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 .
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of US 18/655,138 (filed on May 3, 2024 – now US Patent No. 12,248,598), which is a continuation application of US 18/457,677 (filed on Aug. 29, 2023 – now US Patent No. 12,008,133). The prosecution history and references cited in the above applications have been fully considered.
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 2-13 and 16-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 19-20 of US Patent No. 12,008,133; and claims 1-10 and 19-20 of US Patent No. 12,248,598. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-13 and 16-21 of the instant application are anticipated by claims of the reference patents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The set of constraints on atomic actions recited in both claims 14 and 15 are not fully supported. The most relevant disclosure to the limitations of claims 14 and 15 are described in [0083] of the originally filed specifications. Interpretation of the claims and in view of the specifications show that these constraints are related to the disclosed temporal constraints. Examples of temporal constraints may include [0083]:
“…start concurrently, end concurrently, start and end concurrently (e.g., simultaneity), start concurrently and end non-concurrently (e.g., partial start simultaneity), start non-concurrently and end concurrently (e.g., partial end simultaneity), start after and end before (e.g., total overlapping short), start after and end after (e.g., partial overlapping late), start before and end before (e.g., partial overlapping early), start before and end after (e.g., total overlapping long), etc. Each temporal constraint may operate on multiple actions—that is, each temporal constraint may govern a relationship between a first action and a second action. The temporal relationships may have inverses and other relationships between them. For example, if action 1 starts after and ends before action 2 (e.g., total overlapping short), then action 2 starts before and ends after action 1 (e.g., total overlapping long). In another example, if action 1 starts after and ends after action 2 (e.g., partial overlapping late), then action 2 starts before and ends before action 1 (e.g., partial overlapping early). The relationships between actions and temporal constraints allows each temporal constraint on multiple actions to be translated based on the action to which it is currently being applied. Likewise, logical and relational constrains may be described in relation to multiple actions and the full set of constraints may be described for each action using the constraints and their inverses.”
However, the examples do not appear to cover scenarios related to “start iff (if and only if), start ifnot, finish iff, or finish ifnot”. These terms are also not explicitly defined, or mentioned, in the disclosure. Furthermore, none of the disclosure explicitly requires “at least three” (claim 15) of the recited temporal constraints.
The provisional application (63/474,615) also fails to provide sufficient disclosure to the features of claims 14 and 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
The current claims are not rejected under any prior arts herein this Office Action.
However, the following are relevant prior arts to the claimed invention:
US 2013/0311166 (Yanpolsky) discloses a system that enables domain-specific conversion of queries into a well-structured, computer-readable output through the use of domain-specific rules. The system intakes the user entered command or query and selects the appropriate domain specific ruleset to apply to convert the command or query into a data structure that is optimized for the subsequent database or application operation. See [0019].
US 2022/0382713 (Sadiq et al.) discloses methods and systems for managing and enforcing various rights of users to their personal data, including erasure rights of user data stored with one or more entities. A data lifecycle discovery platform enables compliance and data stores in according to user data privacy laws and regulation. See [0053], [0058].
US 2020/0159955 (Barlik et al.) discloses an enhanced data privacy opt in/opt out solution for improved efficiency of processing user requests to delete their online data held by multiple, different third-parties. A clearinghouse functions as a compliance service for third-party systems and is capable of streamlining user requests to opt into data privacy protection to multiple third-party systems. See [0013] & [0015]-[0018].
US 2021/0383370 (Tippets et al.) discloses several known user data privacy laws, such as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), that allow users the right to delete their personal data from companies. See [0004]-[0006].
US 2020/0233917 (Kurtanovic et al.) discloses a data processing system that assists a user by formatting data requests as needed for different data sources. For example, different repositories may have different search syntax or different application programming interfaces (APIs) for conducting searches on those repositories. The data processing system formats a request to comply with the requirements of each of the data sources that are available to the user, so the user may conduct comprehensive research from a single location (e.g., using a particular search engine) and use a single search query to perform a search across different repositories. See [0011]-[0012].
US 2019/179799 (Barday et al.) discloses requiring organizations to comply with one or more legal or industry requirements related to the storage of personal data even when responding to and fulfilling data subject access requests (DSARs). In particular, when responding to a DSAR, the system may compile one or more pieces of personal data for provision to a data subject store this compilation of personal data at least temporarily in order to provide access to the data to the data subject. The system may be configured to implement one or more data retention rules in order to ensure compliance with any legal or industry requirements related to the temporary storage of the collected data while still fulfilling any requirements related to providing the data-to-data subjects that request it, deleting the data upon request, etc. See [0047].
US 2019/0325039 (Fernando et al.) discloses translating an initial delete request into a database delete operation that is specific to a backend of a database. The mechanism provides users with the ability to utilize API protocols to provide an efficient mechanism to identify and delete individual records of potentially large datasets irrespective of the type of data store storing the records. See [0025].
The claimed invention is directed to an executable planning model that enables data privacy requests to be performed on a diverse set of data repositories (see [0003], [0050] and [0054] of the originally filed specifications). As discussed in the above prior arts (e.g., [3] & [4]), various regulations and laws enabled privacy user rights on their personal data stored by third-parties. Furthermore, some of the disclosed prior arts (e.g., [1], [5], & [7]) implement an API (i.e., an executable planning model), or the like, that assists user queries/requests to adapt to different types of databases. However, none of the cited prior arts teach each and every limitation of independent claims 2, 20, and 21. Specifically, none the prior arts fail to disclose, or reasonably suggest, the description language features of the executable planning model, wherein the model automatically implements a set of atomic actions on the objects within the domain corresponding to a DSR and DSR actions as required in the independent claims
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0095476: A request for data identifying a field and an operation for a database is translated into multiple requests tailored to schemas of multiple different databases. See Abstract.
US 2006/0136469: A database abstraction model is constructed with logical fields mapping to logical tables created from multiple, differently formatted physical tables. See Abstract.
US 6,718,320: A schema mapping between database schemas of heterogeneous databases enables conversion of a query against one table to a plurality of alternate queries to different tables. See Abstract.
Jer-Wen Huang, "MultiBase: a heterogeneous multidatabase management system," Proceedings Eighteenth Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 94), Taipei, Taiwan, 1994, pp. 332-339, doi: 10.1109/CMPSAC.1994.342782. (A tool enables a user to define global schemas by integrating related local schemas, wherein SQL commands can manipulate data objects under the global schemas. See Abstract.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-1453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs: 10am-7pm 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, JUNG KIM can be reached on 571-272-3804. 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.
/ROBERT B LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights