Google, Inc. v. Eolas Technologies Inc. et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Eolas Technologies Incorporated. The Regents of the University of California. Filed byGoogle, Inc.(Filing fee $400.00, receipt number 0971-8262256.). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Civil Cover Sheet)(Mitro, Keith) (Filed on 12/30/2013) Modified on 12/31/2013 (ha, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/3/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Exhibit J UNITED STA I ES PA PENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/586,918 10/26/2006 Michael D. Doyle 006-1-6 2537 30080 7590 06/22/2010 LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES E. KRUEGER P.O. BOX 5607 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596-1607 EXAMINER DONAGHUE, LARRY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/22/2010 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) Application No. Applicant(s) 11/586,918 Examiner Art Unit Larry Donaghue Office Action Summary DOYLE ET AL. 2454 -- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -- Period for Reply A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION. Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication. If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication. Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133). Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b). Status 1)u Responsive to communication(s) filed on 2a)u This action is FINAL. . 2b)Z This action is non-final. 3)u Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213. Disposition of Claims 4)Z Claim(s) 40-67 is/are pending in the application. 4a) Of the above claim(s) 5)0 Claim(s) is/are withdrawn from consideration. is/are allowed. 6)Z Claim(s) 40-67 is/are rejected. 7)0 Claim(s) is/are objected to. 8)u Claim(s) are subject to restriction and/or election requirement. Application Papers 9)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner. 10)0 The drawing(s) filed on is/are: a)u accepted or bElobjected to by the Examiner. Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d). 11)0 The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152. Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 12)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f). b)E1Some * c)u None of: 1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received. 2.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. . 3.0 Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)). * See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received. Attachment(s) 1) Z Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 2) u Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948) 3) Z Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08) Paper No(s)/Mail Date 6/22/07,4/7/08. 4) u Interview Summary (PTO-413) Paper No(s)/Mail Date. 5) u Notice of Informal Patent Application 6) u Other: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06) Office Action Summary Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20100620 Application/Control Number: 11/586,918 Art Unit: 2454 1. Claims 40-67 are presented for examination. 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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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. Page 2 Application/Control Number: 11/586,918 Art Unit: 2454 Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 40-67 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-14 and 1-47 of U. S. Patent No. 5,838,906 and 7,599,985 respectfully since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: The Claim(s) of patents contain every element of claim(s) of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) of the instant application. "A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001). Page 3 Application/Control Number: 11/586,918 Page 4 Art Unit: 2454 Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larry Donaghue whose telephone number is (571)272-3962. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 6:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-7869199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. Application/Control Number: 11/586,918 Art Unit: 2454 /Larry Donaghue/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454 Page 5 Application/Control No. 11/586,918 Examiner Art Unit Larry Donaghue Notice of References Cited Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination DOYLE ET AL. 2454 Page 1 of 1 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS Document Number Date *Name Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY * US-7,599,985 10-2009 Doyle et al. A * US-5,838,906 11-1998 Doyle et al. B O US- F US- G US- H US- I US- ,j US- K US- L US- M 715/205 US- E 709/202 US- D Classification USFOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS Document Number * Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY Country Name Classification N 0 P Q R S T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) U V W X *A copy of th's reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).) Dates in MM YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. 20100620 Application/Control No. 111 11 1111111111 111 11 11586918 Examiner Index of Claims Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination DOYLE ET AL. Art Unit Larry Donaghue 2454 Rejected Allowed • Cancelled Restricted N Non-Elected A Appeal Interference 0 Objected • • T.D. Claims renumbered in the same order as presented by applicant CLAIM Final CPA • R.1.47 DATE Original 06/20/2010 40 V 41 V 42 V 43 V 44 V 45 V 46 V 47 V 48 V 49 V 50 V 51 V 52 V 53 V 54 V 55 V 56 V 57 V 58 V 59 V 60 V 61 V 62 V 63 V 64 V 65 V 66 V 67 V 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No. : 20100620 Application/Control No. 111 11 1111111111 111 11 11586918 Examiner Index of Claims Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination DOYLE ET AL. Art Unit Larry Donaghue 2454 Rejected Allowed • Cancelled Restricted N Non-Elected A Appeal Interference 0 Objected • • T.D. Claims renumbered in the same order as presented by applicant CLAIM Final CPA • R.1.47 DATE Original 06/20/2010 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No. : 20100620 UNITED STA I ES PA PENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/586,918 10/26/2006 Michael D. Doyle 006-1-6 2537 30080 7590 12/22/2010 LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES E. KRUEGER P.O. BOX 5607 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596-1607 EXAMINER DONAGHUE, LARRY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2010 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) Application No. 11/586,918 Office Action Summary Applicant(s) DOYLE ET AL. Examiner Art Unit Larry Donaghue 2454 -- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -- Period for Reply A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION. - Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication. - If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication. - Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133). Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b). Status 1)Z Responsive to communication(s) filed on 13 November 2010. 2a)Z This action is FINAL. 2b)EIThis action is non-final. 3)0 Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213. Disposition of Claims 4)Z Claim(s) 40-67 is/are pending in the application. 4a) Of the above claim(s) is/are withdrawn from consideration. 5)0 Claim(s) is/are allowed. 6)Z Claim(s) 40-67 is/are rejected. 7)0 Claim(s) is/are objected to. 8)0 Claim(s) are subject to restriction and/or election requirement. Application Papers 9)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner. 10)0 The drawing(s) filed on is/are: a)E accepted or bElobjected to by the Examiner. Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d). 11)0 The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152. Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 12)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f). b)E1Some * c)EINone of: 1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received. 2.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. . 3.0 Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)). *See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received. Attachment(s) 1) u Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 2) u Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948) 3) u Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SIB/08) Paper No(s)/Mail Date 4) u Interview Summary (PTO-413) Paper No(s)/Mail Date. 5) u Notice of Informal Patent Application 6) u Other: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06) Office Action Summary Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20101218 Application/Control Number: 11/586,918 Page 2 Art Unit: 2454 1. Claims 40-67 are presented for examination. 2. The following rejections are maintained. 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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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. Application/Control Number: 11/586,918 Page 3 Art Unit: 2454 Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 40-67 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-14 and 1-47 of U. S. Patent No. 5,838,906 and 7,599,985 respectfully since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: The Claim(s) of patents contain every element of claim(s) of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) of the instant application. "A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousnesstype double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001). The Terminal Disclaimer was denied entry as the signature is not of an attorney of record. Examiner could find no power of attorney filed in the application. Application/Control Number: 11/586,918 Page 4 Art Unit: 2454 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 extension fee 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larry Donaghue whose telephone number is (571)2723962. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 -6:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Joseph E. Avellino can be reached on 571-272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571273-8300. Application/Control Number: 11/586,918 Page 5 Art Unit: 2454 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Larry Donaghue/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454 Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination Index of Claims 11586918 DOYLE ET AL. * 11 58691 Examiner Art Unit Larry Donaghue 2454 8 * Rejected Allowed • Cancelled N Restricted Non-Elected A Appeal Interference 0 Objected Claims renumbered in the same order as presented by applicant CLAIM Final • CPA • T.D. • R.1.47 DATE Original 06/20/2010 12/18/2010 40 v v 41 v v 42 v v 43 v v 44 v v 45 v v 46 v v 47 v v 48 v v 49 v v 50 v v 51 v v 52 v v 53 v v 54 v v 55 v v 56 v v 57 v v 58 v v 59 v v 60 v v 61 v v 62 v v 63 v v 64 v v 65 v v 66 v v 67 v v 68 69 70 71 72 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No.: 20101218 Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination Index of Claims 11586918 DOYLE ET AL. * 11 58691 Examiner Art Unit Larry Donaghue 2454 8 * Rejected Allowed • Cancelled N Restricted Non-Elected A Appeal Interference 0 Objected Claims renumbered in the same order as presented by applicant CLAIM Final • CPA • T.D. • R.1.47 DATE Original 06/20/2010 12/18/2010 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No.: 20101218 Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination Index of Claims 11586918 DOYLE ET AL. * 11 58691 Examiner Art Unit Larry Donaghue 2454 8 * Rejected Allowed • Cancelled N Restricted Non-Elected A Appeal Interference 0 Objected Claims renumbered in the same order as presented by applicant CLAIM Final • CPA • T.D. • R.1.47 DATE Original 06/20/2010 12/18/2010 106 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No.: 20101218

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?