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 .
Compact Prosecution
In an attempt to compact prosecution due to the rejected Terminal Disclaimer filed on July 12, 2026, the Examiner left a voicemail for the Applicant’s Representative, Kermit Lopez on July 21, 2026 in inquire about re-filling of the terminal disclaimer along with a power of attorney. No response was received from the Applicant’s Representative.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to claim 18 have been fully considered and has overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (d) as being an improper dependent claim. The previous grounds of the rejection have been withdrawn.
The terminal disclaimers filed have not been approved (see reasons in section below), the obvious-type double patenting rejections remain applied to the instant claims.
Claims 1-19 and 21 have been examined.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on July 12, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patents 12,218,947; 11,757,897; 10,951,626; and 10,581,869 has been reviewed and is NOT accepted.
This application was filed on or after September 16, 2012. The person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant, the patentee or an attorney or agent of record. See 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b). It is suggested to file a power of attorney that gives the power to the attorney who is signing the terminal disclaimers, along with another copy of the terminal disclaimers that is signed by the Applicant.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,218,947. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the earlier filed patented claims in that the claims of the ‘947 patent contain all of the limitations of the instant application. Claims 1-19 and 21 are not patentably distinct from the earlier filed ‘947 patented claims, and as such, is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1 and 2 of the instant application correspond to claims 1 and 2 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of the ‘947 patent;
Claims 11, 14, and 21 of the instant application correspond to claims 11 and 14 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 15 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 16 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 17 of the ‘947 patent;
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 18 of the ‘947 patent; and
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 19 of the ‘947 patent.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,757,897. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the earlier filed patented claims in that the claims of the ‘897 patent contain all of the limitations of the instant application. Claims 1-19 and 21 are not patentably distinct from the earlier filed ‘897 patented claims, and as such, is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1 and 2 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1 and 2 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of the ‘897 patent;
Claims 11, 14, and 21 of the instant application correspond to claims 11 and 14 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 15 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 16 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 17 of the ‘897 patent;
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 18 of the ‘897 patent; and
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 19 of the ‘897 patent.
Claims 1-17 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,951,626. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the earlier filed patented claims in that the claims of the ‘626 patent contain all of the limitations of the instant application. Claims 1-17 and 21 are not patentably distinct from the earlier filed ‘626 patented claims, and as such, is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1 and 2 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1 and 2 of the ‘626 patent;
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of the ‘626 patent;
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of the ‘626 patent;
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the ‘626 patent;
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the ‘626 patent;
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of the ‘626 patent;
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of the ‘626 patent;
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of the ‘626 patent;
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of the ‘626 patent;
Claims 11, 14, and 21 of the instant application correspond to claims 11 and 14 of the ‘626 patent;
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of the ‘626 patent;
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of the ‘626 patent;
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 15 of the ‘626 patent;
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 16 of the ‘626 patent; and
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 17 of the ‘626 patent.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-14, 19 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-13, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,581,869. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the earlier filed patented claims in that the claims of the ‘869 patent contain all of the limitations of the instant application. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-14, and 19 are not patentably distinct from the earlier filed ‘869 patented claims, and as such, is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1 and 2 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1 and 2 of the ‘869 patent;
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of the ‘869 patent;
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of the ‘869 patent;
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the ‘869 patent;
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the ‘869 patent;
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of the ‘869 patent;
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of the ‘869 patent;
Claims 11 and 21 of the instant application corresponds to claims 10 and 13 of the ‘869 patent;
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of the ‘869 patent;
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of the ‘869 patent;
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of the ‘869 patent; and
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 19 of the ‘869 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 and 21 would be allowable upon filing of terminal disclaimers to overcome the obvious type double patenting rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims would be allowable over the prior art of record as indicated in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 16, 2026, and upon the submission of proper terminal disclaimers to overcome the obvious-type double patenting rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The relevant art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liang, U.S. Patent 11,170,092 is relied upon for disclosing of document authentication certification using information stored on a distributed ledger such as a blockchain. A distributed ledger may securely store document data describing the document. Use of a distributed ledger may provide an immutable, readily auditable record of the history of the document. Each user participating in the system may be assigned a unique identifier to be used for conducting transactions on the distributed ledger network. A user may also be provided with a digital security token such as a cryptographic key that is useable to authenticate the user and enable access to the document data stored on the distributed ledger(s), see abstract.
Grover et al, US 2025/0217805 is relied upon for disclosing of a blockchain is created and the blockchain comprises an authentication block that defines one or more authentication credentials that are required to be provided by an endorser to add a first type of transaction block to the blockchain. For example, a user may be required to provide a username/password to add a smart contract transaction block to the blockchain. A request to add the first type of transaction block to the blockchain is received. The first type of transaction block is added to the blockchain. Adding the first type of transaction block to the blockchain is based on the endorser providing the one or more authentication credentials, see abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER REVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-3794. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am - 3:00pm.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A REVAK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights