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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0001] claims priorit to Applications 17/977600 and 16/234091 which should be corrected to include the patent numbers 12567107 and 11532044, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings Figs 1, 3, 5A, and 5B are objected to because the drawings are not of sufficient quality to permit adequate reproduction (37 CFR 1.184(l)), all lines, numbers, and figures are not sufficiently dense and dark, and the drawings should be in black and white without graying or shading. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 19 and 20 are being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) due to the following limitations “means for obtaining”, “means for identifying”, means for determining, means for skipping, means for attempting, means for removing, means for attempting, means for generating, means for removing, means for generating, and means for sending. The Examiner has interpreted the means for in claims 19 and 20 as “computer system” or “computer device” as discussed in the specification [0055], and [0072].
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12567107. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims contain all the limitations of the current claims.
19/459321
12,567,107
A computed-implemented method including: obtaining, by a processor and from a current execution stack including a stack of processor-executable instructions configured to feed vertices to the processor in a defined search order, a first vertex data record
A computed-implemented method including: obtaining, by a processor of a data transaction processing system, a weighted directed graph data structure that includes vertex data records representing a plurality of participants and edge data records representing obligations between the participants;
identifying, by the processor and for the current execution stack, a first circular path traversable from the first vertex data record to at least a second vertex data record of the current execution stack and back to the first vertex data record
identifying, by the processor and for the execution stack, a first circular path traversable from the first vertex data record to at least a second vertex data record of the execution stack of vertexes and back to the first vertex data record
determining, by the processor, an aggregate notional value for the first circular path
determining, by the processor, an aggregate notional value for the first circular path
skipping, despite being fed the first vertex data record in accord with the defined search order at a time the aggregate notional value for the first circular path is zero, an obligation
optimization for the first circular path;
skipping, despite selection by the processor at a time the aggregate notional value for the first circular path is zero, an obligation optimization for the first circular path
attempting, by the processor and after identifying the first circular path, to identify a second circular path traversable from the first vertex data record to at least the second vertex data record and back to the first vertex data record, the second circular path different from any previously identified circular path for the current execution stack
attempting, by the processor and after identifying the first circular path, to identify a second circular path traversable from the first vertex data record to at least the second vertex data record and back to the first vertex data record, the second circular path different from any previously identified circular path for the execution stack
removing, by the processor and at a time the attempt to identify the second circular path fails, the second vertex data record from the current execution stack
removing, by the processor and at a time the attempt to identify the second circular path fails, the second vertex data record from the execution stack of vertexes
attempting, by the processor and after removing the second vertex from the current execution stack, to identify a third circular path traversable from the first vertex data record to at least a third vertex data record and back to the first vertex data record, the third circular path
different from any previously identified circular path;
attempting, by the processor and after removing the second vertex from the execution stack of vertexes, to identify a third circular path traversable from the first vertex data record to at least a third vertex data record and back to the first vertex data record, the third circular path different from any previously identified circular path
generating, by the processor and at a time the attempt to identify the third circular path fails,
another execution stack different from the current execution stack
generating, by the processor and at a time the attempt to identify the third circular path fails, another execution stack of vertexes based on selection of a start vertex other than the first vertex data record
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hudson US 20190102736 VUKASOVIC (M. Vukasovic, M. Apostolovic and C. Todem, "Implementation aspects of partial netting in flow-based auction clearing mechanism," 2008 5th International Conference on the European Electricity Market, 2008, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/EEM.2008.4579026) teaches netting of obligations in an auction environment BIALEK (J. W. Bialek and S. Ziemianek, "Tracing based transmission pricing of cross-border trades: fundamentals and circular flows," 2003 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference Proceedings,, 2003, pp. 8 pp. Vol.3-, doi: 10.1109/PTC.2003.1304456) teaches netting out generations and demands in an interconnected power system represented by super nodes in a graph (see Fig. 7a)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
