DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 16 have been examined and are rejected.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/461,965, filed Sep. 6, 2023, now U.S. Pat. No. 12,177,061, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/568,162, filed Jan. 4, 2022, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,799,711, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/726,956, filed Oct. 6, 2017, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,240,093, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/405,534, filed Oct. 7, 2016.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 time-wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9, 11, and 13-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over Claims 1 – 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,061 (Application No. 18/461,965). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Hence, for patent 12,177,061 and the instant application 18/957397, an Obviousness-type Double Patenting TDP is reasonable.
The instant application is a child of the patent, and the claims are directed to substantially the same inventive concept. Claims 1 and 9 of the instant application recites an apparatus comprising a processor, memory, and communication circuitry configured to:
receive a request to register information at a service layer, the information defining a resource type comprising one or more resource attributes,
integrate the information into the service layer,
expose the information for discovery by other apparatuses,
receive a request to create a data model mapping for the one or more resource attributes, and,
create the data model mapping at the service layer,
wherein the data model mapping is configured to indicate one or more URIs of interworked resources and retargeting indicators for indicating when to retarget a retrieve request targeting the interworked resources.
Furthermore, Claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12177061 recites substantially the same subject matter, namely an apparatus configured to:
receive a request to create a new custom resource,
integrate the new custom resource into operations of the service,
receive a request to create a data model mapping for the new custom resource, and
create the data model mapping in the service,
wherein the data model mapping provides one or more URIs of interworked resources and retargeting indicators for indicating when to retarget a retrieve request targeting the interworked resources.
The differences between the claims are not patentably distinct. The instant claim recites the information as being located at a URI and recites the resource type as comprising one or more resource attributes, but these limitations merely restate or generalize the subject matter already recited in the patent claim. Both claims are directed to the same fundamental concept of registering custom resource information in a service and creating a mapping for interworked resource URIs with retargeting indicators. The instant claim is therefore an obvious variation of the claimed invention in the patent. Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12177061 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
Claims 3, 5-6, 9, and 13-14 recites substantially the same subject matter as taught by claims 1-16 of USPN 12177061.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 06/11/2026 with respect to the Claims 1 – 16 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. Hence, the Obviousness-type Double Patenting rejection is maintained.
In response to Applicant’s argument on Page 6 of 8, “the Office Action fails to meet the burden showing that claims 1-16 are obvious over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,240,093 and claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,061. The Office Action provides a chart with mapping of the language of claim 1 to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,061. However, much of the claim language is not mapped to U.S. Patent No. 12,177,061. Specifically, the Office Action does not map the claim language "receive a request to register information at a service layer, the information configured to define a resource type comprising one or more resource attributes, wherein the request comprises a resource definition for defining the resource type; integrate the information into the service layer; and expose the information for discovery by other apparatuses configured to connect to the network" to the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,061 (see Office Action at pp. 4 and 5). Therefore, the Office Action has not shown that claims 1-16 are obvious over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,061,” the Examiner notes that although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The Claims 1 – 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,061 fully discloses the subject matter claimed in the instant application. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced published patent claiming common subject matter. The Examiner notes that the limitations, “receive a request to register information (i.e. request to register information)”, “request comprises a resource definition (i.e. custom defined resource)”, and “expose the information for discovery (i.e. exposing the information for discovery)” are clearly taught by the Claims 1 – 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,061. While the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined application claims are 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). The applicant is strongly encouraged to timely file a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) that may be used to overcome the 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HASSAN ABDUR-RAHMAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-6574. The examiner can normally be reached TEAPP - (M-Sa) 9/30/17-9/30/18, 6am-10pm IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/H. A. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights