Non-Final Office 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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in para. [0001], the specification recites:This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/214,330, filed June 26, 2023, entitled “System and Method for Logically Irreducible Market Information Data Objects Describing Two or More Causally Linked Market Events,” the contents of which are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entirety for all purposes.
The title of Application 18/214,330 is incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,216,555 B2 (hereinafter ‘555) in view of the well-known practice of implementing a method with a computing system.
Referring to claim 2, claim 1 of ‘555 discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 except for a computing system for controlling applications at a data center, DC, the applications being controllable by one or more computing entities external to the DC, the computing system including: a memory; and at least one processor. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known in the art of computer systems to implement a method with a computing system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing of the invention to implement the method of claim 1 of ‘555 with a computing system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because using an apparatus, device, computer system, or software to perform a method puts into practice the method and gives it a real world application.
Claims 3-9 are anticipated by claims 2-8 of ‘555.
Claims 10-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,216,555 B2 (hereinafter ‘555) in view of the well-known practice of implementing a method with a computer readable medium including instructions that are executed by a processor to perform the method.
Referring to claim 10, claim 9 of ‘555 discloses:
the applications being controllable by one or more computing entities external to the DC (the applications being controllable by one or more computing entities external to the DC)
obtaining an indication that applications at the DC are no longer controllable by the one or more computing entities external to the DC (determines, on the basis of an indication that the applications at the DC are no longer controllable by the one or more entities external to the DC (the indication would be obtained before making a determination))
determining, based on the indication, that the applications at the DC are to operate in a disaster recovery mode; and in response to the determination (a computing system that determines, on the basis of an indication that the applications at the DC are no longer controllable by the one or more entities external to the DC, that the applications at the DC are to operate in a disaster recovery mode)
causing an indication that the applications at the DC are to operate in a disaster recovery mode to be communicated to one or more of the applications at the DC that are already executing at the DC when the determination is made (at each of one or more of the applications at the DC that start to execute at the DC after the determination is made: obtaining the indication, caused to be communicated by the computing system of the DC, that the applications at the DC are to operate in the disaster recovery mode)
causing the indication that the applications at the DC are to operate in the disaster recovery mode to be communicated to one or more of the applications at the DC that start to execute at the DC after the determination is made (at each of one or more of the applications at the DC that start to execute at the DC after the determination is made: obtaining the indication, caused to be communicated by the computing system of the DC, that the applications at the DC are to operate in the disaster recovery mode; and in response to obtaining the indication, operating the application in a disaster recovery mode).
Claim 9 of ‘555 does not explicitly disclose a tangible computer readable medium including instructions which, when executed, cause at least one processor of a computing system to perform functions. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known in the art of computer systems to implement a method with a computer program. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing of the invention to implement the method of claim 9 of ‘555 with a computer program. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because using an apparatus, device, computer system, or software to perform a method puts into practice the method and gives it a real world application.
Claims 11-16 are anticipated by claims 10-15 of ‘555.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 would be allowable if the non-statutory double patenting rejection was overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to claim 2, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations, a computing system for controlling applications at a data center, DC, the applications being controllable by one or more computing entities external to the DC, the computing system including: a memory; and at least one processor configured to: obtain an indication that the applications at the DC are no longer controllable by the one or more computing entities external to the DC; determine, based on the indication, that the applications at the DC are to operate in a disaster recovery mode; and in response to the determination: cause an indication that the applications at the DC are to operate in the disaster recovery mode to be communicated to one or more of the applications at the DC that are already executing at the DC when the determination is made.
With respect to claim 10, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations, a tangible computer readable medium including instructions which, when executed, cause at least one processor of a computing system to perform functions, the computing system being for controlling applications at a data center, DC, the applications being controllable by one or more computing entities external to the DC, the functions including at least: in response to the determination that the applications at the DC are to operate in a disaster recovery mode: causing an indication that the applications at the DC are to operate in a disaster recovery mode to be communicated to one or more of the applications at the DC that are already executing at the DC when the determination is made; and causing the indication that the applications at the DC are to operate in the disaster recovery mode to be communicated to one or more of the applications at the DC that start to execute at the DC after the determination is made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MASKULINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/MICHAEL MASKULINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113