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 .
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 12,284,298. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because aside from a few minor differences, these claims contain the same limitations and perform the same functions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be in condition for allowance if the double patenting rejection was obviated.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior art of record, Tran et al., (US 20180117446 A1), Houssin et al., (WO 2012079926 A1), and Fiebelkorn et al., (EP 870291 B1) teaches A method for defining object behaviors for a configurable object in a decentralized network.
However, the references do not explicitly teach nor suggest in detail, comprising: a Decentralized Trusted Control Plane (D-TCP) receiving a request to define a behavior of the configurable object; wherein the configurable object is a unique instance of a class expressed as a data structure; wherein the data structure of the configurable object includes a unique identifier; wherein a plurality of registries includes an item registry including a plurality of objects and a logic registry including a plurality of selectable logic associated with the configurable object; wherein the request includes smart contract logic from the logic registry defining an object behavior; the D-TCP routing the request using instructions in the data structure of the configurable object; the D-TCP mapping the smart contract logic from the logic registry to the configurable object of the item registry; the D-TCP configuring the configurable object to include the behavior defined by the smart contract logic; and the D-TCP executing the configurable object which includes the behavior defined by the smart contract logic using the at least one smart contract on the DLT in view of other limitations of the intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 13, the closest prior art of record, Tran et al., (US 20180117446 A1), Houssin et al., (WO 2012079926 A1), and Fiebelkorn et al., (EP 870291 B1) teaches A system for defining object behaviors for a configurable object in a decentralized network.
However, the references do not explicitly teach nor suggest in detail, comprising: a Decentralized Trusted Control Plane (D-TCP) including a processor and a memory executable on a Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT); wherein the D-TCP is operable to receive a request to define a behavior of the configurable object; wherein the configurable object is a unique instance of a class expressed as a data structure; wherein the data structure of the configurable object includes a unique identifier,; wherein a plurality of registries includes an item registry including a plurality of objects and/or a logic registry including a plurality of selectable logic associated with the configurable object; wherein the plurality of registries are executable on a DLT through at least one smart contract; wherein the D-TCP further comprises a context-based permission model operable to manage execution of state changes on the D-TCP; wherein the D-TCP is operable to route the request using instructions in the data structure of the configurable object; wherein the D-TCP is operable to map smart contract logic from the logic registry to the configurable object of the item registry; wherein the D-TCP is operable to configure the configurable object to include the behavior defined by the smart contract logic; and wherein the D-TCP is operable to execute the configured configurable object using at least one smart contract on a DLT in view of other limitations of the intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 18, the closest prior art of record, Tran et al., (US 20180117446 A1), Houssin et al., (WO 2012079926 A1), and Fiebelkorn et al., (EP 870291 B1) teaches A system for defining object behaviors for a configurable object in a decentralized network.
However, the references do not explicitly teach nor suggest in detail, comprising: a Decentralized Trusted Control Plane (D-TCP) including a processor and a memory executable on a Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT); wherein the D-TCP is operable to receive a request to define a behavior of the configurable object; wherein the configurable object is a unique instance of a class expressed as a data structure; wherein the data structure of the configurable object includes a unique identifier,; wherein a plurality of registries includes the item registry including a plurality of objects and/or a logic registry including a plurality of selectable logic associated with the configurable object; wherein the request includes smart contract logic from the logic registry defining an object behavior; wherein the D-TCP is operable to route the request using instructions in the data structure of the configurable object; wherein the D-TCP is operable to map the smart contract logic from the logic registry to the configurable object of the item registry; wherein the D-TCP is operable to configure the configurable object to include the behavior defined by the smart contract logic; and wherein the D-TCP is operable to execute the configured configurable object using at least one smart contract on a DLT in view of other limitations of the intervening claims.
Thus the prior arts of record taking singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the above-stated limitations taking wholly in combination with all the elements of each independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J STEINLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm CT.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/ANDREW J STEINLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights