CTNF 19/310,678 CTNF 84238 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,423,321 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the present application’s claims are taught by the limitations of U.S. Patent No. 12,423,321 with only minor grammatical differences . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwalb U.S. Patent No. 12,450,626 Systems and methods of recommending insights to optimize an experience. In some implementations, a request is received to optimize an experience based on a display option of a plurality of display options, one or more filters, and/or one or more metrics. Based on the request, the systems and methods can access (e.g., from a sampled data set) metric data associated with each of the display options. Metric data corresponding to each display options can be compared to generate insights based on each comparison. The systems and methods can determine whether an insight corresponds to a positive improvement and rank the insights based on preconfigured criteria. In addition, insights can be implemented automatically and/or recommended to a user in order to optimize the experience (e.g., based on the one or more metrics). Wong et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,320,633 Techniques for providing insights for web service providers are disclosed. In some embodiments, a system, process, and/or computer program product for providing insights for web service providers includes monitoring user activities on a web site; generating a dashboard for displaying a summary of the monitored user activities on the web site; and generating a recommendation for improving performance of the web site for display on the dashboard. For example, the recommendation can be for improving performance of search results on the web site and/or for improving content navigation on the web site. Dunwoody U.S. Publication No. 2021/0295188 Mechanisms are provided for performing cross-user dashboard behavior analysis and dashboard recommendation generation. Dashboard interfaces are presented to a user and the user inputs are tracked. Cognitive analysis of the user dashboard behavior pattern data is performed to determine a reason for user dashboard behavior represented by the user dashboard behavior pattern data. Cross-user correlation analysis operations are performed based on the user dashboard behavior pattern data and dashboard behavior pattern data of other users of a different user type to identify an intersection point. A recommendation output is generated and output that recommends at least one of a particular dashboard interface to access or a modification to the one or more dashboard interfaces to be performed, based on the identification of the intersection point and the determined reason for the user dashboard behavior. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS E MACKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00 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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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. /KRIS E MACKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 Application/Control Number: 19/310,678 Page 2 Art Unit: 2153 Application/Control Number: 19/310,678 Page 3 Art Unit: 2153 Application/Control Number: 19/310,678 Page 4 Art Unit: 2153 Application/Control Number: 19/310,678 Page 5 Art Unit: 2153 Application/Control Number: 19/310,678 Page 6 Art Unit: 2153
Prosecution Insights