DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
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 Arguments
In response to the applicant’s claims amendment in view of the Remarks filed 06/25/2026, the 101 rejection have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 – 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14; the limitation “the one or more processors” lack proper antecedent basis.
Claims 15 – 18 are dependent claims and thus also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 9 – 15, and 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al., (US 2016/0094622 A1) (hereinafter “Thomas”) in view of CALLANAN et al., (US 2012/0128147 A1) (hereinafter “Callanan”) and the prior art of record, Tan (US 2017/0099293 A1) (hereinafter “Tan”).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses; a system, comprising:
a server comprising one or more processors, coupled to memory, to:
detect a condition to terminate, at a first timestamp [i.e., shutdown time (page 2, para 0025)], a computing session [i.e., determine shutdown timer by an inactivity timer. For example, if a user not using the cloud desktop associated with the user for a specified time [“condition”], the cloud desktop may automatically shut down (page 3, para 0030)] established by the one or more processors of the server with a client device [i.e., a user may launch a cloud desktop session via, e.g., a cloud desktop client application 115 on a user device 110. The cloud desktop client application 115 connects the user device 110 to a cloud desktop instance running on one or more cloud desktop servers 120 (page 2, para 0021), (see figure 1)];
identify, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, an event scheduled for execution in the computing session at a second timestamp [i.e., “at that time” (page 3, para 0032)] subsequent to the first timestamp [i.e., the shutdown time may be determined by identifying that the user has a scheduled meeting [“an event scheduled for execution”] from the user’s calendar program (page 2, para 0032) Note; the schedule meeting time must be later than the shutdown time because the whole reason for using calendar activities is to determine when the cloud desktop should be shut down or started so that it is available when needed. Thus in a situation where an inactivity based shutdown occurs at the shutdown time before an upcoming scheduled meeting, the meeting timestamp necessarily is subsequent to the shutdown timestamp].
Thomas does not disclose;
provide, based on a difference between the second timestamp and the first timestamp being less than or equal to a threshold, a user interface element on the client device, the user interface element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp.
However, Callanan discloses;
provide, based on a difference between a second timestamp and a first timestamp being less than or equal to a threshold [i.e., determine if any participant has a scheduled event that occurs during, immediately after, and/or within thirty minutes after the scheduled end of real-time communication (page 3, para 0046), (see ref. 210 of figure 2)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas by adapting the teachings Callanan to avoid termination when a computing resource will be needed again within a relatively short period of time (See Callanan; page 1, para 0003 – 0005).
Thomas and Callanan do not disclose;
provide a user interface element on the client device, the user interface element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp.
However, Tan discloses;
provide a user interface element on a client device [i.e., a security mode window 1060 allow the client/recipient to choose to extend their secure session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see ref. 1060 of figure 10)], the user interface element configured to extend a computing session to at least a second timestamp [i.e., extent the session to 10 minutes (page 15, para 0189), (see ref. 1075 of figure 10)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas and Callanan by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
Regarding claim 2, Thomas discloses; the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
invoke, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, a script configured to access a data structure that maintains a plurality of events scheduled to be executed in the computing session at a plurality of timestamps [i.e., accessing calendar information/data representing schedule event in connection with determining cloud-based desktop shutdown/startup times (page 3, para 0032)].
Regarding claim 3, Thomas discloses; the system of claim 2, wherein the data structure is maintained by the one or more processors [i.e., accessing calendar information/data representing schedule event in connection with determining cloud-based desktop shutdown/startup times (page 3, para 0032)].
Regarding claim 9, Thomas discloses; the system of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)],
However, Tan discloses;
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine, based on a parameter of the event, an amount of time taken to execute the event; and
provide the user interface element with a configuration to extend the computing session to at least a third timestamp that is the amount of time taken from the second timestamp [i.e., extent the session to 10 minutes (page 15, para 0189), (see ref. 1075 of figure 10)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas and Callanan by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
Regarding claim 10, Thomas discloses; the system of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Thomas and Callanan do not disclose;
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, via the user interface element, an instruction to extend the computing session to the at least the second timestamp; and prevent, responsive to the instruction, termination of the computing session to at least the second timestamp to reduce an occurrence of an authentication process to re-establish the computing session to execute the event.
However, Tan discloses;
one or more processors are further configured to:
receive, via the user interface element, an instruction to extend the computing session to the at least the second timestamp [i.e., the client/recipient to choose to extend their secure session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see figure 10)]; and
prevent, responsive to the instruction, termination of the computing session to at least the second timestamp to reduce an occurrence of an authentication process to re-establish the computing session to execute the event [i.e., extend session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see figure 10)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas and Callanan by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
Regarding claim 11, Thomas discloses; the system of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Thomas and Callanan do not disclose;
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
initiate a counter responsive to provision of the user interface element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp; and terminate the computing session responsive to expiration of the counter without detection of an interaction with the user interface element.
However, Tan discloses;
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
initiate a counter responsive to provision of the user interface element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp [i.e., time remaining 1055 (see figure 10), (page 15, para 0189)]; and
terminate the computing session responsive to expiration of the counter without detection of an interaction with the user interface element [i.e., the secure session to end at the end of the time remaining 1055 (see figure 10), (page 1, para 0189)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas and Callanan by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
Regarding claim 12, Thomas discloses; the system of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)],
Thomas and Callanan do not disclose;
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: automatically extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp responsive to the difference less than the threshold
However, Tan discloses;
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
automatically extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp responsive to the difference less than the threshold [i.e., extent the session to 10 minutes (page 15, para 0189), (see ref. 1075 of figure 10)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas and Callanan by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
Regarding claim 13, Thomas discloses; the system of claim 1, wherein the event comprises a communication channel scheduled between the computing session and a second computing session remote from the one or more processors [i.e., a user may launch a cloud desktop session via, e.g., a cloud desktop client application 115 on a user device 110. The cloud desktop client application 115 connects the user device 110 to a cloud desktop instance running on one or more cloud desktop servers 120 (page 2, para 0021), (see figure 1)].
Regarding claim 14, Thomas discloses; a method, comprising:
detecting, by a server, a condition to terminate, at a first timestamp, a computing session [i.e., determine shutdown timer by an inactivity timer. For example, if a user not using the cloud desktop associated with the user for a specified time [“condition”], the cloud desktop may automatically shut down (page 3, para 0030)] established by the server with a client device [i.e., a user may launch a cloud desktop session via, e.g., a cloud desktop client application 115 on a user device 110. The cloud desktop client application 115 connects the user device 110 to a cloud desktop instance running on one or more cloud desktop servers 120 (page 2, para 0021), (see figure 1)];
identifying, by the server, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, an event scheduled for execution in the computing session at a second timestamp [i.e., “at that time” (page 3, para 0032)] subsequent to the first timestamp [i.e., the shutdown time may be determined by identifying that the user has a scheduled meeting [“an event scheduled for execution”] from the user’s calendar program (page 2, para 0032) Note; the schedule meeting time must be later than the shutdown time because the whole reason for using calendar activities is to determine when the cloud desktop should be shut down or started so that it is available when needed. Thus in a situation where an inactivity based shutdown occurs at the shutdown time before an upcoming scheduled meeting, the meeting timestamp necessarily is subsequent to the shutdown timestamp].
Thomas does not disclose;
providing, based on a difference between the second timestamp and the first timestamp being less than or equal to a threshold, a user interface element on the client device, the user interface element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp.
However, Callanan discloses;
providing, based on a difference between a second timestamp and a first timestamp being less than or equal to a threshold [i.e., determine if any participant has a scheduled event that occurs during, immediately after, and/or within thirty minutes after the scheduled end of real-time communication (page 3, para 0046), (see ref. 210 of figure 2)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas by adapting the teachings Callanan to avoid termination when a computing resource will be needed again within a relatively short period of time (See Callanan; page 1, para 0003 – 0005).
Thomas and Callanan do not disclose;
provide a user interface element on the client device, the user interface element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp.
However, Tan discloses;
providing a user interface element on a client device [i.e., a security mode window 1060 allow the client/recipient to choose to extend their secure session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see ref. 1060 of figure 10)], the user interface element configured to extend a computing session to at least a second timestamp [i.e., extent the session to 10 minutes (page 15, para 0189), (see ref. 1075 of figure 10)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas and Callanan by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
Regarding claim 15, Thomas discloses; the method of claim 14, comprising:
invoking, by the one or more processors responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, a script configured to access a data structure that maintains a plurality of events to be executed in the computing session at a plurality of timestamps [i.e., accessing calendar information/data representing schedule event in connection with determining cloud-based desktop shutdown/startup times (page 3, para 0032)].
Regarding claim 18, Thomos discloses; the method of claim 14 [i.e., (see claim 14 above)].
Thomas and Callanan do not disclose;
receiving, via the user interface element, an instruction to extend the computing session to the at least the second timestamp; and preventing, responsive to the instruction, termination of the computing session to at least the second timestamp to reduce an occurrence of an authentication process to re-establish the computing session to execute the event.
However, Tan discloses;
receiving, via the user interface element, an instruction to extend the computing session to the at least the second timestamp [i.e., the client/recipient to choose to extend their secure session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see figure 10)]; and
preventing, responsive to the instruction, termination of the computing session to at least the second timestamp to reduce an occurrence of an authentication process to re-establish the computing session to execute the event [i.e., extend session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see figure 10)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas and Callanan by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
Regarding claim 19, Thomas discloses; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
detect a condition to terminate, at a first timestamp [i.e., shutdown time (page 2, para 0025)], a computing session [i.e., determine shutdown timer by an inactivity timer. For example, if a user not using the cloud desktop associated with the user for a specified time [“condition”], the cloud desktop may automatically shut down (page 3, para 0030)] established by the one or more processors of the server with a client device [i.e., a user may launch a cloud desktop session via, e.g., a cloud desktop client application 115 on a user device 110. The cloud desktop client application 115 connects the user device 110 to a cloud desktop instance running on one or more cloud desktop servers 120 (page 2, para 0021), (see figure 1)];
identify, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, an event scheduled for execution in the computing session at a second timestamp [i.e., “at that time” (page 3, para 0032)] subsequent to the first timestamp [i.e., the shutdown time may be determined by identifying that the user has a scheduled meeting [“an event scheduled for execution”] from the user’s calendar program (page 2, para 0032) Note; the schedule meeting time must be later than the shutdown time because the whole reason for using calendar activities is to determine when the cloud desktop should be shut down or started so that it is available when needed. Thus in a situation where an inactivity based shutdown occurs at the shutdown time before an upcoming scheduled meeting, the meeting timestamp necessarily is subsequent to the shutdown timestamp].
Thomas does not disclose;
provide, based on a difference between the second timestamp and the first timestamp being less than or equal to a threshold, a user interface element on the client device, the user interface element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp.
However, Callanan discloses;
provide, based on a difference between a second timestamp and a first timestamp being less than or equal to a threshold [i.e., determine if any participant has a scheduled event that occurs during, immediately after, and/or within thirty minutes after the scheduled end of real-time communication (page 3, para 0046), (see ref. 210 of figure 2)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas by adapting the teachings Callanan to avoid termination when a computing resource will be needed again within a relatively short period of time (See Callanan; page 1, para 0003 – 0005).
Thomas and Callanan do not disclose;
provide a user interface element on the client device, the user interface element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp.
However, Tan discloses;
provide a user interface element on a client device [i.e., a security mode window 1060 allow the client/recipient to choose to extend their secure session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see ref. 1060 of figure 10)], the user interface element configured to extend a computing session to at least a second timestamp [i.e., extent the session to 10 minutes (page 15, para 0189), (see ref. 1075 of figure 10)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas and Callanan by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
Regarding claim 20, Thomas discloses; the computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions to:
invoke, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, a script configured to access a data structure that maintains a plurality of events to be executed in the computing session at a plurality of timestamps [i.e., accessing calendar information/data representing schedule event in connection with determining cloud-based desktop shutdown/startup times (page 3, para 0032)].
Claim(s) 4 – 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Callanan and Tan as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of the prior art of record, Ganu (US 2016/0112520 A1) (hereinafter “Ganu”).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas discloses; the system of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 2 above)].
Thomas, Callanan and Tan do not disclose;
wherein the data structure is maintained on one or more other servers remote from the server, and the one or more other servers are configured to aggregate the plurality of events from a plurality of client devices comprising the client device, each of the plurality of client devices associated with a same account identifier as the client device.
However, Ganu discloses;
wherein the data structure is maintained on one or more other servers remote from the server, and the one or more other servers are configured to aggregate the plurality of events from a plurality of client devices comprising the client device, each of the plurality of client devices associated with a same account identifier as the client device [i.e. the network server storing user calendar information (page 2, para 0029 – 0030), (page 5, para 0054) Note; a user calendar is used by a user to schedule many different scheduled events].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas, Callanan and Tan by adapting the teachings of Ganu to estimate the session duration to hand off a particular client device to a better access point for delay-sensitive and/or disruption sensitive application session (See Ganu; page 2, para 0030).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas discloses; the system of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Thomas, Callanan and Tan do not disclose;
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine, based on a keyword of the event, that the computing session executes the event.
However, Ganu discloses;
wherein one or more processors are further configured to: determine, based on a keyword of the event, that the computing session executes the event [i.e., detecting Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)/Lync session metadata to identify session type (page 2, para 0020), (page 3, para 0031)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas, Callanan and Tan by adapting the teachings of Ganu to estimate the session duration to hand off a particular client device to a better access point for delay-sensitive and/or disruption sensitive application session (See Ganu; page 2, para 0030).
Regarding claim 16, Thomas discloses; the method of claim 14 [i.e., (see claim 14 above)].
Thomas, Callanan and Tan do not disclose;
determining, by the server based on a keyword of the event, that the computing session executes the event.
However, Ganu discloses;
determining, by the server based on a keyword of the event, that the computing session executes the event [i.e., detecting Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)/Lync session metadata to identify session type (page 2, para 0020), (page 3, para 0031)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas, Callanan and Tan by adapting the teachings of Ganu to estimate the session duration to hand off a particular client device to a better access point for delay-sensitive and/or disruption sensitive application session (See Ganu; page 2, para 0030).
Claim(s) 6 – 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Callanan and Tan as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of the prior art of record, Sharma et al., (US 2017/0279922 A1) (hereinafter “Sharma”).
Regarding claim 6, Thomas discloses; the system of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Thomas, Callanan and Tan do not disclose;
identify a second event at a third timestamp responsive to a second detection of the condition;
determine, based on a keyword of the second event, that the second event is not configured for execution in the computing session; and
terminate the computing session without provision of the user interface element configured to extend the computing session.
However, Sharma discloses;
identify a second event at a third timestamp responsive to a second detection of the condition [i.e., determines if a connection between a client computing device and a cloud server [“a computing session”] is idle for a preconfigured amount of time (page 4, para 0043), (see ref. 410 of figure 4 and figure 2)];
determine, based on a keyword of the second event, that the second event is not configured for execution in the computing session [i.e., determine if there are any pending service requests being handled by the cloud server (page 2, para 0016 and 0024), (see figure 2) i.e., if there is a pending service request, connection interrupter 212 can wait for the service request to be processed so that the connection is idle before the server portion of the connection is closed (page 3, para 0030), (see figure 2)]; and
terminate the computing session without provision of the user interface element configured to extend the computing session [i.e., close the server portion of the connection if it determines that there are no pending service requests for the connection being processed by cloud servers (page 2, para 0024)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas, Callanan and Tan by adapting the teachings of Sharma to scaling persistent connection (See Sharma; page 1, para 0001).
Regarding claim 7, Thomas discloses; the system of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Thomas, Callanan and Tan do not disclose;
detect the condition based on a duration of inactivity in the computing session being greater than or equal to a timeout value.
However, Sharma discloses;
detect the condition based on a duration of inactivity in the computing session being greater than or equal to a timeout value [i.e., determines if a connection between a client computing device and a cloud server [“a computing session”] is idle for a preconfigured amount of time (page 4, para 0043), (see ref. 410 of figure 4 and figure 2) Note; the point in time at which the idle period exceeds the threshold i.e., last_activity necessarily corresponds to a specific time, which constitutes the claimed “first timestamp”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas, Callanan and Tan by adapting the teachings of Sharma to scaling persistent connection (See Sharma; page 1, para 0001).
Regarding claim 8, Thomas discloses; the system of claim 7 [i.e., (see claim 7 above)].
Thomas, Callanan and Tan do not disclose;
receive, from one or more servers remote from the one or more processors, upon establishment of the computing session with the one or more servers via an authentication handshake process, the timeout value for the computing session, the timeout value established by an administrator of the computing session that is different from a user that established the computing session.
However, Sharma discloses;
receive, from one or more servers remote from the one or more processors, upon establishment of the computing session with the one or more servers via an authentication handshake process [i.e., transport layer security (TLS) handshake /secure sockets layer (SSL) secure persistent connections and authentication exchange (page 1, para 0008), (page 3, para 0031)], the timeout value for the computing session, the timeout value established by an administrator of the computing session that is different from a user that established the computing session [i.e., determines if a connection between a client computing device and a cloud server is idle for a preconfigured amount of time (page 4, para 0043), (see ref. 410 of figure 4 and figure 2)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas, Callanan and Tan by adapting the teachings of Sharma to scaling persistent connection (See Sharma; page 1, para 0001).
Regarding claim 17, Thomas discloses; the method of claim 14 [i.e., (see claim 14 above)].
Thomas, Callanan and Tan do not disclose;
detecting, by the server, the condition based on a duration of inactivity in the computing session being greater than or equal to a timeout value.
However, Sharma discloses;
detecting, by the server, the condition based on a duration of inactivity in the computing session being greater than or equal to a timeout value [i.e., determines if a connection between a client computing device and a cloud server [“a computing session”] is idle for a preconfigured amount of time (page 4, para 0043), (see ref. 410 of figure 4 and figure 2) Note; the point in time at which the idle period exceeds the threshold i.e., last_activity necessarily corresponds to a specific time, which constitutes the claimed “first timestamp”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomas, Callanan and Tan by adapting the teachings of Sharma to scaling persistent connection (See Sharma; page 1, para 0001).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A RONI whose telephone number is (571)270-7806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A RONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights