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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed January 17, 2025. A preliminary amendment was also filed on January 17, 2025 to cancel claims 1-20 and add claims 21-40. Therefore, claims 21-40 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 17, 2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory obviousness 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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of patent application no. US 12,236,295 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter of demand integration between a partner service and an integrator instance. A side-by-side analysis of the first independent claim(s) of the instant application and the co-pending application(s) has been included below. The bolded portions are portions which are almost identical to one another. The non-bolded portions are related to subject matter which are obvious, and do not further define over the subject matter of one another. Therefore, the subject matter of both claim sets are not distinct from one another and yields an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Here is the following side-by-side analysis of the first independent claim in each application:
Instant Application ‘381
21. A system for on demand integration, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a customer system, a request to integrate a partner service with an integrator instance, the integrator instance being located at the customer system;
requesting a communication template from the partner service;
sending a request based on the communication template to the partner service; and
configuring the integrator instance at the customer system to receive communications from a partner service instance based on the communication template.
Patent Document No. ‘295
1. A system for on demand integration, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
receiving from a customer system a request to integrate a partner service with an integrator instance, the integrator instance being located at the customer system;
sending the received request to the partner service;
sending, for display, a user interface, to the customer system, the user interface being configured to enable at least one user selection for configuration of the integrator instance; and
configuring the integrator instance located at the customer system to receive communications from a partner service instance based on the at least one user selection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 are allowed over available prior art references and any combination of prior art references but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and Double Patenting.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The Examiner has not found any reasonable prior art(s) and/or combination of prior art(s) teach the feature of:
‘receiving, from a customer system, a request to integrate a partner service with an integrator instance, the integrator instance being located at the customer system;……and configuring the integrator instance at the customer system to receive communications from a partner service instance based on the communication template’.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER B. HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6a-2p ET.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached on 571-270-3037. 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.
/ESTHER B. HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights