DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/16/2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Obviousness 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 1-30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,381 (‘381) and 12,147,445 (‘445). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the commonly owned patents. The claims of the ‘381 patent are directed to substantially the same notebook execution architecture, including execution of notebook cells, generation and storage of cell execution results in a cell execution stream, and access privileges associated with the notebook and cell execution stream. The claims further address dependency-based notebook execution and related execution-state functionality.
The ‘445 patent likewise claims substantially overlapping notebook execution and stored execution-state functionality, including maintaining notebook/document state and execution state, executing notebook cells, generating execution results, and storing/retrieving execution-stream information.
The presently claimed subject matter represents an obvious variation of the claimed notebook execution, execution-state, and access-control subject matter of the commonly owned patents. In particular, providing the recited notebook execution functionality together with respective access controls for the notebook and stored cell-execution information would have been an obvious implementation of the access-privilege and execution-stream functionality already claimed in the related patents, yielding no unexpected result.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shuster et al. (‘891 and ‘967) discloses creating and storing a plurality of analytical notebooks in digital computer storage, wherein each of the analytical notebooks comprises notebook metadata that specifies a kernel for execution, and one or more computational cells, wherein each of the cells comprises cell metadata, a source code reference and an output reference; receiving, in association with a first cell among the one or more cells, first input specifying computer program source code of a function, wherein the function defines an input dataset, a transformation, and one or more variables associated with output data; storing the first cell, excluding the output data, using a first digital data storage system and updating the source code reference to identify the first data storage system; using the kernel specified in the notebook metadata, executing an executable version of the source code to result in generating the output data; storing the output data using a second digital data storage system that is separate from the first digital data storage system and updating the output reference to identify the second data storage system.
Shuster et al. (‘102) discloses accessing a computer memory comprising a shareable cell-based computation notebook comprising: notebook metadata specifying a kernel for execution, and a computational cell comprising cell metadata, a source code reference, and an output reference, wherein the cell metadata identifies a particular version of source code of a function that defines an input dataset, a transformation, and one or more variables that are to be associated with output data that is to be generated as a result of executing the particular version of the source code; updating the source code reference to identify a first storage location that is to contain the particular version of the source code of the function; and updating the output reference to identify a second storage location that is to contain the output data that is to be generated as a result of executing the particular version of the source code identified in the cell metadata using the kernel specified in the notebook metadata, wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices.
Lee et al. discloses a system enables real-time collaborative access to a notebook environment comprising a plurality of executable cells, including cells that retrieve data from a data warehouse. In response to receiving a request from a first client device operated by a first user to access the notebook, the system determines whether the first user has permission to access the notebook and, if so, presents a first view of the notebook to the first client device. The system receives a request to initiate a collaboration session with a second user and sends an invitation to a second client device. In response to receiving a join request from the second client device, the system verifies access rights and, in response to successful verification, establishes the collaboration session. The system presents a second view of the notebook at the second client device, enabling both users to interact with the shared notebook environment in near real-time.
Osinga et al. (‘023 and ‘910) discloses providing spreadsheet-formatted access to information stored within a hosted electronic notebook, in accordance with one or more implementations. Providing access to the hosted electronic notebook in a spreadsheet format may enhance usability for users who are more comfortable with a spreadsheet format, while still providing the features and functions of a stateful hosted electronic notebook. Providing access in the spreadsheet format may include presenting cell outputs of information cells within the hosted electronic notebook in an array with at least two dimensions. In other words, the information cells of the hosted electronic notebook may be organized and presented in the spreadsheet format to mimic at least some of the structure and function of a spreadsheet file that is stateful and hosted electronically.
Clement et al. discloses generating an automatic interactive digital notebook completion model. A method can include receiving notebook content of an interactive digital notebook, the notebook content including a markdown cell followed by a code cell. The method can include generating input/output examples by, for each input/output example by masking one of (i) content of the markdown cell or (ii) content of the code cell resulting in a masked cell, identifying the masked cell and content of another cell of the markdown cell or the code that is not masked as an input for an input/output example, and identifying the content of the masked cell as an output for the input/output example. The method can include training, based on the input/output examples, a natural language processing model that generates a prediction of the content of a second masked cell as an output.
Trofimov et al. discloses collaboration using a cell-based computational notebook is described. The method includes receiving a cell on a first computer from the cell-based computational notebook, the cell including executable code, the executable code including variables. The method further includes executing the executable code in the cell to generate a result and saving in a storage medium a state of the cell, the state of the cell including values of the variables associated with the executable code in the cell and the result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-30 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As presented, the prior art of record, considered individually and in combination, fails to teach or suggest the claimed combination of receiving a run cells message specifying a subset of notebook cells, determining dependencies between cells of the subset, executing the cells based on the dependencies while maintaining a dynamic variable scope for each cell, generating and storing a cell execution stream for each executed cell, and providing a first access control for the notebook and a second access control for the cell execution stream.
In particular, although the prior art teaches various aspects of notebook-cell execution, dependency or state management, storage of notebook outputs, and access-control mechanisms, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed arrangement in which the notebook and its stored cell execution stream are provided with the respective access controls in combination with the recited dependency-based notebook execution and dynamic-variable-scope functionality as recited by independent claims 1, 11 and 21.
The dependent claims further define particular implementations of this architecture, including differing notebook and execution-result privileges, role-based access control, private or publicly shared execution-stream information while notebook access remains restricted, independent authorization and sharing of the notebook and execution stream, separate storage of the execution stream, cell-update semantics, soft-start retrieval of the execution stream, and message-path-based presentation of execution results.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusions/Points of Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A CASANOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (EST).
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. 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.
/JORGE A CASANOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights