DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 31-33 are currently pending.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 31 – 33 are new.
Claims 2 – 30 are cancelled.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/13/2025 is 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 and 31-33 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,204,910. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed towards the same inventive subject matter.
Comparing claim 1 of the instant application to claim 1 of the ‘910 patent, both describe a data processing system for accessing encoded digital data, the data processing system comprising: an accessor pipeline generator comprising: an accessor functional unit selector configured to select one or more platform-independent accessor functional units from a plurality of platform-independent accessor functional units each configured to provide at least one function for accessing the encoded digital data; an accessor functional unit connector configured to connect selected platform-independent accessor functional units into an accessor pipeline; and a content renderer configured to generate a user interface through which data accessed with an accessor pipeline generated by the accessor pipeline generator can be interacted with by a user. Claim 1 of the instant application includes a knowledge base accessible to the accessor functional unit selector, wherein the knowledge base influences the selection of one or more functional units by the accessor functional unit selector, and wherein the knowledge base contains information comprising an indication of one or more desired features an accessor pipeline generated by the accessor pipeline generator should support. We find support for this limitation in claims 6 – 8 of the ‘910 patent, which describes a functional unit library (which compares to the knowledge base of patent ‘910) comprising a plurality of accessor functional units selected from when generating the accessor pipeline, and the performance of repeated selecting, connecting and testing in an exhaustive manner through the functional unit library. The only real difference is that the instant application is that the knowledge base contains information comprising an indication of one or more desired features. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the functional unit library contains information regarding the features of the functional units, and the features of the functional units are what would be tested through the functional unit library in order to select the functional units for the accessor pipeline. In view of this, it does not appear that claim 1 of the instant application is distinctly patentable over the claims of the ‘910 patent. Dependent claims 31 and 32 are rejected for at least their dependence upon rejected independent claim 1 above.
Comparing claim 33 of the instant application to claim 1 of the ‘910 patent, both describe A data processing system for accessing encoded digital data, the data processing system comprising: an accessor pipeline generator comprising: an accessor functional unit selector configured to select one or more platform-independent accessor functional units from a plurality of platform-independent accessor functional units each configured to provide at least one function for accessing the encoded digital data; an accessor functional unit connector configured to connect selected platform-independent accessor functional units into an accessor pipeline; and a content renderer configured to generate a user interface through which data accessed with a generated accessor pipeline can be interacted with by a user. Claim 1 of the instant application includes an accessor functional unit and pipeline tester; and a reference accessor; wherein the accessor functional unit and pipeline tester comprises a comparator and is configured to perform comparisons of the output of the reference accessor with the output of a currently generated accessor pipeline. Support for this functionality can be found in claims 3 and 4 or the ’910 patent which depend from claim 1, which describe that the accessor pipeline generator comprises an accessor functional unit and a pipeline tester, which are configured to repeatedly select, connect and test connected sets of platform-independent functional units forming accessor pipelines. While claims 3 and 4 do not specifically describe a comparator and the use of a reference accessor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the testing being performed in claims 3 and 4 would necessarily require comparing the changed pipeline to a reference version in order to determine any differences that result from the test. As such, it does not appear that claim 33 of the instant application is patentably distinct from the claims of the ‘910 patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY K HUSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 - 3:30 EST.
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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/ZACHARY K HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181