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 1-21 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. 12,184,531. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claims is anticipated by the patented claims. For example, compare instant claim 1 with patented claim 1:
U.S. Pat. 12,184,531
App. No. 18/947,630
1. A device comprising:
1. A device comprising:
a memory comprising instructions; and
a memory comprising instructions; and
one or more processors electrically connected with the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the instructions are configured to, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
one or more processors electrically connected with the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the instructions are configured to, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
selecting a first network group from among network groups, wherein the first network group is selected from among the network groups based on numbers of global links connecting the network groups, respectively;
selecting a first network group from among network groups, wherein the first network group is selected from among the network groups based on numbers of global links connecting the network groups, respectively; and
obtaining a first list of network groups, among the network groups, that are not connected to the first network group;
selecting a second network group and a third network group from among the network groups in the first list based on connections between the network groups in the first list; and
based on the selecting of the first, second, and third network groups, forming a topology comprising global links connecting the first network group, the second network group, and the third network group each to each other.
forming, based on a first list of network groups that are not connected to the first network group, a topology comprising global links connecting the first network group and at least one network group in the first list to each other.
Instant dependent claims 2-21 are also anticipated by the patented claims, and correlate in the following way:
U.S. Pat. 12,184,531
App. No. 18/947,630
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to a device comprising memory, instructions, and a processor to perform selection of a network group among network groups based on a number of global links, and forming a topology based on a list of network groups not connected to the selected group. The claim is directed to a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion), as at its core, the inventive concept is merely a selection of a group and the connection of unconnected groups to the selected group in a topology/map/network, which at a high level is reasonably performed by a human. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e., memory, instructions, processor) merely serve to perform the abstract idea in a computerized form and do not impose meaningful limit on the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generically recited computer components, and are conventional, extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected. Dependent claims 2-13 recite additional details such as data gathering regarding network groups, selection of other groups, selection criteria, and what devices comprise the groups/links. These claims do not recite elements that add significantly more to the abstract idea, and are rejected as depending from clam 1 and under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ramanan et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0154906) disclosed creating a topology of virtual router groups connected by global links.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Kamal B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441