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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed July 28, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 recite the limitation “a respective sidecar process” in multiple limitations of the claims. It is unclear whether the second instance of “a respective sidecar process” is different than the first instance of the “respective sidecar process”. If it is the same “respective sidecar process”, there is sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, and therefore the “a” prior to the second instance of this limitation is not necessary. However, if both “respective sidecar process” instances are different, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and differentiation and appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory obviousness 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of patent document no. 12,393,721 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter of using a sidecar to modify, delete, or alter data. A side-by-side analysis of the first independent claim(s) of the instant application and the copending application(s) has been included below. The bolded portions are portions which are almost identical to one another. The non-bolded portions are related to subject matter which are obvious, and do not further define over the subject matter of one another. Therefore, the subject matter of both claim sets are not distinct from one another and yields an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. This is NOT a provisional double patenting rejection since patent document (US 12,393,721 B2) has been issued while the instant application is pending.
Here is the following side-by-side analysis of the first independent claim in each application:
Instant Application ‘506
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a first data store access process from a first application, a first query from a client system, the first query having one or more query characteristics;
selecting, by the first data store access process, a respective side car process from a plurality of side car processes based on the one or more query characteristics;
accessing, by the first data store access process, a first data store and extracting a first set of data items from the first data store based on the first query;
causing, by a respective sidecar process, the first set of data items to be modified by at least one of adding additional information to the first set of data items, deleting a data item from the first set of data items, or altering a data item in the first set of data items to generate a modified first set of data items; and
providing, by the first data store access process, the modified first set of data items to the first application.
Patent No. ‘721
1. A method comprising:
determining, by a first data store access process executing on a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, that a first sidecar process exists;
receiving, by the first data store access process from a first application, a first query;
accessing, by the first data store access process, the first data store and extracting a first set of data items from the first data store based on the first query;
providing, to the first sidecar process by the first data store access process, access to the first set of data items; causing, by the first sidecar process and based on a first criterion, the first set of data items to be modified by at least one of adding additional information to the first set of data items, deleting a data item from the first set of data items, or altering a data item in the first set of data items to generate a modified first set of data items; and
providing, by the first data store access process, the modified first set of data items to the first application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over available prior art references and/or combinations of available prior art references, but they are rejected under Double Patenting.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowance
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Examiner has not found any reasonable prior art(s) nor combination of prior art(s) which teach the feature of ‘selecting, by the first data store access process, a respective side car process from a plurality of side car processes based on the one or more query characteristics…causing, by a respective sidecar process, the first set of data items to be modified by at least one of adding additional information to the first set of data items, deleting a data item from the first set of data items, or altering a data item in the first set of data items to generate a modified first set of data items’.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER B. HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6a-2p ET.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/ESTHER B. HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458 September 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights