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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to application 18/902468 filled on 09/30/2024
Claims 1-21 have been canceled.
Claims 22-41 have been added new and are currently pending.
Detailed Action
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12106834. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: referring to MPEP 804 II.B.2. Anticipation Analysis, “The claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by 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, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This type of nonstatutory double patenting situation arises when the claim being examined is, for example, generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in a conflicting patent or application, i.e., the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim.” Here, claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim(s) since the claims recite substantially similar limitations. Particularly, the entire scope of independent claims of Patent US 12106834 falls within the scope of independent claims of the present application.
The following is a mapping of the claims of the Patent against the claims the present application:
Present Application
Patent No 12106834
Identified differences and rationale as to why that does not amount to a patentable difference.
22. (New) A data aggregation and process automation (DAPA) system comprising: a monitoring module configured to monitor a first server for a first change event after receiving authenticated access to the first server, wherein the first change event results in the receipt of a first data object in a first server format, and wherein the first data object identifies a second party; an intelligent automation module configured to: automatically identify a second server using the first data object in response to the receipt of the first data object by the monitoring module; and request a service from the second server by submitting a request data object, the request data object being in a second server format and based on the first data object; and a transformation module configured to transform the first data object in the first server format into the request data object in the second server format.
31. (New) A data aggregation and process automation (DAPA) system comprising: an authentication module configured to initiate an authenticated communication with a plurality of servers communicatively coupled to the DAPA system, the plurality of servers comprising a first server associated with a first party; a monitoring module configured to receive a first change event from the first server, wherein the first change event results in the receipt of a first data object in a first server format; an intelligent automation module configured to automatically identify a second server of the plurality of servers based on the first change event, wherein the second server is a peer on a permissioned blockchain network, and wherein the intelligent automation module identifies a second server format based on the second server; and a transformation module configured to transform the first data object in the first server format into a request data object in the second server format; wherein the transformation module is configured to transform the request data object in the second server format into an update data object in the first server format, and wherein the intelligent automation module is configured to automatically submit the update data object to the first server in response to the receipt of the second data object by the monitoring module, and wherein the second change event results in the receipt of a second data object in the second server format, wherein the monitoring module is configured to monitor the first server and the second server using at least one of long polling, publication/subscription messaging, and periodic queries.
1. (Original) A data aggregation and process automation (DAPA) system comprising: an authentication module configured to initiate authenticated communication with a plurality of servers communicatively coupled to the DAPA system, the plurality of servers comprising a first server associated with a first party and a second server associated with a second party; a monitoring module configured to monitor the first server for a first change event after receiving authenticated access to the first server through the authentication module, wherein the first change event results in the receipt of a first data object in a first server format, and wherein the first data object identifies the second party; an intelligent automation module configured to: automatically identify the second server using the first data object in response to the receipt of the first data object by the monitoring module; establish authenticated access to the second server through the authentication module; and request a service from the second server by submitting a request data object, the request data object being in a second server format and based on the first data object; and a transformation module configured to transform the first data object in the first server format into the request data object in the second server format.
Claim 1
A data aggregation and process automation (DAPA) system comprising: an authentication module configured to initiate authenticated communication with a plurality of servers communicatively coupled to the DAPA system, the plurality of servers comprising a first server associated with a first party and a second server associated with a second party; a monitoring module configured to monitor the first server for a first change event after receiving authenticated access to the first server through the authentication module, wherein the first change event results in the receipt of a first data object in a first server format, and wherein the first data object identifies the second party; an intelligent automation module configured to: automatically identify the second server using the first data object in response to the receipt of the first data object by the monitoring module; establish authenticated access to the second server through the authentication module; and request a service from the second server by submitting a request data object, the request data object being in a second server format and based on the first data object; and a transformation module configured to transform the first data object in the first server format into the request data object in the second server format.
Claim 3. the DAPA system of claim 2, wherein the monitoring module is configured to monitor the first server and the second server using at least one of long polling, publication/subscription messaging, and periodic queries.
Claim 5
The DAPA system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first server and the second server is a peer on a permissioned blockchain network.
There is no patentable difference because the present claim is anticipated by the patent claim.
The remaining claims are rejected for similar reasons as set forth above with respect to the correspond representative claims of the parent application. The additional limitations in the remaining claims do not patentably distinguish the instant claims from the claims of the parent application.
Allowable Subject Matter.
Claims 22-41 include subject matter that is free of prior art. Specifically, the prior art fails to teach “automatically identify a second server using the first data object in response to the receipt of the first data object by the monitoring module; and request a service from the second server by submitting a request data object, the request data object being in a second server format and based on the first data object; and a transformation module configured to transform the first data object in the first server format into the request data object in the second server format.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rawcliffe et al. (US 10075422 B2) teaches the gateway server at which the request is received identifies one of the plurality of gateway servers as responsible for processing requests to the particular device. In an example embodiment, the gateway server at which the request is received queries the distributed hash server to identify one of the plurality of gateway servers as corresponding to the particular connection or device to which the request is directed. In an example embodiment, the distributed hash server queries a consistent hash ring to identify the one of the plurality of gateway severs responsible for the particular device.
Raleigh (US 2012/0203677 A1) teaches network tools for analysis, design, testing and production of services.
Hyperledger Fabric (A distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains) teaches a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains.
The prior art fails to teach automatically identify a second server using the first data object in response to the receipt of the first data object by the monitoring module; and request a service from the second server by submitting a request data object, the request data object being in a second server format and based on the first data object; and a transformation module configured to transform the first data object in the first server format into the request data object in the second server format.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached on (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/MAROUN P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights