DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an application filed on April 25, 2025, in which claims 21-37 are pending, and ready for examination.
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for domestic benefit as a Continuation from U.S. Application No. 18/538,971 filed on December 13, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,294,616, that application claiming befit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 18049170 filed on October 24, 2022, now U.S. Patent No. 11,882,156, that application claiming befit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/007,449 filed on August 31, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,483,352, that application claiming befit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 15/819,776, filed on November 21, 2017, now U.S. Patent No. 10,785,263.
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on August 7, 2025.
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 August 7, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of a first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites, “cause the service to perform the method”.
It appears that the claim should recite, “cause a service to perform the method”, or, “cause the service system to perform the method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-37 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,785,263. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationale:
Claim 21 of the instant application merely a broader recitation of that which is recited in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,785,263. That is, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,785,263 anticipates claim 21 of the instant application.
Claims 22-37 are also rejected has these claims recite either the same or substantively similar subject matter that is recited in the independent and/or dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,785,263.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Thorn, Ola Karl, U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0154014
Mahaffey, et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0282877
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. Brant Murphy whose telephone number is (571)272-6433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
/J. BRANT MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights