CTNF 19/055,815 CTNF 79950 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is response to Application filed on 18 February 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. The claims have been considered and examined. 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. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 has a period at the end of line 4, this appears to be a typographical error and should be a comma . Appropriate correction is required. 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 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,259,779 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-16 of ‘779 contain every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 1-20 of the instant application . Claim 1 of the instant application maps to claim 1 of ‘779. Claim 2 of the instant application maps to claim 6 of ‘779. Claim 3 of the instant application maps to claim 2 of ‘779. Claim 4 of the instant application maps to claim 3 of ‘779. Claim 5 of the instant application maps to claim 5 of ‘779. Claim 6 of the instant application maps to claim 4 of ‘779. Claim 7 of the instant application maps to claim 6 of ‘779. Claim 8 of the instant application maps to claim 7 of ‘779. Claim 9 of the instant application maps to claim 8 of ‘779. Claim 10 of the instant application maps to claim 9 of ‘779. Claim 11 of the instant application maps to claim 14 of ‘779. Claim 12 of the instant application maps to claim 10 of ‘779. Claim 13 of the instant application maps to claim 11 of ‘779. Claim 14 of the instant application maps to claim 13 of ‘779. Claim 15 of the instant application maps to claim 12 of ‘779. Claim 16 of the instant application maps to claim 16 of ‘779. Claim 17 of the instant application maps to claim 15 of ‘779. Claim 18 of the instant application maps to claim 16 of ‘779. Claim 19 of the instant application maps to claim 1 of ‘779. Claim 20 of the instant application maps to claim 7 of ‘779. "A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by , the earlier claim. In re Longi , 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg , 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness- type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be considered allowable over the prior art and thus allowable if the above Double Patenting rejection is also overcome. The Examiner suggests filing a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the rejection. Concerning claims 1-9, the prior art does not teach “historical data received from a network node in a peer-to-peer (P2P) network” and “wherein the network node stores historical data associated with historical faults and historical diagnostic solutions to a blockchain ledger” and in conjunction with the other limitations of the claims. Concerning claims 10-18, the prior art does not teach “sending, by a network node in a P2P network and from a blockchain ledger, the historical data to the quantum computer, wherein the blockchain ledger stores the historical data associated with historical faults and historical diagnostic solutions” and in conjunction with the other limitations of the claims. Concerning claims 19-20, the prior art does not teach “a peer to peer (P2P) computing network comprising a plurality of network nodes performing operations on a blockchain ledger, wherein the blockchain ledger stores historical data associated with historical faults and historical diagnostic solutions” and in conjunction with the other limitations of the claims. You et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2023/0094389, hereinafter referred to as “You”, discloses a similar but different system. You discloses an information processing system for fault detection and diagnosis (See You, paragraph 0044). You discloses a monitored system being diagnosed (See You, paragraphs 0007-0008). You discloses a quantum computing based technique for the fault detection and diagnosis (See You, paragraph 0007).: You discloses a quantum processor with qubits and couplers (See You, paragraph 0200). You discloses the quantum process has biases (See You, paragraph 0101). You discloses a memory storing program code for execution by the processor (See You, paragraph 0246). You discloses data from the monitored system and a detected fault (See You, paragraph 0212). You discloses using historical data with quantum computer based fault diagnosis model (See You, paragraphs 0061 and 0171). You discloses the quantum computer based model also has remedial action information (See You, paragraph 0065). You discloses the historical data is input int the quantum based fault diagnosis model (See You, paragraph 0104). You discloses quantum computing apparatus using entanglement to perform the operations (See You, paragraph 0082). You discloses quantum computing apparatus using superposition to perform the operations (See You, paragraph 0082). You discloses having a starting energy state for the quantum computing computation (See You, paragraph 0049). You discloses the quantum computing computation moves towards the lowest energy state to solve the optimization problem (See You, paragraph 0156). You discloses the quantum based model performs the fault diagnosis and drives a correct action (See You, paragraphs 0065 and 0212). You does not disclose “historical data received from a network node in a peer-to-peer (P2P) network” and “wherein the network node stores historical data associated with historical faults and historical diagnostic solutions to a blockchain ledger”. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent 12,579,025 to Krishnan et al. - Error resolution for hybrid quantum-classical computing environments. U.S. Patent 12,417,140 to Shum et al. - Problem fix verification generation Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D MANOSKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am to 3:30pm. 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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. /JOSEPH D MANOSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113 May 6, 2026 Application/Control Number: 19/055,815 Page 2 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 19/055,815 Page 3 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 19/055,815 Page 4 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 19/055,815 Page 5 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 19/055,815 Page 6 Art Unit: 2113
Prosecution Insights