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 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,265,540; claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,396; and claims 1-69 of U.S. Patent No. 10,698,900. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter.
Instant Application 19/096015
Patent No. 12,265,540
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
parsing a syntax model to identify a command from a plurality of commands;
communicating data associated with the command to a restricted computing environment, wherein the restricted computing environment generates a data structure based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the command; and
including an identifier associated with the data structure in a distributed execution model
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: identifying, by a first computing system, a command associated with a second computing system from a plurality of commands of a distributed execution model to execute at least a portion of a query; generating a data structure in a restricted computing environment based on the command; and executing one or more computer executable instructions based on the data structure.
12.A computing system, comprising: one or more processing devices configured to: parse a syntax model to identify a command from a plurality of commands;
communicate data associated with the command to a restricted computing environment, wherein the restricted computing environment generates a data structure based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the command; and
include an identifier associated with the data structure in a distributed execution model.
19. A first computing system, comprising: memory; and one or more processing devices coupled to the memory and configured to: identify, a command associated with a second computing system from a plurality of commands of a distributed execution model to execute at least a portion of a query; generate a data structure in a restricted computing environment based on the command; and execute one or more computer executable instructions based on the data structure.
16. Non-transitory computer readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to:
parse a syntax model to identify a command from a plurality of commands;
communicate data associated with the command to a restricted computing environment, wherein the restricted computing environment generates a data structure based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the command; and
include an identifier associated with the data structure in a distributed execution model.
20. A non-transitory computer readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a first computing system, cause the first computing system to: identify, a command associated with a second computing system from a plurality of commands of a distributed execution model to execute at least a portion of a query; generate a data structure in a restricted computing environment based on the command; and execute one or more computer executable instructions based on the data structure.
Instant Application 19/096015
Patent No. 11,481396
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
parsing a syntax model to identify a command from a plurality of commands;
communicating data associated with the command to a restricted computing environment, wherein the restricted computing environment generates a data structure based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the command; and
including an identifier associated with the data structure in a distributed execution model
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a plurality of commands of a distributed execution model to execute at least a portion of a query; identifying an untrusted command from the plurality of commands of the distributed execution model; generating a data structure in a restricted computing environment based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the untrusted command; and executing one or more computer executable instructions based on the data structure.
12. A computing system, comprising: one or more processing devices configured to: parse a syntax model to identify a command from a plurality of commands;
communicate data associated with the command to a restricted computing environment, wherein the restricted computing environment generates a data structure based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the command; and
include an identifier associated with the data structure in a distributed execution model.
25. A computing system, comprising: one or more processing devices configured to: receive a plurality of commands of a distributed execution model to execute at least a portion of a query; identify an untrusted command from the plurality of commands of the distributed execution model; generate a data structure in a restricted computing environment based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the untrusted command; and execute one or more computer executable instructions based on the data structure.
16. Non-transitory computer readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to:
parse a syntax model to identify a command from a plurality of commands;
communicate data associated with the command to a restricted computing environment, wherein the restricted computing environment generates a data structure based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the command; and
include an identifier associated with the data structure in a distributed execution model.
28. Non-transitory computer readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to: receive a plurality of commands of a distributed execution model to execute at least a portion of a query; identify an untrusted command from the plurality of commands of the distributed execution model; generate a data structure in a restricted computing environment based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the untrusted command; and execute one or more computer executable instructions based on the data structure.
Instant Application 19/096015
Patent No. 10,698,900
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
parsing a syntax model to identify a command from a plurality of commands;
communicating data associated with the command to a restricted computing environment, wherein the restricted computing environment generates a data structure based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the command; and
including an identifier associated with the data structure in a distributed execution model
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: generating a syntax model based on a query, the syntax model comprising a plurality of commands; parsing the syntax model to identify an untrusted command from the plurality of commands; communicating data associated with the untrusted command to a restricted computing environment, wherein the restricted computing environment generates a data structure based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the untrusted command; and including an identifier associated with the data structure in a distributed execution model.
12.A computing system, comprising: one or more processing devices configured to: parse a syntax model to identify a command from a plurality of commands;
communicate data associated with the command to a restricted computing environment, wherein the restricted computing environment generates a data structure based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the command; and
include an identifier associated with the data structure in a distributed execution model.
6. A computing system, comprising: one or more processing devices configured to: generate a syntax model based on a query, the syntax model comprising a plurality of commands; parse the syntax model to identify an untrusted command from the plurality of commands; communicate data associated with the untrusted command to a restricted computing environment, wherein the restricted computing environment generates a data structure based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the untrusted command; and include an identifier associated with the data structure in a distributed execution model.
16. Non-transitory computer readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to:
parse a syntax model to identify a command from a plurality of commands;
communicate data associated with the command to a restricted computing environment, wherein the restricted computing environment generates a data structure based on a file containing computer-executable instructions associated with the command; and
include an identifier associated with the data structure in a distributed execution model.
41. Non-transitory computer readable media comprising first computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to: generate a syntax model based on a query, the syntax model comprising a plurality of commands; parse the syntax model to identify an untrusted command from the plurality of commands; parse the syntax model to identify a trusted command; generate a data structure based on a file containing second computer-executable instructions associated with the untrusted command; use an internal transformer to transform the trusted command to one or more computer operations for inclusion in a distributed execution model; and include an identifier associated with the data structure in the distributed execution model.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robison et al. (Publication No. 2005/0060693 filed August 27, 2003, hereinafter Robison) and Harold (Publication No. 2013/0318095 filed May 10, 2013).
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 16, Robison teaches parsing a syntax model to identify a command from a plurality of commands (Abstract, parse a command string resulting in the execution of the commands. [0018] A command processor receives a command-string that is parsed into character string tokens. A parameter-handler (a type of parser) then attempts to match each successive token against command syntax descriptions that are loaded from syntax files. [0045] a syntax-matching module (element 38) is part of syntax parser module (element 36) that initiates the actual syntax matching process. The syntax-matching module (element 38) receives a set of tokens (element 214) that represent a command string that was tokenized externally and provided to the main command processer (element 18) or was tokenized internally by the main processor based upon the provided command string (element 14)); communication data associated with the command (Abstract, a command string; see [0019] command string including character-string tokens) to a data structure based on a file containing computer-executable instructions ([0018] command syntax descriptions that are loaded from syntax files) associated with the command; and an identifier associated with the data structure in a distributed execution model ([0018] an item is defined to be a command keyword or a parameter, where the parameter-handler tries to match the next token against the next item in the command).
However, Robison does not expressly teach a restricted computing environment.
Harold teaches a restricted computing environment ([0056] a Semantic Data Container (element 400) contained within the Sandbox (element 380) through a Secure Interface (element 420) contained within the Sandbox (element 380).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Robison’s method with the method of Harold because Robison’s method includes a command-line (command string) processing for an OO environment using a command processor to receive a command-string that is parsed into character string tokens using a parameter-handler (type of parser) that attempts to match each successive token against command syntax descriptions but does not include a restricted computing environment. Harold teaches a restrictive computing environment including a sandbox. Incorporating the method of Robison with the method of Harold would improve Robison’s method to enable the use of an Indexer that stores mapped data provided by the App in the database contained within the Sandbox and parses source data using fulltext indexing, semantic indexing, and domain specific meta-data indexing.
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Robison teaches the data associated with the command to the computing environment using an external transformer ([0023] an external module can be another program or source of data that can be a source of the command string.).
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Robison teaches the data associated with the command to the computing environment using an external transformer and receiving the data structure from the computing environment using an external transformer ([0045] set 214 can represent a command string that was tokenized externally and provided to the main command processor 18 (e.g., via an external calling framework 41, as indicated by path 39) or was tokenized internally by the main command processor 18 based upon the provided command string 14.).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Robison teaches the data associated with the command includes a filename and a file location associated with the file ([0031] filename and directory path of the file location).
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, Robison teaches the data associated with the command includes a filename and a file location associated with the file, wherein the computing environment uses the filename and file location to identify the file and uses the file to generate the data structure ([0031] filename and directory path of the file location).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, Robison teaches a syntax model based on a query comprising a plurality of commands ([0073 & 0075] querying the syntax keyword).
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Harold teaches the syntax model comprises an abstract syntax tree ([0007] term tree/grammatical tree).
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Robison teaches the syntax model includes a command node corresponding to each command in a query ([0073 & 0075] querying the syntax keyword).
Regarding Claim 9, Robison teaches the syntax model includes one or more trusted commands and one or more untrusted commands ([0037] sufficient authorization validity means).
Regarding Claim 10, Robison teaches the commands includes a trusted command that is associated with libraries and dependencies that are known by a system executing the query ([0073 & 0075] querying the syntax keyword).
Regarding Claim 11, Robison teaches the distributed execution model to one or more worker nodes ([0075] syntax fragment (e.g. nodes)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL R LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 571-272-4098. 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.
/CHERYL LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166 April 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights