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 . This Office Action is in reply to 10/15/2024. Claimed priority is granted from patent Application Number 17/727,543, filed on 04/22/2022, now patent number Patent No. 11711314 B1.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2024 was filed simultaneously with the original application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Cancelled Claims
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer.
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11711314 B1, in view of claim 15, US Patent US 12010036 B2 .
Regarding claim 21 of the Application and claim 1 of the patent reference see mapping below.
CLAIM MAPPING AMND ANALYSIS
Application Claim 1 Limitation
Disclosure in 11,711,314
Disclosure in 12,010,036
System comprising processors and memory (resource tag service)
YES--Discloses system with compute nodes and resource attribute manager
Not Disclosed
Receive request to apply resource attribute group to a resource
YES--Discloses receiving request to apply attribute group to computing resource
Not Disclosed
Resource attribute group comprising attributes (keys/values)
YES--Discloses attribute group including keys and values
Not Disclosed
Apply attributes to resource metadata
YES--Discloses applying attribute group to metadata of resource
Not Disclosed
Detect conflict between attributes/metadata
Not Disclosed
Discloses identifying conflicts between metadata rules/attributes
Determine whether conflicting attributes are allowed
Not Disclosed
Discloses evaluating policies/rules to determine applicability
Conditional application based on policy outcome
Not Disclosed
Discloses applying or rejecting attributes based on policy decisions
Support user/client-defined attributes
Not Disclosed
Discloses user-defined/custom metadata interacting with system-defined attributes
Merge attributes after resolution
Not Disclosed
Discloses applying resolved metadata to resource
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of invention to modify the system of US. Patent 11,711,314 to include the conflict detection and policy-based resolution mechanisms taught by U.S. Patent No. 12,010,036 for the reason of providing a predictable improvement. Knowing that “managing multiple sources inherently introduces conflicts, and resolving such conflicts using policies” is a well-known and expected enhancement. Additionally, using the policy-based resolution provides a standard solution, resolving the issue of metadata inconsistencies resolving from the above-mentioned conflicts. The modification suggested only introduces logical processing, keeping the underlying system architecture unchanged.
The analysis above to show the rejection of claim 1 over claim 21 of the reference patent is just exemplary. Claims 22-40 of the current application follow the same pattern and are rejected as they disclose similar subject matter as claims 2-20 of US patent 11,711,314, in view of claims 2-20 of US patent 12,010,036 in combination. By this rationale, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claims 21-40 are rejected.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jude Jean-Gilles whose telephone number is 571-272-3914. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, from 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 on 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.
/JUDE JEAN GILLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights