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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed 09/04/2024, is a continuation of 18/236622, filed 08/22/2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,113,871 which is a continuation of 17/870548, filed 07/21/2022, now U.S. Patent No. 11,778,058 which is a continuation of 17/365339, filed 07/01/2021, now U.S. Patent No. 11,431,812 which claims priority from Provisional Application 63/047860, filed 07/02/2020.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,113,871. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the reference claim(s). Claim 1 of the Patent contains every element of claim 1 of the instant application as shown in the table below and as such anticipate(s) the claim of the instant application.
Claim 1 is rejected similarly as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,431,812, 11,671,508, 11,778,058 and 11,979,466.
“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).
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,113,871
1. A method including operations, in which the operations include: receiving relationship instance data of a primary entity relating to previous relationship instances of the primary entity with secondary entities; identifying a domain of at least one of the secondary entities from the received data; assembling at least some of previously stored proposal components, in which: the assembled proposal components are part of a proposed set, and at least one of the proposal components of the proposed set is thus assembled by looking up previously stored proposal components for the domain; acting to enable specific ones of the assembled proposal components to be viewable by a third party, the specific proposal components not including an identity of the primary entity; causing a proposal notification to be transmitted to a computer of an agency of the domain, the proposal notification regarding the enabled specific proposal components, in which at least one of the assembling, the acting to enable and the causing the proposal notification to be transmitted is performed responsive to determining that an alignment condition is not met;
receiving an affirmation input from a computer of the agency in response to the transmitted proposal notification; and effectuating one or more follow-up notifications.
1. A method including operations in which the operations include: receiving relationship instance data of a primary entity relating to previous relationship instances of the primary entity with secondary entities; identifying a domain of at least one of the secondary entities from the received data; assembling, by automatically, at least some of previously stored proposal components, in which: the assembled proposal components are part of a proposed set, and at least one of the proposal components of the proposed set is thus assembled by looking up previously stored proposal components for the domain; acting to enable specific ones of the assembled proposal components to be viewable by a third party, the specific proposal components not including an identity of the primary entity; causing a proposal notification to be transmitted to a computer of an agency of the domain, the proposal notification indicating how the enabled specific proposal components may be viewed by a user of a computer of the agency, the proposal notification further requesting an affirmation input from a computer of the agency, in which at least one of the assembling, the acting to enable and the causing the proposal notification to be transmitted is performed responsive to determining that an alignment condition is not met; receiving an affirmation input from a computer of the agency in response to the transmitted proposal notification; and effectuating one or more follow-up notifications.
---
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ford et al. (2015/0310188).
As per claim 1, Ford et al. teaches a method including operations, in which the operations include: receiving relationship instance data of a primary entity relating to previous relationship instances [group participant relationships] of the primary entity with secondary entities [paragraph 0103];
identifying a domain [a syndicated loan] of at least one of the secondary entities from the received data;
assembling at least some of previously stored proposal components, in which:
the assembled proposal components are part of a proposed set, and at least one of the proposal components of the proposed set is thus assembled by looking up previously stored proposal components for the domain [paragraphs 0100-0102];
acting to enable specific ones of the assembled proposal components to be viewable by a third party, the specific proposal components not including an identity of the primary entity [remain anonymous] [paragraph 0088];
causing a proposal notification to be transmitted to a computer of an agency of the domain, the proposal notification regarding the enabled specific proposal components, in which at least one of the assembling, the acting to enable and the causing the proposal notification to be transmitted is performed responsive to determining that an alignment condition is not met [paragraphs 0101 and 0106];
receiving an affirmation input from a computer of the agency in response to the transmitted proposal notification; and
effectuating one or more follow-up notifications [paragraph 0111].
As per claim 2, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the relationship instance data includes datasets for the domain, and the alignment condition is not met if the datasets are more than a threshold number [paragraph 0419].
As per claim 3, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the relationship instance data includes datasets for the domain, the datasets include respective base values, and the alignment condition is not met if a sum of the respective base values exceeds a threshold number [paragraph 0421].
As per claim 4, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the relationship instance data includes at least one date of at least one of the relationship instances, a due date is determinable by the included date, and the alignment condition is not met if a report has not been filed with an agency of the domain on behalf of the primary entity by the due date about an aspect of the relationship instances [paragraph 0428].
As per claim 5, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 4, in which: the relationship instance data includes datasets for the domain, and the alignment condition is not met if the datasets are more than a threshold number [paragraph 0438].
As per claim 6, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 4, in which: the relationship instance data includes datasets for the domain, and the alignment condition is not met if the datasets are more than a threshold number [paragraph 0407].
As per claim 7, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which the operations further include: causing a permission query to be presented in a User Interface (UI) of a computer of the primary entity that is viewable by a user of the primary entity; and receiving a permission input from the computer of the primary entity in response to the permission query, and in which at least one of the assembling, acting to enable and causing the proposal notification to be transmitted is performed responsive to receiving the permission input [paragraph 0390].
As per claim 8, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which the operations further include: accessing a previously stored correction digital rule for the domain; determining, by applying the correction digital rule to the relationship instance data, whether or not a correction eligibility condition of the domain is met, and in which the assembling is performed responsive to the correction eligibility condition being met [paragraph 0374].
As per claim 9, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 8, in which the operations further include: storing an updated correction digital rule; and determining again, by applying the updated correction digital rule to the relationship instance data responsive to the storing, whether or not the correction eligibility condition is met, and in which the assembling is performed responsive to the correction eligibility condition being met [paragraph 0370].
As per claim 10, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 8, in which: the relationship instance data includes at least one date associated with at least one of the relationship instances, a due date is determined from an alignment digital rule and the included date, a grace period of the domain is determined from the previously stored correction digital rule, and the correction eligibility condition is met if the grace period has not elapsed since the due date [paragraph 0346].
As per claim 11, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 8, in which: the relationship instance data includes datasets for the domain, the datasets include respective base values, and the correction eligibility condition is met if a sum of the respective base values is less than a threshold number [paragraph 0292].
As per claim 12, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the assembled proposal components are part of a proposed set, and the proposed set being for a proposal regarding the primary entity meeting the alignment condition at least in part [paragraph 0274].
As per claim 13, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which the operations further include: accessing a previously stored correction digital rule for the domain, and in which a certain proposal component is thus assembled by applying the previously stored correction digital rule [paragraph 0256].
As per claim 14, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which the operations further include: updating the previously stored proposal components; assembling again, by automatically and in response to the updating, another proposed set of at least some of the previously stored proposal components; and causing a permission query to be presented in a User Interface (UI) of a computer of a user of the primary entity along with proposal components of the other proposed set [paragraph 0181].
As per claim 15, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which the operations further include: receiving primary entity data of the primary entity, the primary data including the identity of the primary entity; and storing the primary entity data, and in which the assembled proposal components are part of a proposed set and the proposed set includes the identity of the primary entity [paragraph 0165].
As per claim 16, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which the operations further include: deriving a relevant number from the relationship instance data or a domain resource, and in which the assembled proposal components are part of a proposed set and the proposed set includes the relevant number [paragraph 0161].
As per claim 17, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which the operations further include: causing at least one of the assembled proposal components to be presented in a User Interface (UI) of a computer of a user of the primary entity [paragraph 0074].
As per claim 18, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 17, in which the operations further include: receiving an electronic signature from the user of the primary entity as one more of the assembled proposal components, and in which the specific ones of the assembled proposal components that are enabled to be viewable by a third party do not include the received an electronic signature from the user of the primary entity [paragraph 0070].
As per claim 19, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the assembled proposal components are assembled in a proposal document [paragraph 0067].
As per claim 20, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 19, in which the operations further include: receiving an electronic signature to the proposal document from the user [paragraph 0230].
As per claim 21, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the acting to enable includes preparing a proposal webpage with the specific proposal components, and the proposal notification provides a link to the proposal webpage [paragraph 0085].
As per claim 22, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the acting to enable includes preparing a proposal webpage with the specific proposal components and an indication of a non-shown portion of an identity of the primary entity, and the proposal notification provides a link to the proposal webpage [paragraph 0105].
As per claim 23, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the acting to enable includes preparing a proposal document with the specific proposal components, and the proposal notification provides a link that leads to opening the proposal document [paragraph 0110].
As per claim 24, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the acting to enable includes preparing a proposal document with the specific proposal components and an indication of a non-shown portion of an identity of the primary entity, and the proposal notification provides a link that leads to opening the proposal document [paragraph 0112].
As per claim 25, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the acting to enable includes preparing a proposal document with the specific proposal components, and the proposal notification includes an email has the proposal document as an attachment [paragraph 0105].
As per claim 26, Ford et al. teaches 26. The method of claim 1, in which: the specific proposal components further include a promise that the identity of the primary entity will be revealed responsive to the affirmation input being received [paragraph 0096].
As per claim 27, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the proposal notification includes a promise that the identity of the primary entity will be revealed responsive to the affirmation input being received [paragraph 0285].
As per claim 28, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which the operations further include: verifying the received affirmation input against a validity criterion, and in which the effectuating is performed automatically responsive to the verifying [paragraph 0101].
As per claim 29, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the proposal notification enables a representative of the domain to provide an electronic signature, and the affirmation input includes the provided electronic signature [paragraph 0270].
As per claim 30, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: the acting to enable includes preparing a proposal document that includes the specific proposal components, the proposal notification enables a representative of the domain to affix an electronic signature to the proposal document, and the affirmation input includes the proposal document with the affixed electronic signature by the representative [paragraph 0262].
As per claim 31, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which the affirmation input includes an electronic signature by a representative of the domain; and in which the operations further include: consulting a registry of approved domain representatives; and verifying that the electronic signature is from one of the approved domain representatives, and in which the effectuating is performed automatically responsive to the verifying [paragraph 0237].
As per claim 32, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: at least one of the one or more follow-up notifications about the received affirmation input is sent to a computer of the primary entity [paragraph 0136].
As per claim 33, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: at least one of the one or more follow-up notifications about the identity of the primary entity is sent to a computer of the agency [paragraph 0145].
As per claim 34, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which: at least one of the one or more follow-up notifications is sent concurrently to both a computer of the primary entity and to a computer of the agency [paragraph 0088].
As per claim 35, Ford et al. teaches the method of claim 1, in which the operations further include: preparing a final document that lists the assembled proposal components, the identity of the primary entity, an electronic signature by a user of a computer of the primary entity, an identity of the domain and an electronic signature by a representative of the domain; and making the final document available to a user of a computer of the primary entity and to a user of a computer of the agency [paragraph 0192].
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444