DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/999,850 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application, there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
INFORMATION CONCERNING DRAWINGS
Drawings
The applicant's drawings submitted 12/23/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REFERENCES CITED BY APPLICANT
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. ' 609 (C), the applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement, dated 1/12/2026, is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. ' 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
EXAMINER NOTE
Claim 1 contains the limitation, “monitoring usage of the computer program; and in response to a determination that an amount of time that has elapsed since a most recent usage of the computer program exceeds a threshold, loading the data into a second cache that is used for updating the computer program and that is erased when the computer program is exited.”
This limitation is not found in or rendered obvious by the claims of related patent US 11,829,757. Therefore, no double patenting rejection has been made in view of this patent. Independent claims 11 and 16 contain a similar limitation, and no double patenting rejection has been made for these claims for similar reasons. The examiner notes a double patenting rejection has been made in view of related patent US 12,217,058 as shown below.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12,217,058. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
US 12,217,058
1. A method performed by a computer program that offers a feature, availability of which is configured using a feature flag, and that is executing on a computing device, the method comprising:
loading data that is associated with the feature flag in a first cache that is configured to persist in a memory of the computing device when the computer program is exited;
monitoring usage of the computer program; and in response to a determination that an amount of time that has elapsed since a most recent usage of the computer program exceeds a threshold,
loading the data into a second cache that is used for updating the computer program and that is erased when the computer program is exited.
1. A method comprising: receiving, by an application on a computing device, feature flag data for a feature flag of the application, wherein the feature flag is associated with an application functionality of the application;
storing the feature flag data in a first cache for the application on the computing device, wherein the first cache persists in a memory of the computing device after exiting the application;
detecting a current usage of the application; determining that a first amount of time has elapsed between the current usage of the application and a previous usage of the application, wherein the first amount of time meets or exceeds a threshold amount of time designated for loading or updating the feature flag for the application functionality; and determining, based on the current usage and the first amount of time, whether to load or update the feature flag using the feature flag data and a second cache for the application, wherein the second cache is erased after exiting the application.
The rejection has been made because claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of US 12,217,058. See MPEP 802(II)(B)(2).
The other independent claims correspond as follows:
Instant Application
US 12,217,058
Claim 11
Claim 9
Claim 16
Claim 4
Further, the dependent claims of both cases contain substantially similar limitations.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim 16 is objected to for reciting “A method for updating functionality of a computer program that is executable by a computing device using a multi-layer cache to lessen data processing flow disruption, the method:” which is believed to mean “A method for updating functionality of a computer program that is executable by a 16. computing device using a multi-layer cache to lessen data processing flow disruption, the method comprising:” Appropriate correction is required.
STATEMENTS OF REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In independent claims 1, 10, and 16 the following features taken in combination with the remaining limitations of the independent claims are not found in and/or are not obvious in view of the closest prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 1, Verma et al (US 2023/0067057) teaches A method performed by a computer program that offers a feature, availability of which is configured using a feature flag, and that is executing on a computing device, the method comprising:
loading data that is associated with the feature flag in a first cache that is configured to persist in a memory of the computing device when the computer program is exited (shown as the deployed upgrade 1XX of Fig .2B, and if the memory is non-volatile as described in Paragraph 0077, it will persist in the computing device after exiting the application).
However, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest:
“monitoring usage of the computer program; and in response to a determination that an amount of time that has elapsed since a most recent usage of the computer program exceeds a threshold, loading the data into a second cache that is used for updating the computer program and that is erased when the computer program is exited.”
Reasons for allowance are similar for claims 11 and 16.
Therefore, the independent claims contain allowable subject matter. The examiner notes a double patenting rejection and claim rejection are outstanding as noted above.
RELEVANT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant's art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references include:
Carpenter et al (US 2022/0129351) teaches Feature Toggle Management With Application Behavior Point-In-Time Restoration Using Event Sourcing.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. ' 707.07(i):
SUBJECT MATTER CONSIDERED ALLOWABLE
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter, though a double patenting rejection remains outstanding as noted above.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Giardino whose telephone number is (571) 270-3565 and can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Jared Rutz can be reached on 571-272-. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/MARK A GIARDINO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135