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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 18/340,591, filed on Jun. 23, 2023.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EXECUTING PREDEFINED WORKFLOWS HAVING VARIOUS WORKFLOW NODE TYPES.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of Patent No. 12160338. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12160338 contain(s) every element of claim 1 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
“Claim 12 and Claim 13 are generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim) 4. This court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982). Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 12 and 13 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michaelangelo et al. (Pub. No.: US 20160027019 A1) (Michaelangelo was cited in the 1/28/2025 IDS).
As to claim 1, Michaelangelo teaches a computer-implemented method for performing a control task for a real-world communications network, the computer-implemented method comprising: loading a data structure in memory, the data structure including one or more nodes corresponding to one or more steps of a workflow (paragraphs [0102] and [0134], “interactive guide” teaches the data structure, “step” teaches one or more nodes, accessing the interactive guide by the client teaches loading the data structure in memory, and fig. 6D, and fig. 1 teaches real-world communications network); and
executing the workflow, to perform the control task for the real-world communications network, by traversing a subset of the one or more nodes (paragraph [0141]), the traversing comprising, at each node of the subset:
determining a node type of the node (paragraph [0142], “step” teaches a node, question step teaches a determined question node type);
based on the determined node type, rendering, on a display, a graphical representation of the node (paragraph [0144], “displaying an initial guidance step (810) (e.g., guidance step 630-1, FIG. 6D)”);
responsive to the rendering, receiving a data input (paragraph [0144], “receiving a selection of one of the respective responses to the respective question in the initial guidance step (812) (e.g., response 634-1, FIG. 6D)”);and
responsive to determining the node type is not a final node type (paragraph [0144], “receiving a selection of one of the respective responses to the respective question in the initial guidance step (812)”, i.e. question of initial guidance step not a final node and paragraph [0148]):
determining a next node of the subset based on (i) the received data input and (ii) one or more response values of the node, the one or more response values associated with the determined node type (paragraph [0144], “identifying a next guidance step that corresponds to the selected response (814) (e.g., guidance step 630-2, FIG. 6D)”, i.e. the selection teaches the received data input, the “YES” or “NO” values teaches the response values of the node); and
moving to the determined next node (paragraph [0144], “…and displaying the next guidance step (814) (e.g., guidance step 630-2, FIG. 6D)…”);
responsive to determining the node type is the final node type, completing the performance of the control task for the real-world communications network ([0148], “For example, while traversing an interactive guide, a user may navigate to a termination node (e.g., resolution 612-15, FIG. 6C), at which point the user is not presented with additional questions and does not select any additional responses.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, 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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 1/8/2026