additional data associated with the web application [0013 – 0014, shows translating and web site/ html code].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vasudev, US 20150135130 A1 also similarly discloses receiving contextual data and actuation in addition to server side components [0019].
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chuck Kendall whose telephone number is 571-272-3698. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 am - 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. 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).
/CHUCK O KENDALL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights