DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is in response to Application No. 17/580,519 filed 1/20/2022 which claims priority to Application No. 13/571,512 (now U.S. Patent 10,057,318) filed 8/10/2012. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment presented on 8/13/2025 which provides amendments to claim 1, 8, and 15 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections – Withdrawn
The previous double patenting rejection against U.S. Patent No. 10,805,389 is withdrawn as nece3ssitated by the Terminal Disclaimer filed 8/13/2025.
The previous 35 U.S.C §103 rejections over Strong et al. (US 2006/0101064 A1) have been withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered, however, the amendment(s) to the claims necessitated a new consideration and search resulting in new prior art cited below.
Additionally, during the interview held 7/17/2025, the Examiner warned that proper written description support for the amendment (proposed at the time) may not be present. In response Applicant points to at least paragraph [0036] of the specification. However, as shown in the 112(a) rejection, as well as the objections, below, the specification does not provide support for the claims. Rather, the specification’s surrounding disclosure points to an unintended typographical error instead of intentional features. As of this amendment, the Applicant has created two new requirements out of the typographical error; (1) “without providing a second copy of the content item to the second client device”, and (2) “without updating an existing copy of the content item at the second device” all because a few sentences omitted “D” from the list “B, C, and D” as shown below. There is no discussion of either of these features in the specification. The methods described in the disclosure do not appear to recite (1) not providing a copy of the content item and (2) not updating an existing copy of the content item, that had an attribute change, to the clients. Actually, each of the methods and figures pointed to for support by applicant ultimately conclude in the providing of a copy of the content item to the clients.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears paragraph [0036] was intended to be:
“[0036] The synchronization server 320 identifies Client Devices B and C as belonging to Elisabeth. Synchronization server 320 identifies Client Device D as belonging to Andrew, with whom Elisabeth has shared Folder #5 (step 440). Synchronization server 320 notifies Client Devices B, C, and D of the change to Folder #5 (step 450). The local synchronization clients 340b, 340c, 340d on Client Devices B, C, and [[C]]D each realizes that they have a Folder #5 and requests relevant file data from synchronization server 320 (step 470). The synchronization server 320 sends file data to Client Devices B, C, and [[C]]D (step 480). Client Devices B, C, and [[C]]D update corresponding Folder #5 on Client Devices B, C, and [[C]]D (step 490).”
The first half of the paragraph correctly lists Client Devices “B, C, and D”, and then the second half, without explanation, begins to omit “D”. Even the first sentence to omit D references “340d” which is a component of Client Device “D”. Therefore, the omission of “D” from the list of Client Devices appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 4b appears to have been drafted in accordance with the typographical error identified above with the objection to the specification (Omitting Client Device “D” from steps 470, 480, and 490 in Figure 4b). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly in claims 8 and 15), “providing, to a second client device associated with a second user account having shared access to the content item, a notification of an attribute change for the content item without providing a second copy of the content item to the second client device and without updating an existing copy of the content item at the second client device” does not appear supported by the specification. Specifically, each limitation in a claim is a requirement of the claim. The requirement of “[not] providing a second copy of the content item to the second client device and [not] updating an existing copy of the content item at the second client device [while notifying of an attribute change]” does not appear disclosed by the specification. The specification at [0022] describes first sending metadata to clients, then the server will download the file data to the clients (i.e., providing the copy of the content item). The specification at [0024] describes first notifying clients of a change to a folder or content within the folder, then updating the content within the folder within clients (i.e., providing the copy of the content item). The specification at [0036] similarly describes first notifying clients of a change to a folder or content within the folder, then the server will download the file data to the clients (i.e., providing the copy of the content item). It appears Applicant is creating limitations out of clear typographical errors within the specification as noted in the objections above. There is no discussion of the two requirements; not providing a copy, and not updating an existing copy, of the content item that has an attribute change and notification sent, and therefore, the above citation in claims 1, 8, and 15 does not appear supported by the specification.
Dependent claims not mentioned inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hull (US 2010/0115037 A1), in view of Sanders et al. (US 2013/0047084 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Sanders”, which claims priority from provisional application no. 61/525,161 filed 8/18/2011, citations below are with respect to the provisional application), and further in view of Peters et al. (US 8,230,348 A1, patented 7/24/2012, hereinafter “Peters”).
Regarding claim 1, Hull teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating a plurality of references associated with a plurality of content items stored by a content management system; More specifically, at least Figures 3A, 3B, 5A, 5B, depict user interfaces referencing content items stored at a digital content management service (Hull, abstract, Figure 1, [0013]-[0014]).
providing, to a first client device associated with a first user account, the plurality of references, wherein providing the plurality of references causes the first client device to display representative graphical elements corresponding to the plurality of references; More specifically, clients access the digital content management service, and subsequently the digital content library, remotely via a browser (Hull, [0019], [0022], Figures 3A, 3B, 5A, 5B).
Additionally, Hull discloses the user can right-click on a content item and click “send” to issue a share command (Hull, [0024], Figure 3B). Figure 4 depicts the user interface for completing the sharing operation to share the content item with one or more other users (Hull, Figure 4, [0025]-[0027]). Users login with a user name and password (Hull, [0016]).
However, Hull may not explicitly teach every aspect of
receiving, from the first client device, a selection of a representative graphical element corresponding to a reference from the plurality of references; and
providing, to the first client device, a first copy of a content item associated with the reference based on the one or more user interactions with the graphical element on the first client device.
Sanders discloses a method at a client device includes displaying media library information corresponding to a set of media items. The media items include one or more local media items stored at the client device, and one or more remote media items stored at a remote system and not at the client device. The method also includes displaying, concurrently with displaying the media library information, affordances identifying the remote media items; detecting user interaction with an affordance identifying a respective remote media item; and in response to detecting the user interaction, initiating a process for downloading a copy of the respective remote media item to the client device for storage at the client device (Sanders, abstract). Users log in to there respective accounts (Sanders, [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made given the teachings of Hull and Sanders that a method for content management where content is displayed with graphical elements would include receiving, from the first client device, a selection of a representative graphical element corresponding to a reference from the plurality of references; and providing, to the first client device, a copy of a content item associated with the reference based on the one or more user interactions with the graphical element on the first client device. With both Hull and Sanders disclosing content management with a list of content stored either locally or remotely, and with Sanders disclosing icons next to each content item allowing a user to download a copy of a remotely stored item, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for content management where content is stored locally and remotely would include receiving, from the first client device, a selection of a representative graphical element corresponding to a reference from the plurality of references; and providing, to the first client device, a copy of a content item associated with the reference based on the one or more user interactions with the graphical element on the first client device in order to allow a user to download copies of the content they may own as part of a playlist that may not currently be stored locally. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for content management where content is stored locally and remotely.
However, Hull and Sanders may not explicitly teach every aspect of
receiving, from the first client device, an indication of a change to the content item associated with the reference;
updating a server copy of the content item associated with the reference;
based on receiving the indication of the change to the content item from the first client device,
providing, to a second client device associated with a second user account having shared access to the content item, a notification of an attribute change for the content item without providing a second copy of the content item to the second client device and without updating an existing copy of the content item at the second client device.
Peters discloses content sharing between a plurality of users. When a first (“initiating”) user makes a change to a content item (“primary change message” is sent to a server), the server makes the change to the content item, and then server sends a notification (“change advice message”) to all users logged in and with access to the changed content item that the content item was changed. The notification identifies the content item and what the change was “without containing the entire data for the changed content data item”. The content can include text items, e-mail messages, URLs, files or file addresses, or contact items (Peters, claims 1 and 7-11). Therefore, a copy of, or update to, the changed content item is not provided to a second client device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made given the teachings of Hull and Sanders with Peters that a method for content management where content is displayed with graphical elements would include receiving, from the first client device, an indication of a change to the content item associated with the reference; updating a server copy of the content item associated with the reference; based on receiving the indication of the change to the content item from the first client device, providing, to a second client device associated with a second user account having shared access to the content item, a notification of an attribute change for the content item without providing a second copy of the content item to the second client device and without updating an existing copy of the content item at the second client device. With Hull, Sanders, and Peters disclosing content management with a list of content stored either locally or remotely, and with Peters additionally disclosing a second client is notified of changes made to metadata of content on a first client without receiving a fully copy of the content, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for content management where content is displayed with graphical elements would include receiving, from the first client device, an indication of a change to the content item associated with the reference; updating a server copy of the content item associated with the reference; based on receiving the indication of the change to the content item from the first client device, providing, to a second client device associated with a second user account having shared access to the content item, a notification of an attribute change for the content item without providing a second copy of the content item to the second client device and without updating an existing copy of the content item at the second client device in order to allow a user save bandwidth if simple metadata updates occur to many files in a sharing environment with many clients. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for content management where content is stored locally and remotely.
Regarding claim 2, Hull and Sanders with Peters teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a given reference of the plurality of references indicates a file system location within the content management system for a corresponding given content item of the plurality of content items. More specifically, item 312 indicates the location of the stored content item (Hull, Figures 3A and 5B, [0022])
Regarding claim 3, Hull and Sanders with Peters teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising sharing the content item with a third client device. More specifically, the user can right-click on a content item and click “send” to issue a share command (Hull, [0024], Figure 3B). Figure 4 depicts the user interface for completing the sharing operation to share the content item with one or more other users (Hull, Figure 4, [0025]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 4, Hull and Sanders with Peters teach the computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising sharing the content item with the third client device by providing the third client device with an instance of the reference corresponding to the content item. More specifically, the sharing process generates a content-recommendation message that includes a copy of the content item or a reference/link to the content item (Hull, [0031], [0037]).
Regarding claim 5, Hull and Sanders with Peters teach the computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising sharing the content item with the third client device by providing the third client device with a copy of the content item. More specifically, the sharing process generates a content-recommendation message that includes a copy of the content item or a reference/link to the content item (Hull, [0031], [0037]).
Regarding claims 8 and 11-13, these claims recite a system that preforms the steps of the method of claims 1 and 3-5, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, these claims recite the non-transitory computer-readable medium that causes a computing device to perform the method of claims 1 and 3, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claims 6, 14, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hull and Sanders with Peters, and further in view of Mohler et al. (US 2006/0286536 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Mohler”).
Regarding claim 6, Hull and Sanders with Peters teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of further comprising changing permission settings corresponding to the content item.
Mohler discloses providing content and enabling users to add or modify content. A server stores content objects developed by one or more authors, and a permissions module regulates access to the content objects based upon stored permission settings. (Mohler, abstract). The invention allows authors to set permissions which control how and if particular content can be shared with other authors (Mohler, [0108]). The permissions window is activated when the author right clicks a mouse pointer on a content item within the tree (Mohler, [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made given the teachings of Hull, Sanders, and Peters with Mohler that a method for content management where actions are performed on content items would include wherein performing the action with respect to the content item comprises changing permission settings corresponding to the content item. With both Hull and Mohler disclosing content management where right-clicking on content items allows for changing options, and with Mohler disclosing that a user can change permission settings via right-clicking on content items, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for content management where actions are performed on content items would include wherein performing the action with respect to the content item comprises changing permission settings corresponding to the content item in order to allow a user to set typical content attributes in a content management system. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for content management where actions are performed on content items.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites the system that performs the steps of the method of claim 6, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium that performs the steps of the method of claim 6, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hull and Sanders with Peters as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perkes (US 2003/0110503 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hull and Sanders with Peters teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of further comprising removing, after a period of time, the first copy of the content item from the first client device.
Perkes discloses a system, method and computer program product is disclosed for presenting media to a user in a media on demand framework (Perkes, abstract). The Client Software running on the consumer's computer is designed to enable the consumer to program, store or bookmark…downloadable (local) /streaming (remote) music content (Perkes, [0041]). Content will have information regarding a time when the content will self delete (Perkes, [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made given the teachings of Hull, Sanders, and Peters with Perkes that a method for content management where copies of content items can be downloaded to the local storage would include further comprising removing, after a period of time, the first copy of the content item from the first client device. With both Hull and Gupta disclosing content management where content sharing is controlled, and with Perkes additionally disclosing that a content can be configured to self-delete after a time, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for content management where copies of content items can be downloaded to the local storage would include further comprising removing, after a period of time, the first copy of the content item from the first client device in order to save storage space in the local storage as well as prevent unauthorized viewing of the content if it is rented. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for content management where actions are performed on content items.
Claims 9, 10, and 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hull and Sanders with Peters as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 8,392,472 B1, hereinafter referred to as “Gupta”).
Regarding claim 9, Hull and Sanders with Peters teach the system of claim 8, including that item 312 indicates the location (reference of the stored content item (Hull, Figures 3A and 5B, [0022]), however, Hull may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein providing the plurality of references to the first client device comprises providing metadata for each of the plurality of references, the metadata indicating attributes of the plurality of content items associated with the plurality of references.
Gupta discloses a content manager that can enable sharing content folders among several users for collaboration (Gupta, col 6, lines 15-16). Content can include displayed form fields or boxes for receiving user-entered data and values via a graphical user interface (Gupta, col 1, lines 53-55). An operator via the content manager, can choose content fields in order to construct meta-data (set of properties) that the content manager applies to content (Gupta, col 1, line 66 – col 2, line 3). In response to modifying attributes of one or more form fields of the content, the content manager updates the metadata and data stored in the content folder (Gupta, col 3, line 12-17). The paths (references) for the content is stored in metadata (Gupta, col 9, lines 25-38, Figure 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made given the teachings of Hull, Sanders, and Peters with Gupta that a method for content management where actions are performed on content items would include wherein providing the plurality of references to the first client device comprises providing metadata for each of the plurality of references, the metadata indicating attributes of the plurality of content items associated with the plurality of references. With both Hull and Gupta disclosing content management where content sharing is controlled as well as references for the content, and with Gupta additionally disclosing that that the references can be stored in metadata, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for content management where actions are performed on content items would include wherein receiving an indication of the one or more user interactions with the graphical element corresponding to the reference comprises receiving metadata indicating an attribute change for the content item in order to allow a user to set typical content attributes in a content management system. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for content management where actions are performed on content items.
Regarding claim 10, Hull and Sanders with Peters teach the system of claim 8, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein receiving the selection of the representative graphical element corresponding to the reference comprises receiving a metadata update indicating the attribute change for the content item.
Gupta discloses a content manager that can enable sharing content folders among several users for collaboration (Gupta, col 6, lines 15-16). Content can include displayed form fields or boxes for receiving user-entered data and values via a graphical user interface (Gupta, col 1, lines 53-55). An operator via the content manager, can choose content fields in order to construct meta-data (set of properties) that the content manager applies to content (Gupta, col 1, line 66 – col 2, line 3). In response to modifying attributes of one or more form fields of the content, the content manager updates the metadata and data stored in the content folder (Gupta, col 3, line 12-17). The paths (references) for the content is stored in metadata (Gupta, col 9, lines 25-38, Figure 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made given the teachings of Hull, Sanders, and Peters with Gupta that a method for content management where actions are performed on content items would include wherein receiving the selection of the representative graphical element corresponding to the reference comprises receiving a metadata update indicating an attribute change for the content item. With both Hull and Gupta disclosing content management where content sharing is controlled as well as references for the content, and with Gupta additionally disclosing that that the references can be stored in metadata including receiving updates to the metadata, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for content management where actions are performed on content items would include wherein receiving the selection of the representative graphical element corresponding to the reference comprises receiving a metadata update indicating an attribute change for the content item in order to allow a user to set typical content attributes in a content management system. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for content management where actions are performed on content items.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium that performs the steps of the system of claim 10, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hull and Sanders with Peters as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Szabo et al. (US 2009/0328135 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Szabo”).
Regarding claim 18, Hull and Sanders with Peters teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to change synchronization settings for the content item.
Szabo discloses providing for privacy management by controlling privacy of shared content on a group basis (Szabo, [0005]). Any type of content may be synchronized and/or shared amongst the platforms and made available for access including content, user profile information, files (e.g., documents, photos, media content, etc.), contact information, or the like (Szabo, [0038]). A user may set synchronization parameters, which may identify types of content that should be synchronized and types of content that need not be synchronized (Szabo, [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made given the teachings of Hull, Sanders, and Peters with Szabo that a method for content management where actions are performed on content items would include wherein the instructions to perform the action with respect to the content item comprise instructions to change synchronization settings for the content item. With both Hull and Szabo disclosing content management where content sharing is controlled, and with Szabo additionally disclosing that synchronization parameters can be set for each item of content, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for content management where actions are performed on content items would include wherein the instructions to perform the action with respect to the content item comprise instructions to change synchronization settings for the content item in order to allow a user to set typical content attributes in a content management system. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for content management where actions are performed on content items.
Claim 20 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hull and Sanders with Peters as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Harrang et al. (US 2010/0070628 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Harrang”).
Regarding claim 20, Hull and Sanders with Peters teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, including that the user can right-click on a content item and click “send” to issue a share command (Hull, [0024], Figure 3B). Figure 4 depicts the user interface for completing the sharing operation to share the content item with one or more other users (Hull, Figure 4, [0025]-[0027]).
However, Hull, Sanders, and Peters may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein receiving the selection of the graphical element corresponding to the reference comprises detecting a right click with respect to the graphical element corresponding to the reference.
Harrang discloses a networked computing system that is capable of detecting and coordinating the distribution of burdensome media content (Harrang, abstract). The media content repository 214 may include media content relating to various common media content, including, but not limited to: movies, TV programs, home video, software applications, video games, music, volumes of text, etc. (Harrang, [0038], [0042]). A user may browse to a content provider's website (See e.g., FIGS. 10 and 11) and right-click on a link or icon representing downloadable media content. The browser plug-in may present the user with a drop-down menu list that includes the option for a managed file download, which the user can select (Harrang, [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made given the teachings of Hull, Sanders, and Peters with Harrang that a method for content management where content items can be downloaded would include wherein receiving the selection of the graphical element corresponding to the reference comprises detecting a right click with respect to the graphical element corresponding to the reference. With Hull and Harrang disclosing content management where content can be downloaded, and with Harrang additionally disclosing that downloading content can be initiated with right-clicking on the content item, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for content management where content items can be downloaded would include wherein receiving the selection of the graphical element corresponding to the reference comprises detecting a right click with respect to the graphical element corresponding to the reference in order to allow a user to use typical shortcuts for downloading content in a content management system. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for content management where actions are performed on content items.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Heidloff (US 2006/0206570 A1) – sending a notification to a second user when content is changed by a first user, the notification is an email with a link to the changed content, thus the copy of content is not yet sent.
Khalil (US 10,223,336 B2) – sending a notification to a second user when content is changed by a first user.
Bartholomew (US 2011/0289189 A1) – sending a notification to a second user when content is changed by a first user.
Churchill (US 9,224,172 B1) – sending a notification when metadata for a media asset has changed.
Lindstrom (US 2008/0065701 A1) – sending a notification when metadata for a media asset has changed.
Duncan (US 2005/00114672 A1) – sending a notification when metadata for a media asset has changed.
Barker (US 2002/0143976 A1) – sending a notification when metadata for a media asset has changed.
Nomura (US 2005/0022237 A1) – sending a notification when metadata for a media asset has changed.
Cassidy (US 2012/0088477 A1) – media service with a local and remote media archive, a download icon appears by media.
Moromisato (US 2008/0276181 A1) – indicating local versus remote storage of a data file ([0035]).
Gray (US 8,055,698 B2) – indicating local versus remote storage of a data file (claim 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, ET.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at (571) 270-3264. 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.
/PATRICK F RIEGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171