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 .
1. In response to the Office Action dated on 02/26/2026, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: 1, 9 and 17
Claims canceled: none
Claims newly added: none
Claims pending: 1-20
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues “independent claims have been amended. Accordingly, this rejection has been render in moot. Accordingly, it is respectfully that this rejection be withdrawn in view of the claim amendment submitted herewith.” The claim language in this application and others are similar such that they cover the similar concept. Other applications as parent applications also includeed the amended claim language in the disclosure. Therefore, it can be modified to meet invention as claimed.
Applicant argues “Zhou fails to teach or suggest “in response to an indication that a first user within the set of users has access a digital representation of a subset of a set of data output by a computing device, executing, by at least a processor using a computer model…”
Please see the Karppanen reference regarding to executing, by the at least one processor using a computer model…
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The applicant arguments filed on 05/26/2026 pages 7-12 was persuasive, and 101 rejection was withdrawn.
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-disclamer)
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,097,349 B1. Although the claims at issue
are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application claim
language direct to similar which include nodal data structure which each of the node include
subset of file and linking the node to each other nodes. Instant application includes generating nodal data structure using model and the nodal data structure include nodes and links. The 349 includes other limitation such as scanning and retrieving set of file, generating the identifier for files, access history and generating score for each messages and output the set of notification according to scores. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitation to arrive the same invention as claimed.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,115,505 B2. Although the claims at issue
are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application claim
language direct to similar which include nodal data structure which each of the node include
subset of file and linking the node to each other nodes. Instant application includes generating nodal data structure using model and the nodal data structure include nodes and links The 505 includes other limitation such as scanning the repositories to identify set of data include subset of data which performed by a device, generating identification for subset of data, retrieving the node include the content and presenting the document including context data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitation to arrive the same invention as claimed.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,442,950 B2. Although the claims at issue
are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application claim
language direct to similar which include nodal data structure which each of the node include
subset of file and linking the node to each other nodes. Instant application includes generating nodal data structure using model and the nodal data structure include nodes and links The 950 includes other limitations such as a uniform resource locator or at least one action performed using at least one computing device, determining using an identification of electronic document, at least one node within a set of nodes of nodal data structure, a notification include context data associated with other linked node, the presented context data indicating Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitation to arrive the same invention as claimed.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11/741115 B2. Although the claims at issue
are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application claim
language direct to similar which include nodal data structure which each of the node include
subset of file and linking the node to each other nodes. Instant application includes generating nodal data structure using model and the nodal data structure include nodes and links, The 349 includes other limitation such as each subset of the set of data representing at least one file, a uniform resource locator, or an action performed using computer device, determining at least one node within the set of nodes of the nodal data structure the corresponds to query term and displaying context data associated with one node linked to other node. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitation to arrive the same invention as claimed.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,799 B2. Although the claims at issue
are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application claim
language direct to similar which include nodal data structure which each of the node include
subset of file and linking the node to each other nodes. Instant application includes generating nodal data structure using model and the nodal data structure include nodes and links. The 799 includes other limitation such executing a computer model using a nodal data structure by inputting the indication that the user has interacted with the presentation of the subset of the set of data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitation to arrive the same invention as claimed.
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.
9. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et
al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0047149 A1) in view of Karppanen (Pub. No. US 2019/0079906 A1).
As to claim 1, Zhou discloses a method comprising:
In response to an indication that a first user within a first set of users has accessed a digital representation of a subset of a set of data outputted by a computing device (users accessing the electronic document can quickly jump to the related subject) (paragraph 0003), wherein each node within the set of nodes corresponds to a respective subset of the set of data, and wherein each pair of nodes that comprises two nodes relevant to each other based on a relevancy threshold are associated together within the nodal data structure (hence, as will be apparent from the above example, in case it is determine the category distance between a pair of link nodes 110 falls within the defined threshold...) (paragraph 0028);
identifying, by the at least one processor using the nodal data structure, at least one
node corresponding to the subset of the set of data and at least one second user within a
second set of users associated with the subset of the set of data (a node is kept in the graph if it
is matched a phrase in the document 300 or it is directly linked to a node that is match to a
phase in the electronic document 300) (paragraph 0032); and
Zhou does not disclose executing, by the at least one processor, using a computer model to generate a nodal data structure associated with at least one of the computing device, the first user, the first set of users, or the set of data, to identify an identifier for the subset of the set of data, wherein the nodal data structure comprises a set of nodes and a set of links, presenting, by the at least one processor to the computing device, data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure, and presenting, by the at least one processor to the computing device, data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure. However, Karppanen executing, by the at least one processor, using a computer model to generate a nodal data structure associated with at least one of the computing device, the first user, the first set of users, or the set of data, to identify an identifier for the subset of the set of data, wherein the nodal data structure comprises a set of nodes and a set of links (generate a document object model based at least partly on the document, wherein the document object mode comprises a tree structure having a plurality of nodes, and wherein individual nodes of the plurality of node correspond to respective objects of the plurality of objects; identify a background subset of the plurality of nodes to the shared memory block; render the exclusory subset of the plurality of nodes to the shared memory block) (claim 1) presenting, by the at least one processor to the computing device, data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure (wherein rendering individual nodes in the exclusory subset depends on rendering at least a respective portion in the exclusory subset depends on rendering at least a respective portion of the rendered background subset, generate rendered network content based at least in part on rendered nodes in the shared memory block) (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include executing, by the at least one processor, using a computer model to generate a nodal data structure associated with at least one of the computing device, the first user, the first set of users, or the set of data, to identify an identifier for the subset of the set of data, wherein the nodal data structure comprises a set of nodes and a set of links, presenting, by the at least one processor to the computing device, data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure, and presenting, by the at least one processor to the computing device, data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure in order to provide data for review as disclosed by
As to claim 2, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first set of users is the same the second set of users (users) (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 3, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure comprises an image of the second user
(document is both text and image) (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 4, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data corresponding to
the at least one node within the nodal data structure comprises contact information of the
second user (document include profile which include contact information) (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 5, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data corresponding to
the at least one node within the nodal data structure comprises an indication of a project
associated with the second user (graph include document which is related to people)
(paragraph 0028).
As to claim 6, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data corresponding to
the at least one node within the nodal data structure comprises an indication of a document
associated with the second user or the subset of the set of data (each document associated
with user such as author, writer and/or people who upload or post document) (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 7, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data corresponding to
the at least one node within the nodal data structure comprises an indication of a time period of
association between the second user and the subset of the set of data (the time the document is
upload the document) (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 8, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the presented data further
comprises an action can be taken corresponding to at least one of sending, sharing, accessing
(accessing document) (paragraph 0003), downloading, printing, copying, transmitting, revising,
creating, opening, saving, seeing related nodes, or getting directions.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Zhou discloses a computer-
readable medium storing a set of instructions that when executed (a computer program stored
on a suitable computer readable media storage device...) (paragraph 0045), cause at least one
processor (executed on a computer) (paragraph 0045).
Claim 10 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 8.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Zhou discloses a system
comprising: a server (server) (paragraph 0045).
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights