DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered. The arguments regarding the rejection of pending claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, is withdrawn in view of MPEP 2106.04(d). See remarks on page 13-32.
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 1-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-18, 20-25, 27-29, 32-40, and 42-46 of copending Application No. 15/646,941 and 1-40 of copending Application No. 17/976,266. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The independent claim 1 contains allowable subject matter. As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record, United States Patent Application No. 9298806 to Vessenes teaches analyzing transactions in a distributed ledger. The system may identify transactions where addresses and/or groupings of addresses are co-spent together and determine whether the addresses and/or groupings of addresses should be associated with each other. Addresses may be associated with each other in a grouping of addresses and/or potential grouping of addresses because they likely belong to the same entity. The system may identify different strengths and/or confidence levels of groupings of addresses and/or potential groupings of addresses. Strong groupings, relatively strong potential groupings, and/or other groupings of addresses, potential groupings of addresses, and/or groups may be grouped, associated, analyzed, and/or presented together. As such, the system may provide a comprehensive analysis of addresses associated with a given entity. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 7398237 to Agostini teaches checking whether customer orders for transactions of financial instruments conform to business logic rules. Executable rule files are created and stored in a repository. New executable rule files can be created by scripting the new business logic rules in a script file which is converted into a corresponding source code file written in a computer programming language. The source code file is compiled to create an individual executable rule file. A rule selection repository contains identification of groups of selected executable rule files. The invention determines the category of the customer order and reads, from the rule selection repository, a group of executable rule files that correspond to the identified category of the customer order. The selected executable rule files are executed to check the conformance of the customer order. Execution results are stored in a status repository for subsequent retrieval and analysis.
The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of the claim, the shared data structure including a first portion in which a set of core rules, including data validation rules used to initially operate the system, is stored and a second portion partitioned into one or more substrates for storing one or more transaction records at least one of which comprises data indicative of a previously validated rule and at least one other which comprises a validated assertion of one of the plurality of participants, wherein at least one rule of the set of core rules comprises a rule for communicating the proposed transaction record comprising data indicative of a rule to another participant of the plurality of participants via the electronic communications network and determining whether the other participant has approved of the rule, a rule for receiving the proposed transaction record comprising data indicative of a rule from another participant and determining whether to approve that rule, and a rule for validating the proposed transaction record, or a combination thereof.
Claims 2-15 are dependent on claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claim 16 is analogous to claim 1, and thus contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. Claims 17-29 are dependent on claim 16 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claim 30 is analogous to claim 1, and thus contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Davida L. King whose telephone number is (571) 272-4724. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/D.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights