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
Double Patenting
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,353. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are broader and transparently found in the U.S. Patent 11,941,353 with obvious wording variations. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. Also, omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPA 184 (1963).
U.S. Patent Application 18/962,821
US Patent 11,941,353
1. A computer-implemented method for generating forms using data-reuse computing architecture, wherein the data-reuse computing architecture comprises a master data object storing information that is reused for generating forms of multiple types, the method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method for generating data layouts using data-reuse computing architecture, wherein the data-reuse computing architecture comprises a master data object storing information that is reused for generating data layouts of multiple types, the method comprising:
storing, with one or more processors, first form data as a master data object in a version-based data storage, the first form data including information related to a user associated with forms of one or more types, the first form data being a portion of information comprises in the forms, wherein the version-based data storage is configured to store the master data object with a version identifier indicative of a version of the master data object, wherein the version-based data storage is configured to store a copy of an updated master data object with a different version identifier in response to updating of the first form data;
storing, with one or more processors, a first dataset as a master data object in a version-based data storage, the first dataset including information related to a user associated with data layouts of one or more types, the first dataset being a portion of information comprised in the data layouts, wherein the version-based data storage is configured to store the master data object with a version identifier indicative of a version of the master data object, wherein the version-based data storage is configured to store a copy of an updated master data object with a different version identifier in response to updating of the first dataset;
receiving, with the one or more processors, a first form creation request for generation of a first form of a first type and one or more subtypes of the first type, the first form creation request including a second form data that comprises information specific to the one or more subtypes of the first type, the second form data being a portion of the first form; and
receiving, with the one or more processors, a first data layout creation request for generation of a first data layout of a first type and one or more subtypes of the first type, the first data layout creation request including a second dataset that comprises information specific to the one or more subtypes of the first type, the second dataset being a portion of the first data layout; and
in response to receiving the first form creation request, generating, with one or more processors, the first form, wherein generating the first form includes:
verifying with the version-based data storage, an availability of the first form data for the first type in the master data object;
in response to receiving the first data layout creation request, generating, with one or more processors, the first data layout, wherein generating the first data layout includes:
verifying, with the version-based data storage, an availability of the first dataset for the first type in the master data object,
in response to receiving a confirmation of the availability from the master data object, obtaining the first form data for the first type from the maser data object, and
in response to receiving a confirmation of the availability from the master data object, obtaining the first dataset for the first type from the master data object, and
integrating the first form data with the second form data to generate the first form.
integrating the first dataset with the second dataset to generate the first data layout.
The Examiner also notes that claims 2-20 of the ‘821 patent application respectively corresponds to claims 2-20 of the ‘353 Patent, respectively.
3. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,164,866. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are broader and transparently found in the U.S. Patent 12,164,866 with obvious wording variations. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. Also, omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPA 184 (1963).
U.S. Patent Application 18/962,821
US Patent 12,164,866
1. A computer-implemented method for generating forms using data-reuse computing architecture, wherein the data-reuse computing architecture comprises a master data object storing information that is reused for generating forms of multiple types, the method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method for generating data layouts using data-reuse computing architecture, wherein the data-reuse computing architecture comprises a master data object storing information that is reused for generating data layouts of multiple types, the method comprising:
storing, with one or more processors, first form data as a master data object in a version-based data storage, the first form data including information related to a user associated with forms of one or more types, the first form data being a portion of information comprises in the forms, wherein the version-based data storage is configured to store the master data object with a version identifier indicative of a version of the master data object, wherein the version-based data storage is configured to store a copy of an updated master data object with a different version identifier in response to updating of the first form data;
storing, with one or more processors, a first dataset as a master data object in a version-based data storage, the first dataset including information related to a user associated with data layouts of one or more types;
receiving, with the one or more processors, a first form creation request for generation of a first form of a first type and one or more subtypes of the first type, the first form creation request including a second form data that comprises information specific to the one or more subtypes of the first type, the second form data being a portion of the first form; and
receiving, with the one or more processors, a first data layout creation request for generation of a first data layout of a first type and one or more subtypes of the first type, the first data layout creation request including a second dataset that comprises information specific to the one or more subtypes of the first type, the second dataset being a portion of the first data layout; and
in response to receiving the first form creation request, generating, with one or more processors, the first form, wherein generating the first form includes:
verifying with the version-based data storage, an availability of the first form data for the first type in the master data object;
in response to receiving the first data layout creation request, generating, with one or more processors, the first data layout, wherein generating the first data layout includes:
in response to receiving a confirmation of the availability from the master data object, obtaining the first form data for the first type from the maser data object, and
obtaining the first dataset for the first type from the master data object, and
integrating the first form data with the second form data to generate the first form.
integrating the first dataset with the second dataset to generate the first data layout.
The Examiner also notes that claims 2-20 of the ‘821 patent application respectively corresponds to claims 2-20 of the ‘866 Patent, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection(s), set forth in this Office action.
5. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Portnoy et al. (US Patent 7,644,351) teaches systems and method for data collection and processing that includes a forms processing subsystem including designer and a form processing and workflow module, and a client subsystem including a form submission manager and a client data store.
Watanabe (2015/0248392) teaches cloud service for hospital from auto filing system. Techniques are provided for acquiring form document data representing a form document; parsing the form document data of the form document to extract one or more data information components; identifying a database that stores one or more text strings in association with one data text labels; and generating filled form document data of a filled form document.
As to claims 1, 19, and 20, prior arts of record fail to teach, or render obvious, alone or in combination a computer implemented method and system for generating forms using data-reuse computing architecture wherein the data-reuse computing architecture comprises a master data object storing information that is reused for generating forms of multiple types, and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions when executed by one or more processors comprises a master data object storing information that is reused for generating data layouts of multiples types comprising the claimed components, relationships, and functionalities as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-3:30PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. 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.
/QUYNH H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights