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
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,461,916. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application and patent claim a method of managing computer model repositories comprising, using a computer processor: aggregating a plurality of repositories, each of the plurality of repositories comprising one or more model data elements of a computer model, wherein the aggregating comprises associating a single address with both of: at least one of the model data element from a first repository of the two or more repositories, and at least one of the model data element from a second repository of the two or more repositories; determining a state for the computer model; and fetching one or more of the model data elements based on the determined state. The patent further claims many additional limitations whereas the instant application claims a first repository and second repository instead of a local and remote repository (from the patent).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0406782) in view of Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0377844).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Nakayama et al. teaches a method of managing computer model repositories comprising, using a computer processor: aggregating two or more repositories, each of the two or more repositories comprising one or more model data elements of a computer model (paragraph 0136), wherein the aggregating comprises associating a single address (paragraph 0103); determining a state for the computer model (paragraph 0122); and fetching one or more of the model data elements based on the determined state (paragraph 0137).
Nakayama et al. does not teach wherein the aggregating comprises associating a single address with both of: at least one of the model data element from a first repository of the two or more repositories, and at least one of the model data element from a second repository of the two or more repositories.
Kumar et al. teaches wherein the aggregating comprises associating a single address with both of: at least one of the model data element from a first repository of the two or more repositories, and at least one of the model data element from a second repository of the two or more repositories (paragraph 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine model data from a first and second repository, as taught by Kumar et al., with the method of Nakayama et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications to allow the client to fetch complete models via a single endpoint without needing to track separate network addresses for local vs remote repository elements.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Nakayama et al. as modified by Kumar et al. teaches wherein the two or more repositories include two or more of: a remote repository, and a local repository (see paragraph 0082 of Kumar et al.).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Nakayama et al. teaches wherein the determining of the state comprises comparing a stored version of the model to a reference version of the model, the comparing using at least one of: a checksum operation, a model commit, and a hash function (paragraph 0061).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Nakayama et al. teaches comprising: if the reference version of the model is unavailable over a predetermined time period, preventing the comparing of the stored version to the reference version (fig. 4, discard the model).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Nakayama et al. as modified by Kumar et al. teaches comprising: uploading one or more of the model data elements to one or more of the repositories based on a repository layout, the layout describing a hierarchy between one or more of the model data elements (see paragraph 0166 of Kumar et al.).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Nakayama et al. teaches comprising omitting one or more of the model data elements based on one or more access permissions corresponding to at least one of the aggregated repositories (fig. 4, Discard the model).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Nakayama et al. teaches comprising caching one or more of the model data elements, wherein one or more of the cached elements is a model binary file (paragraph 0123).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Nakayama et al. as modified by Kumar et al. teaches wherein the determining of a state comprises if one or more of the data elements is cached for more than a predefined time period, expiring one or more of the model data elements; and wherein the fetching of model data elements comprises replacing one or more of the expired data elements with new data elements (see paragraph 0123 of Nakayama et al. and paragraph 0112 of Kumar et al.).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Nakayama et al. as modified by Kumar et al. teaches wherein the fetching of one or more of the model data elements comprises transmitting one or more of the model data elements to a remote computer over a communication network (see paragraph 0082 of Kumar et al.).
Regarding claim 19, Nakayama et al. teaches a method of maintaining computer model repositories comprising, using a computer processor: connecting two or more repositories, each of the two or more repositories comprising one or more model data items of a computer model (paragraph 0136), wherein the aggregating comprises associating a single address (paragraph 0103); computing a state for the computer model (paragraph 0122); and providing one or more of the model data items based on the determined state (paragraph 0137).
Nakayama et al. does not teach wherein the aggregating comprises associating a single address with both of: at least one of the model data element from a first repository of the two or more repositories, and at least one of the model data element from a second repository of the two or more repositories.
Kumar et al. teaches wherein the aggregating comprises associating a single address with both of: at least one of the model data element from a first repository of the two or more repositories, and at least one of the model data element from a second repository of the two or more repositories (paragraph 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine model data from a first and second repository, as taught by Kumar et al., with the method of Nakayama et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications to allow the client to fetch complete models via a single endpoint without needing to track separate network addresses for local vs remote repository elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON HOFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. 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.
/BRANDON HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights