DETAILED ACTION
The current office action is in response to the communication filed on 7/1/25.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 .
Paper Submitted
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) as received on 10/1/25 are considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6, 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “…the processor…” in claim 4, line 1, should be “…the at least one processor…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required. Similar corrections are required in claim 5, lines 2-3; and claim 6, line 1.
The limitation “…a second distributed services system…” in claim 5, line 2, should be “…a second distributed service system…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the typographical/grammatical error in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required. Similar corrections are required in claim 11, lines 2-3; and claim 17, line 2.
All dependent claims are objected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,413,497. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application disclose receiving a request for an interaction determination; determining a plurality of distributed service systems associated with the interaction, wherein the plurality of distributed service systems comprise a sequence defining an order by which operations associated with the interaction are performed by respective distributed service systems; and wherein each of the respective distributed service systems comprises one or more trace agents configured to generate service system specific data trace objects; receiving the service system specific data trace objects for each of the respective distributed service systems; generating an interaction object based on the service system specific data trace objects for each of the respective distributed service systems associated with the interaction; generating a request transmission for each of the respective distributed service systems; receiving a response transmission from each of the respective distributed service systems; accessing a response transmission queue comprising each of the response transmissions associated with each of the respective distributed service systems; generating a response transmission copy for each of the response transmissions; and providing the response transmissions to an intended application associated with the interaction. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. By this rationale, the claims of the instant application are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Gangadharan et al. US 10,805,144. Discloses monitoring interactions between entities in a network.
White et al. US 2008/0016412. Discloses performing system metric analysis.
Nataraj et al. US 2017/0034019. Discloses determining performance of an application that implements a distributed transaction.
Umanesan. US 2022/0272151. Discloses monitoring server-side resources in a distributed data environment.
Moon et al. US 2019/0098076. Discloses monitor applications deployed in public cloud environments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnny B Aguiar whose telephone number is (571)272-3563. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 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.
/JOHNNY B AGUIAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
September 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights