DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,599. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of US Patent 12,393,599
Claim 1 of US Patent Application 19/285,728
A computing system including one or more processors and one or more memories configured to perform operations for querying multiple data sources, comprising:
A computing system including one or more processors and one or more memories configured to perform operations for querying multiple data sources, comprising:
receiving a query instance;
receiving a query instance;
processing the query instance to generate a plurality of sub-query instances based upon, at least in part, the query instance;
processing the query instance to generate a plurality of sub-query instances based upon, at least in part, the query instance;
distributing the plurality of sub-query instances among multiple data sources that include a plurality of different network datastore systems, to extract portions of data from the multiple data sources in communication therewith corresponding to the plurality of sub-query instances, wherein at least a first sub-query instance of the plurality of sub-query instances distributed among a first data source of the multiple data sources is different than a second sub-query instance of the plurality of sub-query instances distributed among a second data source of the multiple data sources;
distributing the plurality of sub-query instances among multiple data sources that include a plurality of different network datastore systems, to extract portions of data from the multiple data sources in communication therewith corresponding to the plurality of sub-query instances, wherein at least a first sub- query instance of the plurality of sub-query instances is distributed among a first data source of the multiple data sources that is on a different type of network than a second sub-query instance of the plurality of sub-query instances distributed among a second data source of the multiple data sources;
receiving extracted data of the portions of data from the multiple data sources from each of the different network datastore systems queried with the plurality of sub-query instances; and
receiving extracted data of the portions of data from the multiple data sources from each of the different network datastore systems queried with the plurality of sub-query instances; and
responding to the query instance based upon, at least in part, receiving the extracted data of the portions of data from the multiple data sources from each of the different network datastore systems queried with the plurality of sub-query instances.
responding to the query instance based upon, at least in part, receiving the extracted data of the portions of data from the multiple data sources from each of the different network datastore systems queried with the plurality of sub-query instances.
It is noted that the claimed limitations of claims 1-20 of Patent Application 19/285,728 are almost identical to that of claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,599 except the limitations bolded above. It appears to be proper to apply the judicially created doctrine of obvious-type double patenting to the claims at issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-20 would become allowable if the obvious-type double patenting rejection is overcome. As noted above, this rejection can be overturned by filing a terminal disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 would be considered allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose each and every element of the Applicant's claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach and/or suggest “distributing the plurality of sub-query instances among multiple data sources that include a plurality of different network datastore systems, to extract portions of data from the multiple data sources in communication therewith corresponding to the plurality of sub-query instances, wherein at least a first sub- query instance of the plurality of sub-query instances is distributed among a first data source of the multiple data sources that is on a different type of network than a second sub-query instance of the plurality of sub-query instances distributed among a second data source of the multiple data sources;
responding to the query instance based upon, at least in part, receiving the extracted data of the portions of data from the multiple data sources from each of the different network datastore systems queried with the plurality of sub-query instances”.
The preceding limitations, when combined with the rest of the limitations recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 results in a combination of elements that is both novel and unobvious over the prior art of record.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAWEN A PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-5215. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Fri 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/HUAWEN A PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights