CTNF 19/045,171 CTNF 84817 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-33 AIA 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). Initially it should be noted that this application is a continuation of Application Number 18/164,283, filed February 3, 2023, now US Patent 12,242,330, having the same Assignee and inventor. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 3, 12, 14, and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 7, 12, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,330 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following: For claims 1 and 3, U.S. 12,242,330 claim 7 anticipates instant claims 1and 3 as demonstrated by the following table: Instant Application U.S. 12,242,330 comments 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: same identifying an association between an alarm and a first capability, Same as (1) wherein the first capability corresponds to a functionality associated with a first service; same as (2) monitoring the alarm; determining that the alarm is in a triggered state based on the monitoring; Same as (3) responsive to determining that an alarm is in a triggered state, responsive to determining that the alarm is in a triggered state, same changing a state of a capability changing a state of the first capability same associated with the alarm Same as (1) from a healthy state to an unhealthy state, from a healthy state to an unhealthy state; same and responsive to changing the state of the first capability from the healthy state to the unhealthy state: determining that a flock for a second service is dependent on the first capability, and delaying a release of the flock for the second service. 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to changing the state of the first capability to unhealthy: wherein the capability corresponds to a functionality of a first service; Same as (2) determining one or more dependent capabilities that are dependent upon the capability determining one or more dependent capabilities that are dependent upon the first capability same whose state is changed from healthy to unhealthy; and changing the state of each of the one or more dependent capabilities to unhealthy. whose state is changed from healthy to unhealthy; and changing the state of each of the one or more dependent capabilities to unhealthy. same 3. The method of claim 1, wherein changing the state of the capability comprises: identifying an association between the alarm and the capability; monitoring the alarm; and determining that the alarm is in the triggered state based on the monitoring. Same as (3) For claims 12 and 14, the claims are anticipated by claim 12 of the patent for similar reasons. For claims 16 and 17, the claims are anticipated by claim 14 of the patent for similar reasons . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claims 1, 12, and 16, Step 2A prong 1: The claims are considered an exception because they recite concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or using pen and paper, and they do not necessarily require generic or any computer components to be completed. The claims recite computer components ( computing, service, system, memory, and processors ) that execute the operations/steps performed ( determining and changing a state ), however that does not change the fact that the operations/steps can still be performed in the mind only, and that the computer components are not necessary. The operations basically amount to observing a system with multiple functionalities in an alarm state which means the system is not in full health, and concluding that otherdependent functionalities are also affected due to the alarm. Step 2A prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements beyond the judicial exception which can be analyzed using the that will integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the objects of the determining and evaluating operations are not sufficiently complex and/or laborious that would mandate the use of a computing components. Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements (activities well-understood, routine, and conventional) beyond the judicial exception which can be analyzed using the Berkheimer memo. For claims 2-11, 13-15, and 17-20, the claim further recite operations that can be performed in the mind, such as associating resources, services, and alarms, monitoring alarms, determining, delaying operations because of the alarm, communicating the alarm (on paper) , and observing a data center for capabilities. (Step 2A prongs 1-2). The claim also recites configurations and settings. Officially note that these are well-understood, routine, and conventional (Step 2B). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Angus (US 2008/0230980 A1) . For claim 1, Angus teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: responsive to determining that an alarm is in a triggered state, changing a state of a capability associated with the alarm from a healthy state to an unhealthy state (see figure 1, paragraphs [0038-0040]: bunch processing not functioning triggers alarm to customers that ATM is in reduced functionality; view reduced functionality as said unhealthy state) , wherein the capability corresponds to a functionality of a first service (view bunch processing as said first service) ; determining one or more dependent capabilities that are dependent upon the capability whose state is changed from healthy to unhealthy; and changing the state of each of the one or more dependent capabilities to unhealthy (see locations pointed to above and figure 2: all operations that don’t require bunch are operational as showed in figure 2; ones that require bunch will not operate, i.e. unhealthy/reduced functionality) For claim 2, Angus teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the functionality associated with the first service corresponds to a resource associated with the first service (see locations pointed to above:the resource is the bunch). For claim 3, Angus teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches changing the state of the capability comprises: identifying an association between the alarm and the capability; monitoring the alarm; and determining that the alarm is in the triggered state based on the monitoring (ATM is aware that bunch not available and displays alarm accordingly; this suggests monitoring and determining). For claim 4, Angus teaches the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons above and further teaches the association between the alarm and the capability is declared in a flock configuration for the first service, the flock configuration identifying a set of resources associated with the first service (see [0032], [0044]: view collection of all subsystems in ATM as said flock; entire system configuration is flock configuration and the options of operating in reduced mode is programmed/configured in the ATM). For claim 5, Angus teaches the limitations of claim 4 for the reasons above and further teaches the flock configuration identifies one or more parameters related to the first service and a configuration setting for at least one resource related to the first service (view figures 2-2 flowcharts as components they pertain to as said parameters; flowchart is a program and configuration). For claim 6, Angus teaches the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons above and further teaches determining that a release of a flock for a second service has failed; determining that the flock is dependent on the capability; and outputting a message indicating the alarm and the unhealthy state of the capability as a reason for failure of the release of the flock for the second service (this is paraphrasing of limitations of claim 1). For claim 7, Angus teaches the limitations of claim 6 for the reasons above and further teaches delaying a release of the flock based on changing the state of the capability from healthy to unhealthy (see [0006], [0038]: view “until” as said full operation delayed until problem taken cared of). For claim 8, Angus teaches the limitations of claim 6 for the reasons above and further teaches retrying the release of the flock for the second service upon determining that the state of the capability is healthy (see [0006], [0037],[0053], ATM have sensors for jam detection: jam cleared or repaired, operation resumes). For claim 9, Angus teaches the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons above and further teaches the monitoring is performed by a telemetry service (see [0006], [0037],[0053]: view sensors and detecting as said telemetry). For claim 10, Angus teaches the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons above and further teaches creating an association between the alarm and a second capability, the second capability corresponding to a functionality associated with a second service, wherein the second service is different from the first service (see [004]: sometimes any service is not available (not just bunch processing jammed): this can happen to any ATM). For claim 11, Angus teaches the limitations of claim 4 for the reasons above and further teaches: identifying a set of one or more capabilities published in a data center that are marked as healthy and that are associated with the alarm; and changing the state of each capability in the set of one or more capabilities from a healthy to unhealthy (ATMs will not operate if there is no network connection to the bank to verify pins and balances and for updates; this information always comes from a datacenter/server). For claims 12-15, the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 1-3 and 6 respectively. Claims 12-15 are a method. For claims 16-20, the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 1 and 3-6 respectively. Claims 16-20 are a system. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm. 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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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. /YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/045,171 Page 2 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/045,171 Page 3 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/045,171 Page 4 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/045,171 Page 5 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/045,171 Page 6 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/045,171 Page 7 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/045,171 Page 8 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/045,171 Page 9 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/045,171 Page 10 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/045,171 Page 11 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/045,171 Page 12 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/045,171 Page 13 Art Unit: 2114
Prosecution Insights