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 .
Application # 19/003,980 was filed on 12/27/2024.
Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
An IDS filed on 12/27/2024 has been fully considered and entered 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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 , 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,480 (Hereinafter ‘480 patent) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each other. They contain similar subject matter as follows:
“system for detecting and mitigating network operation validation anomalies in conglomerate-application-based ecosystems, the system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the system to: identify a transmission of a first network operation from a first software application to a second software application of a set of software applications, wherein the second software application generates a second network operation as output, using the first network operation; provide the first network operation, the second network operation, and a communication map to a validation model to generate a first validation status indicating whether the second network operation is valid, wherein the communication map comprises an indication of one or more relationships between validation rules associated with software applications of the set of software applications; based on the first validation status, determine whether to process the second network operation with a target software application; and in response to determining to process the second network operation with the target software application, transmit the second network operation to a node associated with the target software application.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rommel et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2019/0212881 (hereinafter Rommel) in view of Bender et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2020/0175973 (hereinafter Bender)
With respect to claim 1, Rommel teaches system for detecting and mitigating network operation validation anomalies in conglomerate-application-based ecosystems, the system comprising:
-at least one hardware processor (Paragraph 20); and at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (Paragraph 20), cause the system to:
-identify a transmission of a first network operation (i.e. entering costs) from a first software application to a second software application of a set of software applications (Paragraph 27), wherein the second software application generates a second network operation (i.e. entering travel details to track payment details and expenses) as output (Paragraph 28-29), using the first network operation (Paragraphs 27-29);
-provide the first network operation, the second network operation, and a communication map (i.e. selection of error automatically opens entirely different application UI) to a validation model to generate a first validation status indicating whether the second network operation is valid (i.e. error, costs are required)(Paragraph 27-29) ), wherein the communication map comprises an indication of one or more relationships between validation rules associated with software applications of the set of software applications (i.e. selecting list item 316 will open entirely different application as shown in Fig. 4 which on UI 402, an error indicator is highlighted indicated that there is an error on the form. Once form or expense amount 416 is selected, another application UI is opened.)(Paragraph 27-29)
based on the first validation status (i.e. popup 312 contains header showing both an indication that all errors messages are displayed)(Paragraph 27), determine whether to process the second network operation with a target software application (i.e. after entering cost amount, then invoking the apply, the list item may be removed from list indicating that the error problem has been resolved)(Paragraph 27) ; and
in response to determining to process the second network operation with the target software application, transmit the second network operation to a node associated with the target software application (i.e. opening an entirely different application as described in Fig. 4 for form related to list item)(Paragraph 27-29).
Although Rommel teaches transmitting second network operation, but it does not explicitly teach to a different node.
Bender teaches transmitting second network operation associated with the target software application (Paragraphs 55-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Bender’s teaching in Rommel’s teaching to come up with transmitting second network operation associated with target software application. The motivation for doing so would to processing data based on support services provided by the node/system.
With respect to claim 2, Rommel and Bender teaches the system of claim 1, but Rommel further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the system to: detect a transmission of a third network operation from a third software application (i.e. another application UI 418 is opened which is the third application) to the second software application (i.e. after selecting expense amount 416), wherein the second software application generates a fourth network operation as output (i.e. error listed), using the third network operation (Paragraph 29); generate an updated communication map comprising a second indication of one or more parent-child relationships between second validation rules associated with software applications of the set of software applications (Paragraph 37-40); provide the third network operation, the fourth network operation, and the updated communication map to the validation model to generate a second validation status indicating whether the fourth network operation is valid (Paragraph 28-29); and in response to the second validation status indicating that the fourth network operation is not valid, execute a first corrective action associated with the second validation status (Paragraph 27)
With respect to claim 3, Rommel and Bender teaches the system of claim 1, but Rommel further teaches wherein the instructions for transmitting the second network operation to the node associated with the target software application cause the system to: provide the second network operation, the system state, and the communication map to a routing model to determine the target software application (Paragraph 28-30); and in response to determining the target software application, transmit the second network operation to the node of the set of nodes (Paragraphs 27-30).
Rommel does not teach determine a system state comprising one or more predicted computational resource metric values for a set of nodes of the system. Bender teaches determine a system state comprising one or more predicted computational resource metric values for a set of nodes of the system (Paragraph 110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Bender’s teaching in Rommel’s teaching to come up with predicting computational resource metric value for set of nodes of the system. The motivation for doing so would to employing predictive model can be iteratively trained using training data to provide accurate future predictive result based on the training data.
With respect to claim 4, Rommel and Bender teaches the system of claim 1, but Rommel further teaches wherein the instructions for determining whether to process the second network operation with the target software application cause the system to: provide the first network operation, the second network operation, and the communication map to the validation model to generate one or more anomaly indicators based on the validation rules (Paragraph 27-29), wherein each anomaly indicator of the one or more anomaly indicators includes an indication of an anomaly type and a corresponding priority classification indicator (Paragraph 27-28); generate the first validation status based on the one or more anomaly indicators (i.e. errors)(Paragraphs 27-29); and in response to generating the first validation status based on the one or more anomaly indicators, determine whether to process the second network operation with the target software application (Paragraphs 27-29, 37-39).
With respect to claim 5, Rommel and Bender teaches the system of claim 1, but Bender further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the system to: obtain training data comprising (i) indications of previous network operations (Paragraph 67-69)and (ii) indications of associated computational resource metric values measuring system performance associated with the previous network operations (Paragraph 69-71); and provide the training data to the validation model to train the validation model to generate validation statuses for network operations based on communication maps (Paragraph 71-72).
With respect to claim 6, Rommel and Bender teaches the system of claim 5, but Bender further teaches wherein the instructions for obtaining the training data cause the system to generate the training data including the first network operation, the second network operation, and the first validation status (Paragraph 66-71)
With respect to claim 7, Rommel and Bender teaches the system of claim 1, but Rommel further teaches wherein the instructions for generating the communication map cause the system to: generate, at a user interface associated with a user device (Fig. 3-4), a graphical representation of the communication map (Paragraph 3-4), wherein the graphical representation comprises graphical indications of the validation rules associated with the software applications of the set of software applications (Fig. 4-5)(Paragraphs 27-34)
With respect to claim 8, Rommel and Bender teaches the system of claim 1, but Rommel further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive, from the user interface associated with the user device, a rule modification request comprising (i) a selection of a graphical indication of a first validation rule of the graphical representation of the communication map (Paragraph 28-29)and (ii) an indication of a rule modification (Paragraph 28); and in response to receiving the rule modification request, modify the first validation rule according to the rule modification (Paragraphs 27-29).
With respect to claims 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 respectively, they recite similar claim limitations as claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
With respect to claim 12, Rommel and Bender teaches the method of claim 11, but Rommel further teaches wherein executing the corrective action for the first software application comprises: providing the first network operation, the second network operation, and the one or more anomaly indicators to a corrective action model to generate an indication of the corrective action in lieu of transmitting the second network operation to the first node (i.e. fixing the error)(Paragraphs 27-29); and in response to generating the indication of the corrective action, executing the corrective action (i.e. entering costs)(Paragraphs 27-30).
With respect to claim 17, Rommel and Bender teaches the method of claim 9, but Rommel further teaches wherein executing the corrective action for the first software application comprises: determining, based on the first validation status (i.e. error), a mitigation protocol indicating a modification to the first network operation (i.e. entering costs) (Paragraph 27-28); determining a first field associated with the first network operation (i.e. input/costs)(Paragraphs 27-28); determining a first value associated with the first field (i.e. costs)(Paragraph 27-28); updating the first network operation by modifying the first value (Paragraphs 27-30); providing the updated first network operation to the first software application to cause generation of an updated second network operation as output (Paragraphs 27-30); and transmitting the updated second network operation to the node (Paragraphs 27-30).
With respect to claims 18, 19, 20 respectively, they recite similar limitations as claims 1, 3, 4 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A). Ross et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2021/0120029
B). Roche et al. U.S. Patent # 8,832,640
C). Jentsch et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0174181.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAIRYA A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5809. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
DHAIRYA A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights