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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12238143. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12238143 teach claims 1-15 of the instant application.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12238143. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12238143 teaches all limitations of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12238143. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12238143 teaches all limitations of claim 8 of the instant application.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12238143. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12238143 teaches all limitations of claim 15 of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
The invention defined in claims 1, 8 and 15 are not suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 1, 8 and 15 would be allowed if the claims overcome the Double Patenting Rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Reason for allowance
The prior art of record (in particular, Thompson; Cameron US-8200527, Furin; Matthew US-8195503, Sharma: Alok US-8818838, Scheidler; Balazs US-10681060, JONES; Richard B. US-20130290035, Driessnack; John D. US-20120215574, I Rey; Michael US-20140129269, Bal: Debasis US-20090164297, Estill; James US 8244567, Kemp; Stacy M. US 8311863, Abe; Naoki et al. US 20120116850 and Liu; Alex et al. US 20160346696) singly or in combination does not disclose, with respect to independent claim 1 "instantiate a plurality of analysis jobs on a distributed, cloud-based computing infrastructure, wherein:
each analysis job comprises a comparison of one or more of the operational goals and a relevant portion of the operational data;
at least one of the plurality of analysis parameters for each analysis job is unique to that analysis job;
each analysis job generates a plurality of potential actions to be taken in order to move toward one or more of the operational goals;
a confidence level is assigned to each of the potential actions as a weighted calculation of a random variable distribution of the comparison of the potential action with the operational data as impacted by the plurality of analysis parameters; and a result is obtained for each analysis job, the result comprising a probability of success based on the confidence level assigned to each of the potential actions considered in the respective analysis job;
determine a plurality of planning risk parameters based on the results of each analysis job." and similar limitations of independent claims 8 and 15 in combination with the other claimed features as a whole.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 are also allowed based on their dependencies on independent claims 1 and 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights