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 .
III. DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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. See 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
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).
Independent claims 1, 9 and 17 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1, 9 and 17 (respectively) of Kohil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12306824) since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
INSTANT APPLICATION
OBER et al. US 6,732,113B1
1. A system for creating a unique alias associated with an individual identified in a health care database, comprising:
A fault intercepting computing device for converting between outdated and updated key values in messages processed by client and host computing devices, the fault intercepting computing device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the processor programmed to:
receive, from a client computing device, a request message configured to initiate a remote procedure at a host computing device by a function identifier, wherein the client computing device requires a response message from the host computing device including an output from the remote procedure, wherein the remote procedure is dependent on an updated key value being included in the request message, and wherein
the request message includes an outdated key value for the key;
retrieve the updated key value from a key mapping database;
generate a remapped request based on the request message by replacing the outdated key value with the updated key value in the request message;
transmit the remapped request to the host computing device, wherein the remapped request remains configured to initiate the remote procedure on the host computing device;
receive an initial response from the host computing device including the updated key value, wherein the initial response is the output of the remote procedure initiated at the host computing device by the function identifier;
generate a surrogate response based on the initial response; and
transmit the surrogate response as the response message from the host computing device to the client computing device.
1. A fault intercepting computing device for converting between outdated and updated key values in messages processed by client and host computing devices, the fault intercepting computing device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the processor programmed to: receive, from a client computing device, a request message configured to initiate a remote procedure at a host computing device by a function identifier, wherein the client computing device requires a response message from the host computing device including an output from the remote procedure, wherein the remote procedure is dependent on an updated key value being included in the request message, and wherein the request message includes an outdated key value for the key; prior to initiation of the remote procedure at the host computing device, retrieve the updated key value from a key mapping database by querying the key mapping database with the outdated key value, the updated key value mapped to the outdated key value in the key mapping database; generate a remapped request based on the request message by replacing the outdated key value with the updated key value in the request message; transmit the remapped request to the host computing device, wherein the remapped request remains configured to initiate the remote procedure on the host computing device; receive an initial response from the host computing device including the updated key value, wherein the initial response is the output of the remote procedure initiated at the host computing device by the function identifier; generate a surrogate response based on the initial response by replacing the updated key value with the outdated key value in the initial response; and transmit the surrogate response, including the outdated key value, as the response message from the host computing device to the client computing device, wherein the outdated key value in the surrogate response enables the client computing device to identify the surrogate response as the response message to the request message including the outdated key value.
As shown above, claims 1, 9 and 17 of Kohil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12306824) contains at least the elements of claims 1, 9 and 17 of the instant application and as such anticipates claims 1, 9 and 17 of the instant application.
“A later application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus).” ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yicun Wu whose telephone number is 571-272-4087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday -Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Kavita Stanley, can be reached on (571) 571-272-8352. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system:
"http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair"
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Yicun Wu
Patent Examiner
Technology Center 2100
/YICUN WU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights