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 .
Detailed Action
This communication is in response to the application filed on 03/18/2025 in which Claim 1 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 03/18/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 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).
Claim 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US patent No. 11841963
Claim 1 recite similar limitations as claims 1-20 of US patent No. 11841963
as follows:
Instant application
US patent No. 11841963
Claim 1. A computer system comprising: a memory to store: a set of run time instructions; a collection of records, wherein each record in the collection being structured to include a set of multiple fields of which at least some fields are individually assigned a field value, and each field value including a source identifier of the field value, the source identifier corresponding to a source of a plurality of sources which collectively supply field values for the collection of records; a library of data usage rules, including a set of usage rules for each source of the plurality of sources; one or more processors that execute instructions from the set of instructions to: process requests from multiple computing entities, each request being for one or more unknown field values that are associated with a known field value specified in that request ;for each request, (i) search the collection of records to determine a first matching record that includes the known field value of that request; (ii) determine, from the first matching record, a first field value that correlates to at least one of the unknown field values; (iii) identify, from the data associated with the first field value, at least one source from the plurality of sources which is the origin of the first field value; (iv) determine, based at least in part on the at least one determined source, one or more usage rules from the library of usage rules that pertain to the first field value; and (v) provide a response for the request that is in accordance with the determined one or more usage rules; when multiple sources are identified as the origin of the first field value of matching record for a first given request, the one or more processors select the determined set of one or more usage rules as being a set of relevant usage rules of a first source of the multiple sources, to exclusion of a relevant set of usage rules of each of the other sources of the multiple sources, based on an objective of minimizing a number of unknown field values of the request that are provided no corresponding field values in the response from first matching record.
Claim 1 A computer system comprising: a memory to store: a set of run time instructions; a collection of records, wherein each record in the collection of records is structured to include a set of multiple fields of which at least some fields are individually assigned a field value, and each field value includes a source identifier of the field value, the source identifier corresponding to a source of a plurality of sources which collectively supply field values for the collection of records; and a library of data usage rules including a set of usage rules for each source of the plurality of sources; and one or more processors that execute instructions from the set of run time instructions to: process requests from multiple computing entities, each request being for one or more unknown field values that are associated with a known field value specified in that request; for each request, (i) search the collection of records to determine a first matching record that includes the known field value of that request; (ii) determine, from the first matching record, a first field value that correlates to at least one of the unknown field values; (iii) identify, from data associated with the first field value, at least one source from the plurality of sources which is an origin of the first field value; (iv) determine, based at least in part on the at least one identified source, one or more usage rules from the library of data usage rules that pertain to the first field value; and (v) provide a response to the request that is in accordance with the determined one or more usage rules; and when multiple sources are identified as the origin of the first field value of the first matching record for a first given request, select, by the one or more processors, the determined one or more usage rules as being relevant usage rules of a first source of the multiple sources, to exclusion of one or more relevant usage rules of each of the other sources of the multiple sources, based on a credibility ranking of the sources.
Claims 9 and 16.
The table above shows that, although the corresponding claims are directed to different statutory categories, the US patent No. 11841963 implemented on a computer would render the claims in the instant application obvious.
It is clearly obvious that the (US patent No. 11841963) substantially discloses the subject matter of claim 2 of the instant Application.
The Applicant merely broadens the scope of the instant application by deleting a few elements from the (US patent No. 11841963).
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US patent No. 12277244.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These include.
US 7808916 B1 – Chen query optimization.
US 20130291059 A1– GIAMBIAGI - access control to resources in computer systems or computer-aided access control to other types of resources.
US 20120036442 A1 – Dare describes managing and offering services to networked devices.
US 20040230636 A1 – Masuoka discloses preparing and executing computing tasks.
US 20020065802 A1 – Uchiyama teaches accumulating and organizing information collected from multiple remote locations in a central database, and implementing collected information in an open recommendation system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVANS DESROSIERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/EVANS DESROSIERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights