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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 02/03/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 7 and 13 are independent claims. This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 7 and 13 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 7 and 13 similarly recite “an information handling system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory; wherein the information handling system is configured to: receive a request to upgrade a component from a first version to a second version, wherein the second version is greater than the first version; perform a first check by determining if allowed source release (ASR) information of the second version includes a reference to the first version indicating that the first version is upgradeable directly to the second version, wherein the ASR information of the second version is stored in a data structure included in the second version; perform a second check by determining if allowed target release (ATR) information of the first version includes a reference to the second version indicating that the first version is upgradeable directly to the second version, wherein the ATR information of the first version is stored in a data structure included in the first version; in response to either the first check being successful or the second check being successful, perform the component upgrade; and in response to both the first check and the second check failing, prevent the component upgrade from taking place”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 7 and 13 of “perform a first check by determining if allowed source release (ASR) information of the second version includes a reference to the first version indicating that the first version is upgradeable directly to the second version” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “checking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may perform a first check by determining if allowed source release (ASR) information of the second version includes a reference to the first version indicating that the first version is upgradeable directly to the second version with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 7 and 13 of “perform a second check by determining if allowed target release (ATR) information of the first version includes a reference to the second version indicating that the first version is upgradeable directly to the second version” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “checking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may perform a second check by determining if allowed target release (ATR) information of the first version includes a reference to the second version indicating that the first version is upgradeable directly to the second version with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 7 and 13 recite additional elements such as “receive a request to upgrade a component from a first version to a second version, wherein the second version is greater than the first version”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 7 and 13 recite additional elements such as “wherein the ASR information of the second version is stored in a data structure included in the second version”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 7 and 13 recite additional elements such as “wherein the ATR information of the first version is stored in a data structure included in the first version”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 7 and 13 recite additional elements such as “in response to either the first check being successful or the second check being successful, perform the component upgrade”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 7 and 13 recite additional elements such as “in response to both the first check and the second check failing, prevent the component upgrade from taking place”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2, 8 and 14 recite additional elements such as “the component is a component of the information handling system”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3, 9 and 15 recite additional elements such as “the component is a component of a different information handling system”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 4, 10 and 16 recite additional elements such as “the component is a software application”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claims 5, 11 and 17 of “the first check takes place prior to the second check” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “checking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may perform the first check takes prior to the second check with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 6 and 18 of “in response to a particular one of the first check and the second check being successful, the information handling system is configured to omit a remaining one of the first check and the second check” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “checking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may omit a remaining one of the first check and the second check in response to a particular one of the first check and the second check being successful with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 12 of “the second check takes place prior to the first check” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “checking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may perform the second check takes prior to the first check with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 7 and 13 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokkinen (US PGPub 20040168165), in view of Zhu (WO 2020186551), in view of Bandakka (US PGPub 20130125107), and further in view of Wei (US PGPub 20160299754).
As per Claim 1, Kokkinen teaches of an information handling system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory; wherein the information handling system is configured to: perform a first check by determining if allowed source release (ASR) information of the second version includes a reference to the first version indicating that the first version is upgradeable directly to the second version, perform a second check by determining if allowed target release (ATR) information of the first version includes a reference to the second version indicating that the first version is upgradeable directly to the second version, (Par 42, This means that for a given updated application software version, only one update package based on reference software 123 may need to be developed and disseminated (directly). Par 43, Multi-version updates may be combined and converted to a single update situation. For example, if application software versions 1, 2, and 3 exist, distributing an updated version of the software, for example version 4, may have required update packages to be generated from versions 1 to 4, 2 to 4, and 3 to 4 using prior art methods. However, by employing an embodiment of the present invention, only one update package may need to be developed, i.e., one update package is capable of supporting the transition from an existing reference software version to updated software version 4. Par 7, Attempts to upgrade firmware and/or application software in electronic devices requires a determination of a source version of an existing firmware/software and also a target version to which updates may be executed. The need to support different versions of firmware/software to support all of the possible version transitions places an enormous burden on software vendors providing updates to firmware/software. For example, if software in an electronic device corresponds to a version 1.1 and newer versions 1.2, 1.3, 1.9 have been created by the vendor, firmware/software updates supporting all possible transitions, such as those from 1.1 to 1.9, 1.2 to 1.9, 1.3 to 1.9, 1.1 to 1.2, 1.1 to 1.3, 1.2 to 1.3, etc., may have to be applied.)
Kokkinen does not specifically teach, however Zhu teaches of wherein the ASR information of the second version is stored in a data structure included in the second version; wherein the ATR information of the first version is stored in a data structure included in the first version; (Claim 3. The communication module software upgrade method according to claim 1, wherein in the step of generating a firmware file differential package according to the source firmware and the target firmware, the generated firmware file differential package includes at least: source firmware version information and target firmware version information; Application content: For example, in the step of generating a firmware file differential package according to the source firmware and the target firmware, the generated firmware file differential package includes at least: source firmware version information and target firmware version information; the source firmware version information includes at least: source firmware File size, source firmware file version number, and source firmware file check value; the target firmware version information includes at least: target firmware file size, target firmware file version number, and target firmware file check value. Claim 8, The communication module software upgrade system according to claim 7, wherein the firmware file differential package generated by the differential package generating module at least includes: source firmware version information and target firmware version information; It’s obvious that the first version can include firmware file differential package (referencing the second version as target version) as well as the second version can include firmware file differential package (referencing the first version as source version). Par 48, The update agent may also set appropriate flags to indicate success or failure before processing terminates at block 221.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the ASR information of the second version is stored in a data structure included in the second version; wherein the ATR information of the first version is stored in a data structure included in the first version, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Zhu, into that of Kokkinen because this modification can help optimize the upgrading process by keeping the source and target version information for a particular software version within the same package or file.
Neither Kokkinen nor Zhu specifically teaches, however Bandakka teaches to receive a request to upgrade a component from a first version to a second version, (Par 71, In one aspect, the firmware update application requests from the repository server a list of the package names and sizes stored on the repository server, and compares the assembled list with the received list.)
in response to either the first check being successful or the second check being successful, perform the component upgrade; and in response to both the first check and the second check failing, prevent the component upgrade from taking place. (Par 111, In response to receiving the verification response, the firmware update module determines if all packages identified in the firmware update configuration file are stored in the repository server and have the corresponding package sizes, based on the verification response message. If all packages identified in the firmware update configuration file are stored on the repository server and have the correct sizes, the verification is a success. Otherwise, the firmware update application concludes that package verification process is a failure. If the verification is a failure, the firmware update application may send an error message to the remote management server and the remote management server may update a record to indicate that the firmware update scheduled for the client device is a failure. However, if a verification is a success, the firmware update application may proceed to download the firmware update packages from the repository server in operation 619.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add receiving a request to upgrade a component from a first version to a second version, wherein the second version is newer than the first version; in response to either the first check being successful or the second check being successful, perform the component upgrade; and in response to both the first check and the second check failing, prevent the component upgrade from taking place, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Bandakka, into that of Kokkinen and Zhu because this modification can help verify the upgrading process by checking the direct reference between the source version information and the target information.
None of Kokkinen, Zhu and Bandakka specifically teaches, however Wei teaches of wherein the second version is greater than the first version; (Par 43, Step 401: when the version level in the first version information of the terminal is lower than the version level in the second version information of the other terminal, an updating request is sent to the other terminal; Par 60, 72-73 and 95, Step 200: if a terminal version or application program version of A is lower than that of B, the server sends the authentication message (Bluetooth authentication code or NFC label content) to A to enable A to send an updating request to B through the authentication message; Claim 6, The method for updating an application program as claimed in claim 1, wherein when the version level in the first version information is different from the version level in the second version information, performing updating according to the high-level version file comprises: when the version level in the first version information of the terminal is lower than the version level in the second version information of the other terminal, sending an updating request to the other terminal; receiving a version updating file fed back by the other terminal; and performing updating according to the version updating file)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add that the second version is greater than the first version, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Wei, into that of Kokkinen, Zhu and Bandakka because this modification can help verify the upgrading process from a lower version to a higher version by checking their version information between the source software and the target software.
As per Claim 2, Kokkinen further teaches of the information handling system of claim 1, wherein the component is a component of the information handling system. (Par 29, Aspects of the present invention may also be found in a method for updating software in an electronic device. The method may comprise generating a first update package for updating at least one software application. Par 30, The first update package may be generated based upon difference information between a first software version and a reference software corresponding to the at least one software application. The method may also comprise generating a second update package for updating the at least one software application.)
As per Claim 3, Kokkinen further teaches of the information handling system of claim 1, wherein the component is a component of a different information handling system. (Par 29, Aspects of the present invention may also be found in a method for updating software in an electronic device. The method may comprise generating a first update package for updating at least one software application. Par 31, Aspects of the present invention may also be found in a system for updating software. The system may comprise an electronic device capable of having software installed thereon, a first update package generator for generating update packages based upon difference information between different versions of software, a second update package generator for generating update packages based upon difference information between different update packages, and a software delivery device for delivering at least one update package generated based upon difference information between different update packages to the electronic device.)
As per Claim 4, Kokkinen further teaches of the information handling system of claim 1, wherein the component is a software application. (Par 29, Aspects of the present invention may also be found in a method for updating software in an electronic device. The method may comprise generating a first update package for updating at least one software application. The first update package may be generated based upon difference information between first and second software versions.)
Re Claim 7, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 7 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 8, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 9, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 10, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re Claim 13, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 14, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 15, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 16, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
7. Claims 5, 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokkinen (US PGPub 20040168165), in view of Zhu (WO 2020186551), in view of Bandakka (US PGPub 20130125107), in view of Wei (US PGPub 20160299754), and further in view of Nickolov (US PGPub 20170034023).
As per Claim 5, none of Kokkinen, Zhu and Bandakka specifically teaches, however Nickolov teaches of the information handling system of claim 1, wherein the first check takes place prior to the second check. (Par 709, The Validate Upgrade Tab provides a related GUI (see FIG. 22) which allows a user to indicate, search for, examine, and evaluate detailed information related to upgrading or downgrading a particular package from one or more source versions to one or more target versions (see FIGS. 22-27).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add that the first check takes place prior to the second check, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Nickolov, into that of Kokkinen, Zhu and Bandakka because this modification can help verify the upgrading process by checking the direct reference between the source version information and the target information.
Re Claim 11, it is the method claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
As per Claim 12, none of Kokkinen, Zhu and Bandakka specifically teaches, however Nickolov teaches of the method of claim 7, wherein the second check takes place prior to the first check. (Par 709, The Validate Upgrade Tab provides a related GUI (see FIG. 22) which allows a user to indicate, search for, examine, and evaluate detailed information related to upgrading or downgrading a particular package from one or more source versions to one or more target versions (see FIGS. 22-27).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add that the second check takes place prior to the first check, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Nickolov, into that of Kokkinen, Zhu and Bandakka because this modification can help verify the upgrading process by checking the direct reference between the source version information and the target information.
Re Claim 17, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
8. Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokkinen (US PGPub 20040168165), in view of Zhu (WO 2020186551), in view of Bandakka (US PGPub 20130125107), in view of Wei (US PGPub 20160299754), and further in view of Li (CN 117311827 A).
As per Claim 6, none of Kokkinen, Zhu and Bandakka specifically teaches, however Li teaches of the information handling system of claim 1, wherein, in response to a particular one of the first check and the second check being successful, the information handling system is configured to omit a remaining one of the first check and the second check. (Specific implementation examples: performing correctness check and integrity check of the application program firmware; when the correctness check and the integrity check are passed, skipping to the application program to operate; when one of the correctness check and the integrity check is not passed, updating the switching mark in the version mark, then restarting the system. In this embodiment, when both the correctness check and the integrity check pass, the application program is skipped to run; when one of the correctness check and the integrity check is not passed, the application program firmware is upgraded unsuccessfully, the switching mark in the version mark is updated, and the system is restarted.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add in response to a particular one of the first check and the second check being successful, the information handling system is configured to omit a remaining one of the first check and the second check, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Li, into that of Kokkinen, Zhu and Bandakka because this modification can help verify the upgrading process by checking the direct reference between the source version information and the target information.
Re Claim 18, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments w.r.t. 101 Abstract Idea rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument of the remark on page 8 that the limitations such as performing upgrade and preventing upgrade could not be performed in the human mind, and the claims recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, the examiner would like to point out that those two limitations are considered additional elements, not significantly more than the judicial exception. In order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, 1) The specification should describe the claimed improvement to achieve the desired goal and 2) The claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements by specifying how the claimed improvement performs the additional element to improve functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
I. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATING WHETHER ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS INTEGRATE A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
10. Applicant’s argument of the remark on pages 9-10 with respect to claims 1, 7 and 13 and their dependent claims 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
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 JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights