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 1-4, 7-10, 13-16 are pending.
Applicant’s amendment filed 23 December 2025 is not sufficient to overcome all the double patenting rejections of the pending claims.
Claims 5, 11, 17 previously rejected under non-statutory double patenting over claims 1, 6, 11 of U.S. Patent No, 12147908 have been rolled into their respective parent claims 1, 7, 13 previously rejected under statutory double patenting for claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-15 of prior U.S. Patent No.13147908.
However no Terminal disclaimer has been filed. Therefore, the obviousness type double patenting rejection of all pending claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-16 is maintained.
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 1-4, 7-11, 14-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12147908.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 7, 13 of the instant application merely differ from claims 1, 6, 11 of the U.S. Patent by further producing the contradicting entigen group by utilizing the identigen pairing rules of the knowledge database for other content and adding an additional matching criteria. However utilizing pairing rules clearly are dependent on users/applications requirements and the amount of content that require processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features to the claims of the U.S. Patent depending on users/applications requirements and the amount of content that require processing.
Claims 2, 3, 4 of the instant application are duplicates of claims 2, 3, 4 of the U.S. Patent.
System claims 8-10 and computer program product claims 14-16 of the instant application similarly map to claims 6-10 and 12-15 respectively of the U.S. Patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Soon-Shiong (WO 2012129371 A2) teaches a reasoning engine acquires data relating to one or more aspects of various environments. Inference engines within the reasoning engines review the acquired data, historical or current, to generate one or more hypotheses about how the aspects of the environments might be correlated, if at all. The reasoning engine can attempt to validate the hypotheses through controlling acquisition of the environment data.
Stoddart Hugh (WO 2015009682 A1) teach a system for providing semantic reasoning includes an extended semantic model, a semantic knowledge database, and an inference engine. The extended semantic model includes existing concepts for a specific knowledge domain, existing relationships among the existing concepts, and logic including conditions and processes that cause a new concept or a new relationship to be inferred from an existing concept or an existing relationship, respectively. The semantic knowledge database includes existing nodes and existing links and the existing nodes represent instances of the existing concepts, and the existing links represent instances of the existing relationships. The inference engine is configured to add new nodes and new links to the semantic knowledge database by following the logic of the extended semantic model.
Shinn Hong et al (WO 2018187712 A1) teach an artificial intelligence problem is solved using an artificial intelligence memory graph data structure and a lexical database to identify supporting knowledge. A natural language input is received and classified into components. A starting node of an artificial intelligence memory graph data structure, which comprises one or more data nodes, is selected to begin a search for one or more supporting knowledge data nodes associated with the classified components. Starting at the starting node, the artificial intelligence memory graph data structure is searched using a lexical database to identify the one or more supporting knowledge data nodes. An artificial intelligence problem is identified and solved using the one or more identified supporting knowledge data nodes of the artificial intelligence memory graph data structure.
Reeves et al (US 20200034720 A1) teach In an example embodiment, a request is received, via a graphical user interface, to add a new object to a directory of objects, the new object having a first category in a hierarchical taxonomy of categories and objects. Then one or more questions previously assigned to the first category and/or one or more existing objects within the first category are retrieved. Each of the retrieved one or more questions and information about the new object are then fed into a first machine learned model trained to output a probability that a question is applicable to an object. One or more questions are generated for the new object based on the probability for each of the retrieved one or more questions. At least one of the one or more generated questions is then assigned to the new object.
Guan, Jiwei. A study of the use of keyword and keyphrase extraction techniques for answering biomedical questions. Diss. Macquarie University, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Department of Computing, 2016. 77 pages
Abstract- This research project explored the use of automatic keyword and key phrase extraction techniques as a means to generate answers to biomedical questions. Keywords and key phrases provide an essential way to present the topic of a given document and can help readers access core information in text. Keyword and key
phrase extraction techniques are typically used in information retrieval tasks. The purpose of this project is to select the suitability of these techniques in order to extract key concepts in training dataset of BioASQ shared task, as a first step towards achieving query-based abstractive summarization. The outputs are measured by F1-metric to distinguish the performance of each technique.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ajay M Bhatia can be reached at 5712723906. 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.
/UYEN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 23 Mar 2026