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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim amended: 1, 12 and 14
Claims canceled: 4 and 17
Claims newly added: 21-22
Claims pending: 1-3, 5-16 and 18-22
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant requests that the nonstatutory double patenting rejection be held in abeyance pending resolution of the rejection under 35 U.S.C 103.
The amendment has overcome the 103 rejection. Applicant(s) is/are advised to resolve the non-statutory double patenting rejection.
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 ww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/e-terminal-disclaimen
3. Claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,164,503 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application including similar concept of receive one or more inputs to facilitate database management, the one or more inputs initiating a machine learning process configured to detect data redundancies of two or more datasets, process the entity data to conform with formatting requirements for the machine learning process, insert the training data into an iterative training and testing loop and train, based on weights and calculation, a model architecture using the training data in the iterative training and testing loop to detect the data redundancies, the training including predicting a target variable and iteratively adjusting the weights and the calculations during each subsequent iteration in order to improve predictability of the target variable, wherein the model architecture is trained to identify data similarity among the two or more database. Although the languages are slightly different such as the instant application include front-end neural network configured to perform feature extraction column names and data values of the two or more dataset and a back-end neural network configured to output a similarity score for the two or more datasets, the similarity score comprising a percentage of similarity between the two or more datasets. On the other hand, 503 includes access entity data stored one or more entity data storage locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the 503 to arrive the same invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-22 will be allowed when applicant(s) has overcome the Obviousness Double Patenting rejection.
As to claims 1 and 14, examiner greed with applicant arguments “…. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Hamedi is directed to a content evaluation system that calculates score for generated images. Specifically, Hamedi discloses that “for each of the generated images…” pages 1-2.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-11, 15-16 and 18-22 are allowed under the same reason as to claims 1 and 14.
As to claim 12, examiner agreed with applicant argument arguments “for the reason set forth above with respect to claim 1, neither Hamedi or Zhang supplies these limitations… The combination of Scanlan, Hamedi, and Zhang therefore fails to teach or suggest each limitation of claim 12…” pages 3-4.
Claim 13 is allowed under the same reason as to claim 12.
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.”
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights