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 .
Herein after “it would have been obvious” should be read as “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention”.
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 1-21 of U.S. Patent No 11,975,156 and claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,321,758.. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while different words are used such “upon detection of the modifications” vs “in response to the determined change”, “configuration data” vs “configuration file”, “corresponding to a service type” vs “associated with a service type”, “configuration server” vs “configuration repository”, “extract configuration data “ … “within a message” vs “configuration data of the obtained first message” the general meaning is the same.
Pending claim 1 reads:
A system providing centralized configuration updates to distributed services, comprising: a configuration repository storing configuration definitions for a plurality of service types; a messaging service comprising a plurality of messaging queues, each message queue corresponding to one of the plurality of service types; a configuration controller programmed to: monitor the configuration repository for modifications of a configuration definition, wherein the modifications impact the service type of the plurality of service types; upon detection of the modifications impacting the service type, extract configuration data for the impacted service type based on the modifications; and include the configuration data within a message onto the message queue corresponding to the impacted service type; and one or more service instances of the impacted service type, wherein the one or more service instances are programmed to: subscribe to the message queue corresponding to the impacted service type; receive the message from the message queue, the message comprising the configuration data; and update the runtime configuration of the one or more service instances using the received configuration data.
Patented claim 1 of 11,975,156 reads:
A system for managing the configuration of services executing in an enterprise computing environment, comprising: a data store storing a configuration file, the configuration file associated with a service type of a set of service types, wherein a set of service instances are executing in the enterprise computing environment and each of the set of service instance is one of the set of service types; a messaging service providing a set of messaging queues, each queue of the messaging queue corresponding to one of the set of service types; a configuration server adapted to: determine a change to the configuration file, in response to the determined change to the configuration file: determine the service type of the set of service types associated with the configuration file, determine configuration data associated with the service type from the configuration file, and utilize the message service to place a first message on a message queue of the set of message queues, wherein the message queue corresponds to the service type and the first message includes the determined configuration data; and wherein each of the set of service instances includes a configuration engine adapted to: utilize the messaging service to obtain the first message off the message queue associated with the service type of the service instance, and configure the associated service instance according to the configuration data of the obtained first message.
Patented claim 1 of 12,321,758 reads:
A system for managing the configuration of services, comprising: a configuration server comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions to: in response to a determined change to a configuration file associated with a service type of a set of service types: determine the service type associated with the configuration file, determine configuration data associated with the service type from the configuration file, and utilize the message service to place a first message on a message queue corresponding to the service type and the first message includes the determined configuration data associated with the service type; and wherein a service instance of the service type is adapted to: obtain the first message from the message queue associated with the service type of the service instance, and configure the service instance according to the configuration data of the obtained first message.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reasons for allowance is the same as in the parent application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited in the parent are being cited here. Additional patent has been found that also teach configuration files from configuration servers and message queues.
Silverman et al PN 2022/0358092 was found that teaches many of the claim limitations. Silverman et al teaches a configuration repository. The repository that stores configuration files ([0014] “The notification indicates that a configuration file has been committed to a repository. The service instance further comprises processing circuitry configured to retrieve the configuration file from the repository based at least in part on receiving the notification and to apply the configuration of the configuration file”), message queues ([0073] “As another example, the identifier may identify one or more message queues, each message queue associated with a service instance 50 to which the configuration file applies. In some embodiments, the identifier may be included as content of the configuration file itself or as metadata associated with the configuration file”) however the queue is associated with a service instance regardless of service type while the claimed invention has a “service queue corresponding to the impacted service type” (“[0099] “As an example, the multiple factors may include both service type (e.g., encryption) and enterprise (e.g., enterprise A). Thus, in the example, the notification may be sent to the one or more messages queues associated with service instances 50 that perform encryption for enterprise A without sending the notification to message queues associated with service instances 50 that perform other services for enterprise A (such as branding) or to any message queues associated with enterprise B (regardless of the service type”).”regardless of the service type” is the opposite of “corresponding to the impacted service type”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL R MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3639. The examiner can normally be reached telework M-F start 7-8 leave 4-5.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/Paul R. MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
