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 .
Specification
MPEP §§ 606.01, 1302.01, 1302.04(a) provide that, upon general review of the disclosure, an Examiner may require a change to a title when it is not clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The general thrust of this requirement is to further its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. when the application is passed to issue even if the brevity of the title is lost. See MPEP § 606.01. Upon general review of the title (“MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM”) and the subject matter to which the invention is drawn, the title is not clearly indicative of the invention as claimed because it is too broadly defined. Correction of the title is therefore required before this application can be considered to be in condition for allowance.
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, 5 and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 7 of copending Application No. 18/837993 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Examiner finds that claims 1, 5 and 6 recite substantially the same “conversion unit” recited within claims 1, 6, and 7 of copending Application No. 18/837993, the main difference being the additional recitation in claims 1, 5 and 6 of “using a general-purpose parameter table capable of associating each service in a user unit” within the “system of setting data of the migration destination network device”. However, the inclusion of such a “general-purpose table” that is generically and independently “capable” of “associating each service in a user unit” without functionally interrelating with any other claimed limitation would have been an obvious variation since the “general-purpose table” is merely used in conjunction with the same exact “system of setting data of the migration destination network device”. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the “system of setting data of the migration destination network device” to include such a “table” to “use” within the “system” as an additional element to perform the same functionality found in claims 1, 6, and 7 of copending Application No. 18/837993. Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8898201 B1 to Drost.
Regarding claim 1, Drost taught a management system that manages configured to manage a migration from a migration source network device (“existing” “HLR platform”/”HLR”; consider also column 3, lines 34-39) to a migration destination network device (“new” “HLR platform”/”HLR”) among network devices communicating with another communication device on a network, the management system comprising:
a conversion unit (“conversion script”), comprising one or more processors, configured to convert a system of first setting data for setting an operation of the migration source network device (“table” “data” to be “converted” from the “first”/”existing” “HLR”) into second setting data according to a system of setting data of the migration destination network device by using a general-purpose parameter table (“flat file”) capable of associating each service in a user unit (consider column 6, lines 43-62 regarding the services associated with user units), and apply the second setting data to the migration destination network device. (consider column 1, line 40-column 2, line 8 regarding the ”conversion” of a “source file” wherein “at least one attribute” in “at least one table” of a “first home location register” “platform” using a “conversion script” which “outputs” a “converted source file” which is then “audited” when the file is “loaded” “on to the second HLR”) (consider further column 4, lines 41-50, “The HLR platform may contain data including subscriber data and global and system service data for the telecommunications provider and its subscribers. The HLR platform comprises tables, and each of the tables has entries with multiple attributes or fields. Tables on an HLR platform may be either dynamic or static, and only the static tables may be migrated. Tables may have several thousand entries, and each entry may have hundreds of attributes. If all or part of a table is selected for migration, the selected entries and attributes may be reviewed to ensure data integrity.”) (consider further column 7, lines 5-42 regarding the “auditing”/”data integrity” process, specifically wherein “a "snap shot" or "freeze frame" picture is taken at block 214a of the data. This snapshot is used for the flat files discussed below so that a static, reviewed/audited, controllable source of information is available during the data migration process in case changes are made to the scripts or files discussed below with respect to FIGS. 2 and 3. The above steps at block 208-214 may be repeated for each table that is determined at block 204 to be a table to be migrated to the new HLR”)
Regarding claim 2, Drost taught the management system according to claim 1, wherein the conversion unit includes:
a first extraction unit configured to extract each parameter from the first setting data and describe each extracted parameter in a corresponding cell of the general-purpose parameter table, to create a first parameter table corresponding to the first setting data; a generation unit configured to generate the second setting data in which a parameter described in each cell of the first parameter table is arranged according to a system of setting data applied to the migration destination network device; and an application unit (“load script”) configured to apply the second setting data to the migration destination network device. (again, consider column 1, line 40-column 2, line 8 regarding the ”conversion” of a “source file” wherein “at least one attribute” in “at least one table” of a “first home location register” “platform” using a “conversion script” which “outputs” a “converted source file” which is then “audited” when the file is “loaded” by a ”load script” “on to the second HLR”) (again, consider column 4, lines 41-50, specifically “The HLR platform comprises tables, and each of the tables has entries with multiple attributes or fields…Tables may have several thousand entries, and each entry may have hundreds of attributes”)
Regarding claim 3, Drost taught the management system according to claim 2, further comprising:
a confirmation unit configured to confirm whether the first setting data is successfully migrated to the migration destination network device, on the basis of third setting data applied to the migration destination network device and the first parameter table (“converted source file”). (consider column 8, lines 12-36 regarding the “load script” wherein “A load script is created at block 234 and run by a computer on the converted source file 236 to output a loadable, converted source file at block 236a. If the load script executes correctly, and a loadable, converted source the data is loaded on to the new HLR platform at block 240” and “After the data migration is complete at step 238, at least one call is successfully initiated and completed based on the new HLR platform”)
Regarding claim 4, Drost taught the management system according to claim 3, wherein the confirmation unit includes:
a second extraction unit configured to extract each parameter from the third setting data and describe each extracted parameter in a corresponding cell of a parameter table having the same configuration as the general-purpose parameter table, to create a second parameter table corresponding to the third setting data; a collation unit configured to collate the second parameter table with the first parameter table; and a determination unit configured to determine that a migration of the first setting data to the migration destination network device is successfully performed when the second parameter table matches the first parameter table, and determine that the migration of the first setting data to the migration destination network device is not successfully performed when the second parameter table does not match the first parameter table. (consider column 7, line 65-column 8, line 36, “Once a source file at block 220 is generated correctly, a conversion script is created at block 224 and run at block 228 by the computer on the source file at block 220 in order to convert the file to the appropriate format for the new HLR platform and a converted source file is output. If the script did not run correctly, and the file was thereby converted incorrectly, converted in part, not converted at all, or experienced any other errors when the conversion script was run on the source file at block 228, the conversion script is edited at block 232 and re-run at block 228. Steps at block 232 and at block 228 are repeated until the script successfully executes on the source file at block 220 to output a converted source file at block 228a. If the conversion script at block 230 runs correctly, a load script is created at block 234…A load script is created at block 234 and run by a computer on the converted source file 236 to output a loadable, converted source file at block 236a. If the load script executes correctly, and a loadable, converted source the data is loaded on to the new HLR platform at block 240.”)
Claim(s) 5-6 recite a management method and non-transitory computer readable medium that contain substantially the same limitations as recited in claim 1 and are also rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the same teachings of Drost.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is directed to migration of table information containing parameters relating to services rendered to user units.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to G. C. Neurauter, Jr. whose telephone number is (571)272-3918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern Time.
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, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/G. C. Neurauter, Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459