DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 19/029,440, filed 17 January 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12-14, 20-23, 28, 31, 33, 37 and 38. of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,437. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
First, it is useful to map the corresponding claims from the reference patent to the present application. Claim 1 of this application maps to claim 1 of the reference patent, then 2-2, 3-3, 4-(4-6) (meaning that claim 4 of the present application combines the limitations of claims 4-6 of the reference patent), 5-8, 6-9, 7-12, 8-13, 9-14, 10-20, 11-21, 12-22, 13-23, 14-28, 15-31, 16-33, 17-37, 18-38, 19-20 and 20-21.
Second, here is a comparison of claim 1 of the reference patent with claim 1 of the present application, one limitation at a time, with the limitations of the reference patent (“RP”) first, followed by the limitations of this application (“App”). Language in the claim of the reference patent but not in the present application is boldface. (There is no language in the claim of the present application not also present in the claim of the reference patent).
RP: A method for interfacing heterogenous computing networks to accomplish a cross-network transaction in a system consisting of multiple networks, the method comprising:
App: A method for a cross-network transaction, the method comprising:
RP: receiving information proposing a transaction that spans at least two networks and has a source node and a destination node;
App: receiving information proposing a transaction that spans at least two networks and has a source node and a destination node;
RP: traversing a graph structure, the graph structure including transaction nodes within transfer networks and bridges that span networks and being created by a multi- agent system that crawls the networks to identify a path between the source node and the destination node using nodes and bridges, wherein, each nodes in the graph structure exists on a network and each have an associated set of attribute variables, the attribute variables specifying supported tokens, and a bridge path defined by two nodes spanning two logical networks, the bridge path having attribute variables representing transmission characteristics wherein the source node and the destination node are also connected via one or more out of band network paths which are separate from the bridge path ;
App: traversing a graph structure, the graph structure including transaction nodes within transfer networks and bridges that span networks, wherein, each node in the graph structure exists on a network and each have an associated set of attribute variables, and a bridge path, the bridge path having attribute variables representing transmission characteristics, wherein the source node and the destination node are also connected via one or more out of band network paths which are separate from the bridge path;
RP: generating transaction routing information specifying a set of sub-transactions for executing the transaction based on the graph structure, the information including the anticipated cost and time of the transaction if the route is used;
App: generating transaction routing information specifying a set of sub-transactions for executing the transaction based on the graph structure;
RP: controlling execution of the set of sub-transactions using a manager that executes and controls the sequencing of execution of the sub-transactions across heterogeneous networks, ensures and records successful execution of the full chain, and executes rollback if the transaction fails.
App: controlling execution of the set of sub-transactions using a manager that executes and controls the sequencing of execution of the sub-transactions, ensures and records successful execution of the full chain, and executes rollback if the transaction fails.
As can be seen from the above, the claim of the present application is broader than the claim of the reference patent but otherwise identical, such that one infringing the claim of the reference patent must necessarily also infringe the claim of the present application.
The other independent claims map in nearly identical fashion. The dependent claims are either word-for-word identical or patentably indistinct, except for present claim 4, which is simply a combination of claims 4-6 of the reference patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In each independent claim, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the full chain”.
Conclusion
As no rejection is made herein under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103, a brief review of the state of the art at the relevant time (the present claims have priority to April 2019) is in order. Poray et al. (WIPO Publication No. 2018/027085) disclose a system for processing an insurance claim. [abstract] It may route a “transaction request” to an “appropriate data source”, [0049] and produce “reports that include bar graphs and pie charts”. [0106] But nothing in Poray’s disclosure has anything at all to do with traversing a graph.
Harper et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0065498) disclose a distributed transaction system [title] that provides for “query routing” at the “subtransaction” level, [0099] and provides for communication among a plurality of computers. [Sheet 1, Fig. 1]
Moerk et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0234416) disclose a system for shared protocol authentication. [title] It may “traverse a graph” representing “configuration specifications” for “service providers”. [0058; Sheet 2, Fig. 2] Nodes on a graph may have a “variety of attributes” such as “user names for user accounts”. [0077] The edges may specify the actual accounts. [0079] But neither Moerk nor the other references, alone or if combined, teach or suggest every limitation of the claims of the present invention, in particular the manner in which the graph traversal is used to complete or roll back a transaction, combined with the other presently claimed limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights