DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 1 July 2025, claiming benefit back to 24 June 2022.
Claims 55 – 74 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Non-Final.
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 statements (IDSs) have been considered by the examiner.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 17/849,229, filed on 24 June 202, now U.S. Patent 12,393,900 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 55 – 74 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent).
Claim 55 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as shown in the comparison of the claims below, claim 7 of the ‘900 patent would anticipate claim 55 of the instant Application.
U.S. 12,393,900
1. An apparatus comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to: generate smart contract rules associated with a distributed ledger based at least in part on one or more defined workflow events associated with an application framework;
generate a smart contract of the distributed ledger based at least in part on the smart contract rules, wherein execution of the smart contract causes one or more candidate transaction data structure to be added to the distributed ledger in response to the smart contract rules being satisfied;
monitor a workflow event stream associated with one or more workflow events triggered by a user computing device interacting with one or more application components of the application framework via a network;
detect, based at least on the workflow event stream, a candidate transaction associated with a defined workflow event for a first application component of the application framework;
generate a candidate transaction data structure for the candidate transaction in accordance with one or more candidate transaction attributes of the candidate transaction;
cause execution of the smart contract of the distributed ledger to add the candidate transaction data structure to the distributed ledger in accordance with a distributed ledger consensus protocol based on a comparison between the one or more candidate transaction attributes and the smart contract rules for the smart contract, wherein adding the candidate transaction data structure to the distributed ledger renders at least the defined workflow event within the workflow immutable; and
based on the candidate transaction data structure being added to the distributed ledger, generate (i) a first type of workflow for the first application component and (ii) a second type of workflow for a second application component of the application framework, wherein the second type of workflow is configured for execution in parallel to the first type of workflow, and wherein the first application component is accessible via a first application programming interface and the second application component is accessible via a second application programming interface.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein adding the candidate transaction data structure to the distributed ledger results in an increase of a digital asset count, in a digital asset repository, for a user identifier associated with the candidate transaction, and wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to: generate the first type of workflow for the first application component based on a type of digital asset added to the digital asset repository.
Instant Application
55. An apparatus comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to:
generate smart contract rules associated with a distributed ledger based at least in part on one or more defined workflow events associated with an application framework;
generate a smart contract of the distributed ledger based at least in part on the smart contract rules, wherein execution of the smart contract causes one or more candidate transaction data structure to be added to the distributed ledger in response to the smart contract rules being satisfied;
monitor a workflow event stream associated with one or more workflow events triggered by a user computing device interacting with one or more application components of the an application framework via a network;
detect, based at least in part on the workflow event stream, a candidate transaction associated with a defined workflow event for a first an application component of the application framework;
generate a candidate transaction data structure for the candidate transaction in accordance with one or more candidate transaction attributes of the candidate transaction;
cause execution of the a smart contract of the a distributed ledger to add the candidate transaction data structure to the distributed ledger in accordance with a distributed ledger consensus protocol based at least in part on a comparison between the one or more candidate transaction attributes and the smart contract rules for the smart contract, wherein adding the candidate transaction data structure to the distributed ledger renders at least the defined workflow event within the workflow immutable initiates storage of a digital asset in a digital asset repository; and
generate a workflow for the application component based on the at least in part (i) candidate transaction data structure being added to the distributed ledger, generate (i) a first type of workflow for the first application component and (ii) a second type of workflow for a second application component of the application framework, wherein the second type of workflow is configured for execution in parallel to the first type of workflow, and wherein the first application component is accessible via a first application programming interface and the second application component is accessible via a second application programming interface.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, (wherein adding the candidate transaction data structure to the distributed ledger results in an increase of a digital asset count, in a digital asset repository), for a user identifier an attribute associated with the candidate transaction, and wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, (to further cause the one or more processors to: generate the first type of workflow for the first application component based on a type of) digital asset added to the digital asset repository.
Claim 56 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claim 7 and claim 2 of the ‘900 patent would anticipate claim 56 of the instant Application.
Claim 57 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claim 7 and claim 3 of the ‘900 patent would anticipate claim 56 of the instant Application.
Claim 58 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claim 7 and claim 4 of the ‘900 patent would anticipate claim 58 of the instant Application.
Claim 59 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claim 7 and claim 5 of the ‘900 patent would anticipate claim 59 of the instant Application.
Claim 60 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claim 7 and claim 6 of the ‘900 patent would anticipate claim 60 of the instant Application.
Claim 61 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 the ‘900 patent would anticipate claim 61 of the instant Application.
Claim 62 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claim 7 and claim 31 of the ‘900 patent would anticipate claim 56 of the instant Application.
Claim 63 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claim 7 and claim 16 of the ‘900 patent would anticipate claim 63 of the instant Application.
Claim 64 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claim 7 and claim 17 of the ‘900 patent would anticipate claim 56 of the instant Application.
Claim 65 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claim 19 and claim 25 of the ‘900 patent would anticipate claim 64 of the instant Application, using the same rationale as discussed in respect to claim 55.
Claims 66 – 73 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 – 25, 31 and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent), using the same rationale as discussed above in respect to claims 55 – 64.
Claim 74 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 43 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,900 (‘900 patent), using the same rationale as discussed above in respect to claim 55.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Olston; Christopher A. US 20110252427 A1 Modeling And Scheduling Asynchronous Incremental Workflows
Gaillardetz; Brian T. et al. US 20200183950 A1 Data Validation And/Or Data Conversion Using Smart Contracts In Distributed Ledger Systems
Batra; Vishal S. et al. US 20190205884 A1 Converting Processes Into Multiple Blockchain Smart Contracts
Revankar; Shriram Venkatesh Shet et al. US 10880074 B2 Smart contract platform for generating and customizing smart contracts
Singh; Kapil Kumar et al. US 11178151 B2 Decentralized database identity management system
Chandra; Niharendu US 20220198394 A1 Secured Data Workflow Integration And Methods Thereof
Quigley; William Edward et al. US 20230123346 A1 Initiating A Workflow In A Virtual Reality System Based On A Recognized Activity In A Digital Token Transaction System
Lee; John Jong-Suk US 20230360032 A1 Methods And Systems For Dynamic Update To Access Control Rules In A Computing System Based On Blockchain Monitoring
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights