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 .
Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on December 26, 2026. Claims 1-6 are currently pending of which claims 1, 4, and 6 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The newly amended private suspendable machine, is not supported by the specifications. That is, there is no recitation, use of, or definition of a private suspendable machine, that would enable one skilled in the art to understand and reproduce the claimed limitation. In addition, it is not a known term of art. As such the claims are rejected.
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 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,147,856. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are substantially similar in their claimed approach to computing with respect to unbound private dataflow variables. These similarities are illustrated in the table below comparing an independent claim of the present application against one from the patent.
Present Application
Claim 1
Patent 12,147,856
Claim 8
A system for concurrently processing electronic messages, comprising a processor configured for: invoking, by a controller, a private suspendable machine for computing a selected electronic message;
A system, comprising: a processor configured for: selecting an electronic message to process, by a controller, wherein the controller selects a response message before a notify or request message;
suspending processing when the controller cannot select a message for processing;
invoking a suspendable machine to compute a selected message, wherein the controller creates an environment containing callbacks to the controller, and wherein the controller pushes a message handling semantic statement onto the suspendable machine;
suspending computing of a selected electronic message in response to the controller receiving a communication from the private suspendable machine that the private suspendable machine requires one or more unbound private dataflow variables;
suspending computing of the selected electronic message in response to the controller receiving a communication from the suspendable machine that the suspendable machine requires one or more unbound private dataflow variables;
and resuming the computing of the selected electronic message in response to the controller selecting an electronic message that can bind at least one of the one or more unbound private dataflow variables.
resuming the computing of the selected electronic message in response to the controller selecting an electronic message that can bind at least one of the one or more unbound private dataflow variables;
While patent discloses every claimed limitation of the present application, the patent claims significantly more details, including a mailbox to receive the messages. While the present application does not explicitly cite a mailbox, it does recite reception of messages and handling messages. The storage of received messages, for instance in a mailbox, would make it more efficient to handle the messages since they could be quickly located. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to handle the messages more efficiently.
Claims 2-6 are similarly rejected for being substantially similar to patented claims 1-7 and 9-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL, “Derflow: Distributed Deterministic Dataflow Programming for Erlang,” by Manuel Bravo et al in view of King et al (US Patent No: 10,742,769), hereafter referred to as Bravo and King, respectively
With regard to claims 1 and 4, Bravo teaches through King, a system for concurrently processing electronic messages, comprising a processor configured for: invoking, by a controller, a private suspendable machine for computing a selected electronic message (Bravo teaches message-passing execution; see abstract. In particular, Bravo explains having monitors in the dataflow variables; see p. 54, section 3.4.2, 6th stanza. A call monitor sets a monitor to the dataflow variable and returns a stream that is an unbound dataflow variable that contains reachability states on a visited/invoked node/machine; see p. 55, left column, 1st and 2nd stanzas. A dataflow variable has a waiting/suspendable attribute that allows the process (i.e. the node running the process) to wait; see p. 53, section 3.1, left column, 2nd and 3rd stanzas AND p. 53, section 3.1, left column, last paragraph);
suspending computing of a selected electronic message in response to the controller receiving a communication from the private suspendable machine that the private suspendable machine requires one or more unbound private dataflow variables (Bravo teaches support for dataflow variables to be unbound; see p. 52, section 3.1, 3rd stanza. Bravo teaches forcing the process (i.e. the node running the process) to wait/suspend if the dataflow variable is unbound; see p. 54, section 3.4, 2nd stanza);
and resuming the computing of the selected electronic message in response to the controller selecting an electronic message that can bind at least one of the one or more unbound private dataflow variables (Bravo teaches forcing the process (i.e. the node running the process) to wait/suspend if the dataflow variable is unbound; see p. 54, section 3.4, 2nd stanza. Each dataflow variable, if bound (i.e. biding occurs), notifies all waiting processes to proceed; see p. 56, section 4.2.3, right column, 4th stanza)
While Bravo teaches handling unbound dataflow variables, Bravo does not explicitly cite private dataflows. In the same field of endeavor, King also teaches an invention that handles dataflows; see column 12, lines 6-31, King. In particular, King explains how dataflows can be private dataflows, for internal dataflows; see column 13, lines 33-35, King. Use of private dataflows is useful then for internal messages, to preserve security by minimizing external exposure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of King with those of Bravo, to use private dataflows to preserve security.
With regard to claims 2 and 5, Bravo teaches through King, the system wherein the processor is further configured for: selecting an electronic message to process, by a controller, wherein the controller selects a response message before a notify or request message (A call monitor sets a monitor to the dataflow variable and returns (response message) a stream that is an unbound dataflow variable that contains reachability states (e.g. notify) on a visited/invoked node/machine; see p. 55, left column, 1st and 2nd stanzas. For instance, all processes (i.e. nodes running the processes) monitoring a killed dataflow variable must be notified; see p. 55, left column, last stanza of section 3.4.2).
With regard to claims 3 and 6, Bravo teaches through King, the system wherein the processor is further configured for: suspending the process when the controller cannot select a message for processing (Bravo teaches how if a failure occurs, such as a dataflow variable being unbound or not reachable, the process can wait forever; see p. 54, section 3.4, 2nd stanza).
The obviousness motivation applied to independent claims 1 and 4 are applicable to their respective dependent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s principal argument focuses on the amended claim limitation of a private suspendable machine, whereas previously applicant claimed a suspendable machine. Applicant contends that this limitation is not taught by the prior arts and the claims are therefore allowable. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The newly amended private suspendable machine, is not supported by the specifications. That is, there is no recitation, use of, or definition of a private suspendable machine, that would enable one skilled in the art to understand and reproduce the claimed limitation. In addition, it is not a known term of art. As such the claims are rejected under 112, first paragraph for failing to comply with the enablement requirement. In addition, since there is no support for the limitation, it is not being given patentable weight and the prior 103-type rejection continues to stand.
The double patenting rejection also continues to stand.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AZIZUL Q CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-3909. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, EMMANUEL MOISE can be reached at (571) 272-3865. 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.
/AZIZUL CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455