DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1, 5, 10, 15, 18 and 19 in the amendment filed on 8/5/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/5/2026 with respect to the claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and rejections of the claims in the last office action have been withdrawn except the objection of claim 10 and the double patenting rejection.
Examiner’s Remarks
After further reviewed Applicant's arguments (i.e., pages 9-13 of the Applicant’s Remarks, and in light of the original specification, paragraphs [0004] – [0066]), the claimed amendment filed on August 5, 2026 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. § 112 and 101 rejections. The limitations as added and/or amended to the independent claims included additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that would make the claims eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, regarding to the objection of claim 10 as unconsidered, and the double patenting rejection in the last office action as stated by the Applicant “Since other rejections are currently outstanding in this matter, Applicant respectfully reserves the right to file a terminal disclaimer if this rejection is maintained when all other rejections have been overcome” (see e.g., page 9 of the Applicant’s Remarks); therefore, the objection and the double patenting rejection are hereby maintained in this office action.
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-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 19 of the US Patent Number 12,405,941 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1, 10 and 19 of the US Patent Number 12,405,941 B2 contain every element of claims 1, 10 and 19 of the instant application respectively and as such anticipate(s) claims 1, 10 and 19 of the instant application (see i.e., table below).
Initially, it should be noted that the instant application and the U.S. Patent number 12,405,941 B2 have the same inventive entities. The inventor and/or assignee for the US Patent and the instant application are Timothy Haggerty, Venu Kumar Nannapaneni, Ramachandra Kancharla, Pravin Nair, and Priyank Chittaranjan Subhedar as the inventors; and Capital One Services, LLC as the assignee.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 10, the claim recites “adding, by the computing device…” which should be written or amended as “add”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection, and a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the double patenting rejection as set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
After conducting different searches in PE2E - SEARCH, Similarity and More Like Doc Searches, Google Scholar, and IP.com, it appears that none of prior arts, singular and any order combination, discloses, teaches or fairly suggests the limitations as a whole in the independent claims 1, 10 and 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,321,795 B1 by Stead et al. teaches a computing device configured to manage one or more computing devices of an enterprise is disclosed. The computing device includes a transceiver, a memory, and a processor. The memory may include instructions stored thereon, that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to provide a user interface comprising one or more data objects, receive a command via the user interface, validate the command, prepare a script based on the command, the script comprising computer-readable instructions configured to be executed by one or more remote servers, schedule the script to be executed by the one or more remote servers, and receive a result from the one or more remote servers. The script is configured to implement the command on the one or more remote servers in order to facilitate the management of the processing system of the enterprise.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bai D. Vu whose telephone number is (571) 270-1751. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:30.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at (571) 272-4078. 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.
/BAI D VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights