DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to applicant’s claims filed 12/2/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. There is no claim to foreign priority.
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 .
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 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,158,908 (hereinafter, ‘908). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 1 and 20 (see ‘908, claim 20 with respect to the computer-implemented method, rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein the system is deemed to embody the method), ‘908 teaches a system for systems engineering using an ontological framework, the system comprising (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation):
at least one memory configured to store computer-readable instructions (ibid); and
at least one processor configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to perform operations, wherein the operations include (ibid):
receive, via a data connector to an engineering software, engineering information relating to at least a first system model entity, wherein (ibid):
the first system model entity is a part of a graphically displayed multiple-entity system model of a hardware system (ibid),
the graphically displayed multiple-entity system model comprising at least the first system model entity and a second system model entity (ibid),
the first system model entity comprising information relating to engineering requirements of a first subsystem of the hardware system (ibid),
the second system model entity comprising information relating to engineering requirements of a second subsystem of the hardware system (ibid), and
a first one of the first subsystem and the second subsystem is a subsystem of a second one of the first subsystem and the second subsystem (ibid);
process, using a language model, the engineering information to output entity information, wherein the entity information includes one or more data attributes related to the first system model entity (ibid);
query an ontological framework using the entity information, wherein querying the ontological framework determines relationship information related to a relationship between the first subsystem of the hardware system represented by the first system model entity and the second subsystem of the hardware system represented by the second system model entity (ibid);
based on the relationship information determined using the ontological framework (ibid), output an indicator related to two or more (ibid-his detected conflict as an indicator that is output based on detection/identification): (i) system requirements; (ii) system model entities; and/or (iii) combinations of (i) and (ii), including the first system model entity for the first subsystem and the second system model entity for the second subsystem (ibid).
‘908 further teaches the engineering software is configured to enable a user to input, modify, validate, test or document the engineering information, and specifically, to detect a conflict in the graphically displayed multiple-entity system model. However, where an omission on a device or apparatus is no more than the “Omission of an Element and Its Function, where the Function of the Element Is Not Desired or Required” the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex parte Wu , 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the omission one of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the omission of the above element is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting the same resultant function.
Regarding claims 2-19, see ‘908, claims 2-19, corresponding and similar limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected as seen above, but would be allowable based on a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d), as discussed above, in the Double Patenting rejection of claims 1-20.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The instant application is deemed to be directed to a non-obvious
improvement over the disclosure of Pavlini et al. (Pavlini, US 2021/0149980),
Morris et al. (Morris, US 2024/0004361), Otieno et al. (Otieno, US 2023/0229944), Ye (US 2023/035086), O'Dierno et al. (O'Dierno, US 2023/0152764), Palrecha (US 2018/0373781) and Steingrimsson et al. (Steingrimsson, US 2023/0028912).
Pavlini teaches Pavlini teaches systems and method for investigating relationships among entities.
Morris teaches receiving, via a data connector to an engineering software, engineering information, wherein the engineering information includes data for
at least one entity of a plurality of entities in a structured, unstructured, or semi-
structured format, an engineering project, and querying an ontological
framework, detecting a conflict between two or more (i) system requirements; (ii)
entities; and and/or combinations of (i) and (ii).
Otieno teaches, in requirement data, government policies, ontology entities
and relationships, wherein a NLP model comprises a transformer-based deep
neural network model, for analyzing an input and determining intent, context and
attributes, enabling refinement of the ontology.
O'Dierno teaches a graphical displayed multi-entity system, comprising
subsystems and relationships therein, for building a data platform.
Steingrimsson teaches, wherein a system further comprises a model based
systems engineering service (MBSE service), the MBSE service is configured to
graphically represent at least a subset of the plurality of entities for the project
object from a model-based systems-engineering model, and the operations
further include modifying, based on the relationship information dataset, the
model-based systems-engineering model that represents a state of the project
object.
None of the above references teach alone or in obvious combination:
Regarding claim 1, “a system for systems engineering using an ontological framework, the system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store computer-readable instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to perform operations, wherein the operations include:
receive, via a data connector to an engineering software, engineering information relating to at least a first system model entity, wherein:
the first system model entity is a part of a graphically displayed multiple-entity system model of a hardware system,
the graphically displayed multiple-entity system model comprising at least the first system model entity and a second system model entity,
the first system model entity comprising information relating to engineering requirements of a first subsystem of the hardware system,
the second system model entity comprising information relating to engineering requirements of a second subsystem of the hardware system, and
a first one of the first subsystem and the second subsystem is a subsystem of a second one of the first subsystem and the second subsystem;
process, using a language model, the engineering information to output entity information, wherein the entity information includes one or more data attributes related to the first system model entity;
query an ontological framework using the entity information, wherein querying the ontological framework determines relationship information related to a relationship between the first subsystem of the hardware system represented by the first system model entity and the second subsystem of the hardware system represented by the second system model entity;
based on the relationship information determined using the ontological framework (ibid), output an indicator related to two or more: (i) system requirements; (ii) system model entities; and/or (iii) combinations of (i) and (ii), including the first system model entity for the first subsystem and the second system model entity for the second subsystem.”
Independent claim 20 sets forth similar limitations as independent claim 1, and is thus would be allowed based on similar reasons and rationale.
Dependent claims 2-19 would be allowed, as they depend from their respective allowed parent claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAMONT M SPOONER whose telephone number is (571)272-7613. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached on (571)272-5551. 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.
/LAMONT M SPOONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
6/10/2026
Prosecution Insights