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 .
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 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12117889. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12117889 contain every element of claims 1-17 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Therefore the claims of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: ‘determining, using at least one of the computing system, the first bundle processor’ should be: ‘determining, using at least one of the computing system, a first bundle processor’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: ‘the second CRAM, the first bundle processor, a second bundle processor’ should be: ‘the second CRAM, a first bundle processor, a second bundle processor’. Appropriate correction is required.
There is no prior art rejection for claims 1-17 because of the following limitations: ‘based on a determination that the first alert is not a new alert associated with the first device and is an updated alert of a first previously received alert that is associated with the first device, and based on a determination that the first previously received alert is either in a first remote dictionary server ("Redis") queue ready for enrichment by an enrichment system of the first RFM or being enriched by the enrichment system, performing the following: holding, using a first clustered repository alert manager ("CRAM"), the first alert until the first previously received alert either has been enriched or has been placed in a second Redis queue for further processing by a CRAM; and after the first previously received alert has been enriched, placing, using the first CRAM, the first alert on the second Redis queue for the first CRAM or a second CRAM to update the first previously received alert with data from the first alert’.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest prior art: USPN 20150067408 - abstract - Disclosed is an event communication apparatus for a protection relay, which effectively simplifies an event determination operation by a main processing module and a communication module, thereby enhancing updating. The event communication apparatus for the protection relay includes a shared memory configured to store and provide data needed to share, a main processing module configured to, whenever an event occurs, update previous event data to a status information of the event and a status occurrence time information as new event data, and write the updated event data into the shared memory, and a communication module configured to periodically read status information from the shared memory, compare the read status information with pre-stored previous status information to determine whether there is a status change, determine occurrence of a new event when there is the status change, and transmit corresponding event data to an supervisory monitor immediately when the new event occurs.;
USPN 20130086587 – paragraph 0041 - According to another example implementation, the flow chart of FIG. 4 may further include: detecting an event, correlating the detected event to events in the set of events based on a comparison of one or more parameters of each event, determining that the detected event is an update to a previously detected event, and updating an entry of the previously detected event in the event management console.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113