DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed 12/17/2025 have been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see remarks, pages 9-10, that cited references fail to teach the newly amended features of claim 1, namely, Marathe teaches determining missing data pages which are transmitted without any consideration based on security constraints, and is also silent about security levels of data, therefore, Marathe fails to teach "when performing synchronization processing on usage data, which is used in the case of providing the service and includes one or more of the data, with the other information processing apparatus, extract the first data included in the usage data and determine whether the second data is included in the usage data, and transmit, to the other information processing apparatus, the first data along with a determination result indicating whether the second data is presence or absence in the usage data" as recited in Claim 1.
In reply, examiner disagrees and strongly asserts that limitations of claim 1 are rejected as a combination of 103 and not as a 102 based on just Marathe reference. Combination of Tanaka with Marathe successfully teaches all the newly amended limitations where Marathe was only brought in to teach determination regarding missing or presence/absences of certain pages of data. For instance, Tanaka teaches when performing processing (integration processing) on usage data, which is used in the case of providing the service and includes one or more of the data, with the other information processing apparatus (when security level is low, the document is divided (usage data), and distributed to the cloud server devices 200, which are used for providing the service including one or more pages of document data, one of cloud server is determined as the master server the processing for each page is distributed to a plurality of cloud server devices 200 and executed, next, the slave server transmits the execution result to the master server, and the master server integrates the execution results, paragraphs 86-87), extract the first data included in the usage data and determine the second data is included in the usage data, and transmit, to the other information processing apparatus, the first data along with a determination result indicating the second data is included in the usage data (document data (usage data) is divided, and distributed among cloud server devices 200 of which one of them is master and rest are slaves, wherein, slave servers extract/transmit the execution result (determination result) to the master server including data for each of the divided pages (i.e., first and second page data), and the master server integrates the execution results as one complete document based on determining which or any of the first or (along with) second pages are included in the series of divided/usage data received from the salve devices, paragraphs 86-87).
Marathe teaches when performing synchronization processing on data (synchronizing mode between primary and replication nodes for synchronizing the data pages, paragraphs 31, 27) (note that primary and replication nodes can be a server, paragraphs 17, 25), transmit, first data (replication node initiates the missing data page synchronization by transmitting a request with information related to the last data page to primary node, paragraph 31) along with indicating whether second data is presence or absence information in the data (primary node transmits information related to the missing data pages to replication node, paragraph 32).
Applicant further argues, see remarks, pages 11-12, that cited references fail to teach the newly amended features of claim 5, namely, Inada only teaches scanning and then transmitting next page scanned data if it exists, and is also silent about security levels of data, therefore, Inada fails to teach "acquire ... a determination result indicating whether second data of a second security level, which is not capable of being held but is capable of being used, is included in the usage data, from another information processing apparatus installed inside the local network system... control transmission of a data transmission request for the usage data to the other information processing apparatus in response to the determination result indicating the second data being included in the usage data when providing the service" as recited in Claim 5.
In reply, examiner disagrees and strongly asserts that limitations of claim 5 are rejected as a combination of 103 and not as a 102 based on just Inada reference. Combination of Tanaka with Inada successfully teaches all the newly amended limitations. For instance, Tanaka teaches
acquire first data of a first security level, which is capable of being held and used among data included in usage data used in a case of providing the service, and indicating whether second data of a second security level, which is not capable of being held but is capable of being used, from another information processing apparatus installed inside the local network system (workflow determination unit 162 reads/acquires the execution result of the OCR process and extracts the security keyword for the target document for whom service is to be provided from another information processing apparatus such as server apparatus 150 which is installed inside the first environment (on-premises environment 10), paragraphs 12, 15 to determine the security level value of each page of the document such that to determine if security level of document is “High”, “Middle” or “Low” and if security level is “Low” than document is divided and distributed within the plurality of cloud server devices 200 indicating that “Low” security level is capable of being held (i.e., stored) and used by cloud server 200 itself or on the other hand if security level is “High” indicating that information is too confidential/sensitive to be capable of being held by cloud server 200 however cloud server is capable of using it, therefore, the document workflow for second data with second security level (“High”) is executed by server 150 in the on-premises environment 10 which is capable of holding this highly secure, confidential document for providing the service to user, paragraphs 79-87, 26) (further note that “on-premises environment 10 and the cloud environment 20 in the information processing system 1 can provide the same service content, and as described later, can execute the same workflow processing”, paragraph 25).
Inada teaches acquire a determination result indicating whether second data, is included in data, from another information processing apparatus (PC 20 receiving "next page presence/absence information" (indicating whether there exists the next/second page included in the data or not) from the document scanning device 10 and transmits a next page request (requesting the scanning of the next page) to the document scanning device 10, when there exists a next page, paragraph 178); control transmission of a data transmission request for data to other information processing apparatus in response to the determination result indicating the second data being included in the usage data (PC receives from the scanner, determination result as to whether the "next page presence/absence information" exists or not and if yes, then PC transmits a next page request (requesting the scanning of the next page) to the scanner, and on the other hand, when determination result (i.e., next page presence/absence information) indicates that the indicates that there exists no next page, then PC 20 does not transmit any transmission requests instead stores the scanned image data, paragraph 178).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Tanaka and Inada are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with image processing apparatuses and transmitting/receiving image processing data between them. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tanaka with the teachings of Inada for the benefit of compiling a proper and complete data gathering process of image processing data without causing an extreme increase in costs as taught by Inada at paragraphs 10, 178.
Applicant then argues regarding newly added claim 9-10 not being taught by cited references, see remarks, page 12.
In reply, examiner asserts that new grounds of rejection has been applied to claims 9-10 in view of new reference Mizuno, please see detailed rejection(s) below.
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka Kensuke et al., JP 2019-040327 in view of Marathe et al., US 2019/0026352.
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses an information processing apparatus (information processing apparatus such as server apparatus 150, etc., paragraph 12) installed inside a local network system (server apparatus 150 can be installed in first environment, which is a on-premises environment 10, paragraphs 12, 15, abstract) that provides a service to a user (server device 150 has a function of providing a service or the like using the image forming apparatus 100 as an output device, paragraph 19), the information processing apparatus comprising:
a processor (server device 150 includes a CPU 151, paragraph 36) configured to: acquire data used in a case of providing the service and security level information indicating whether the data is first data of a first security level which is capable of being held and used by another information processing apparatus that provides the service outside the local network system, (or) second data of a second security level which is not held but is capable of being used by the other information processing apparatus, or third data of a third security level which is not capable of being held and used by the other information processing apparatus (workflow determination unit 162 of server device 150 reads/acquires the execution result of the OCR process and extracts the security keyword for the target document for whom service is to be provided to determine the security level value of each page of the document such that to determine if security level of document is “High”, “Middle” or “Low” and if security level is “Low” than document is divided and distributed to be processed by a plurality of cloud server devices 200 (master/slave configuration) indicating that “Low” security level is capable of being held (i.e., stored) and used by another information processing apparatus that provides the service outside the local network system such as cloud server 200 of outside cloud environment 20 or on the other hand if security level is “High”, than the document workflow is to executed in the on-premises environment 10 indicating that information is too confidential/sensitive to be capable of being held and used by cloud server 200, paragraphs 79-87, 26) (note for alternative (or) limitations, only first data or second data or third data limitations need to be satisfied);
hold the acquired data in association with the security level information of the data in the local network system (as explained above that if security level is “High”, than the document workflow is to executed in the on-premises environment 10 indicating that information is too confidential/sensitive to be transmitted outside, paragraphs 83, 26, 68);
and when performing integration processing on usage data, which is used in the case of providing the service and includes one or more of the data, with the other information processing apparatus (when security level is low, the document is divided (usage data), and distributed to the cloud server devices 200, which are used for providing the service including one or more pages of document data, one of cloud server is determined as the master server the processing for each page is distributed to a plurality of cloud server devices 200 and executed, next, the slave server transmits the execution result to the master server, and the master server integrates the execution results, paragraphs 86-87),
extract the first data included in the usage data and the second data is included in the usage data, and transmit, to the other information processing apparatus, the first data along with the second data is included in the usage data (document data (usage data) is divided, and distributed among cloud server devices 200 of which one of them is master and rest are slaves, wherein, slave servers extract/transmit the execution result (determination result) to the master server including data for each of the divided pages (i.e., first and second page data), and the master server integrates the execution results as one complete document based on determining which or any of the first or (along with) second pages are included in the series of divided/usage data received from the salve devices, paragraphs 86-87).
Tanaka fails to explicitly disclose when performing synchronization processing on data, determine whether second data in included in data, and transmit, first data along with a determination result indicating whether second data is presence or absence information in the data.
However, Marathe teaches when performing synchronization processing on data (synchronizing mode between primary and replication nodes for synchronizing the data pages, paragraphs 31, 27) (note that primary and replication nodes can be a server, paragraphs 17, 25), determine whether second data in included in data, and transmit, first data along with a determination result indicating whether second data is presence or absence information in the data (the replication node initiates the missing data page synchronization by transmitting a request with information related to the last data page to primary node, and primary node transmits information related to the missing data pages to replication node, paragraphs 31-32).
Tanaka and Marathe are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with server apparatuses and transmitting/receiving image processing data between them.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tanaka with the teachings of Marathe for the benefit of effectively keeping track of any missing data between devices and efficiently synchronizing the missing page data as taught by Marathe at paragraphs 31-32.
Regarding claim 2, Combination of Tanaka with Marathe further teaches transmit the second data included in the usage data (Tanaka, slave servers transmits the execution result to the master server including data for each of the divided pages as second page data for integration, paragraphs 86-87) in response to a data transmission request from the other information processing apparatus (Marathe, replication server transmits a fetching request concerning missing page data and in response primary server transmits back the first block of the missing data pages, paragraphs 33-34).
Tanaka and Marathe are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with server apparatuses and transmitting/receiving image processing data between them.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tanaka with the teachings of Marathe for the benefit of effectively keeping track of any missing data between devices and efficiently synchronizing the missing page data as taught by Marathe at paragraphs 31-32.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka further discloses in a case of setting the security level information to data (workflow determination unit 162 extracts the security keyword for the target document to determine the security level and then sets the security level of document as “High”, “Middle” or “Low”, paragraphs 79-86) which is used in the case of providing the service and generated by executing a job (server device 150 provides a printing service, paragraphs 19, 34), refer to security level information of data related to the job and selected by the user (user can execute a series of processes as a whole by creating workflow data once and workflow information storage unit 210 stores workflow information as set by the user, paragraph 24, 57) from among data whose security level information is completely set (based on the security level completely set and selected for a given document, it is determined whether to execute said document in the on-premise environment or in the cloud/outside environment, paragraphs 83-87).
Examiner notes: claim 3 recites contingent/alternative “in a case” limitations which don’t need to occur in cited references and therefore, this contingent step limitations need not be satisfied.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka further discloses restrict a security level of the data generated by executing the job to be the same as or higher than a security level of the data selected by the user (user can execute a series of processes by creating workflow data which is stored as workflow information as set by the user, paragraph 24, 57, and wherein, document workflow as selected/set by the user for the given document are analyzed to determine its security level and same is set based on analysis of keywords as extracted and as set by the user, paragraphs 79-86).
Regarding claim 8, which recites a non-transitory computer readable Middle version of claim 1, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer readable Middle is taught by Tanaka in claim 7, paragraphs 38, 42.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka Kensuke et al., JP 2019-040327 in view of Inada, US 2007/0165285.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka further discloses an information processing apparatus (information processing apparatus such as cloud server 200, etc., paragraph 12) installed outside a local network system (cloud server 200 is installed in second environment (cloud environment 20), paragraphs 20-21) that provides a service to a user (cloud server device 200 has a function of providing a service or the like using the image forming device 100 of the on-premises environment 10 as an output device, paragraph 22), the information processing apparatus comprising:
a processor (CPU 201 centrally controls the operation of the cloud server device 200, paragraph 42) configured to:
acquire first data of a first security level, which is capable of being held and used among data included in usage data used in a case of providing the service, and indicating whether second data of a second security level, which is not capable of being held but is capable of being used, from another information processing apparatus installed inside the local network system (workflow determination unit 162 reads/acquires the execution result of the OCR process and extracts the security keyword for the target document for whom service is to be provided from another information processing apparatus such as server apparatus 150 which is installed inside the first environment (on-premises environment 10), paragraphs 12, 15 to determine the security level value of each page of the document such that to determine if security level of document is “High”, “Middle” or “Low” and if security level is “Low” than document is divided and distributed within the plurality of cloud server devices 200 indicating that “Low” security level is capable of being held (i.e., stored) and used by cloud server 200 itself or on the other hand if security level is “High” indicating that information is too confidential/sensitive to be capable of being held by cloud server 200 however cloud server is capable of using it, therefore, the document workflow for second data with second security level (“High”) is executed by server 150 in the on-premises environment 10 which is capable of holding this highly secure, confidential document for providing the service to user, paragraphs 79-87, 26),
(further note that “on-premises environment 10 and the cloud environment 20 in the information processing system 1 can provide the same service content, and as described later, can execute the same workflow processing”, paragraph 25)
hold the acquired first data (as explained above that if security level is “Low”, than the document workflow is distributed within the plurality of cloud server devices 200 indicating that “Low” security level is capable of being held (i.e., stored) and used by cloud server 200 itself, paragraphs 86-87);
usage data to the other information processing apparatus when providing the service (the document workflow for second data with second security level (“High”) is executed by server 150 in the on-premises environment 10 which is capable of holding this highly secure, confidential document for providing the service to user, paragraphs 83, 26, 68);
and provide the service by using data acquired from the other information processing apparatus among the usage data (on the other hand, if the security level is "Middle" and processing of a workflow for a page having a security level value equal to or more than a predetermined value, the workflow is executed in both the on-premises environment and outside environment parallel. Next, the processing result is received from the cloud environment 20 side, and integrated with the processing result on the on-premises environment 10 side, paragraphs 84-85).
Tanaka fails to explicitly disclose acquire a determination result indicating whether second data, is included in data, from another information processing apparatus; hold the determination result; control transmission of a data transmission request for data to other information processing apparatus in response to the determination result indicating the second data being included in the usage data.
However, Inada teaches acquire a determination result indicating whether second data, is included in data, from another information processing apparatus (PC 20 receiving "next page presence/absence information" (indicating whether there exists the next/second page included in the data or not) from the document scanning device 10 and transmits a next page request (requesting the scanning of the next page) to the document scanning device 10, when there exists a next page, paragraph 178); hold the determination result (after transmitting the scanned image data of the first surface, the document scanning device 10 transmits next page presence information (indicating that there exists the next page) to the PC 20. The next page presence information is information provisionally transmitted (i.e. it’s temporarily stored/cached in PC) in order to let the PC 20 prepare for reception of new image data, paragraph 183); control transmission of a data transmission request for data to other information processing apparatus in response to the determination result indicating the second data being included in the usage data (PC receives from the scanner, determination result as to whether the "next page presence/absence information" exists or not and if yes, then PC transmits a next page request (requesting the scanning of the next page) to the scanner, and on the other hand, when determination result (i.e., next page presence/absence information) indicates that the indicates that there exists no next page, then PC 20 does not transmit any transmission requests instead stores the scanned image data, paragraph 178).
Tanaka and Inada are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with image processing apparatuses and transmitting/receiving image processing data between them.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tanaka with the teachings of Inada for the benefit of compiling a proper and complete data gathering process of image processing data without causing an extreme increase in costs as taught by Inada at paragraphs 10, 178.
Examiner Note: since “in a case” limitations of above claim 1 are contingent limitations, therefore, broadly speaking the alternate scenario is also true using Honda’s teachings such that the limitations “in a case of providing the service” (this condition does not need to occur in Tanaka/Marathe).
As can be seen above, the claim recites a contingent limitation. As discussed in MPEP 2111.04(II):
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
Since claim recites contingent limitation, any prior art that does not trigger the condition for the contingent step and can be reasonably construed as satisfying the claim (“[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” [quotation omitted] Ex parte Schulhauser at 10, see MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Regarding claim 6, Combination of Tanaka with Inada further teaches in a case where the determination result indicates that the second data is not included, provide the service using the acquired first data without transmitting the data transmission request (Inada, PC receives the "next page presence/absence information" from the scanner, if there exists next page, then PC transmits a next page request (requesting the scanning of the next page) to the scanner and on the other hand, when the next page presence/absence information indicates that there exists no next page, then PC 20 does not transmit any transmission requests instead stores the scanned image data and provides the service (outputting) with the stored scanned data, paragraphs 178, 185).
Tanaka and Inada are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with image processing apparatuses and transmitting/receiving image processing data between them.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tanaka with the teachings of Inada for the benefit of compiling a proper and complete data gathering process of image processing data without causing an extreme increase in costs as taught by Inada at paragraphs 10, 178.
Examiner notes: claim 6 recites contingent/alternative “in a case” limitations which don’t need to occur in Inada and therefore, this contingent step limitations need not be satisfied.
Regarding claim 7, Combination of Tanaka with Inada further teaches in a case where the content of the determination result indicates that the second data is included, transmit the data transmission request to the other information processing apparatus (Inada, PC 20 receiving "next page presence/absence information" (indicating whether there exists the next/second page included in the data or not) from the document scanning device 10 and transmits a next page request (requesting the scanning of the next page) to the document scanning device 10, when there exists a next page, paragraph 178); and provide the service (outputting) using the acquired first data and the second data transmitted in response to the data transmission request (Inada, PC receives the "next page presence/absence information" from the scanner, if there exists next page, then PC transmits a next page request (requesting the scanning of the next page) to the scanner and once process is finished of receiving all the requested data, then PC 20 does not transmit any more transmission requests instead stores the scanned image data and provides the service (outputting) with the stored scanned data including first and next page data, paragraphs 178, 185).
Tanaka and Inada are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with image processing apparatuses and transmitting/receiving image processing data between them.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tanaka with the teachings of Inada for the benefit of compiling a proper and complete data gathering process of image processing data without causing an extreme increase in costs as taught by Inada at paragraphs 10, 178.
Examiner notes: claim 7 recites contingent/alternative “in a case” limitations which don’t need to occur in Inada and therefore, this contingent step limitations need not be satisfied.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka Kensuke et al., JP 2019-040327 in view of Marathe et al., US 2019/0026352 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Mizuno, US 2023/0300265.
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka with Marathe fails to teach wherein the first data is public data, the second data is local data in the local network system, and the third data is completely confidential data.
However, Mizuno teaches wherein the first data is public data, the second data is local data in the local network system, and the third data is completely confidential data (collection of data on setting items that are required to be set and setting values for each use environment is referred to as a “security template”. A plurality of setting items and the setting values of the setting items are stored as a template in association with a predetermined use environment such as the company intranet environment, the in-home environment, highly confidential information management environment or the public space environment in the data storage unit 202, paragraph 48).
Tanaka and Marathe are combinable with Mizuno because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with image processing apparatuses and transmitting/receiving image processing data between them.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tanaka and Marathe with the teachings of Mizuno for the benefit of providing a mechanism for assisting a setting so that a setting value corresponding to a setting item included in an image processing apparatus is a setting value suitable for the use environment of the image processing apparatus as taught by Mizuno at paragraph 5.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka Kensuke et al., JP 2019-040327 in view of Inada, US 2007/0165285 as applied in claim 5 above and further in view of Mizuno, US 2023/0300265
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka with Inada fails to teach wherein the first data is public data, the second data is local data in the local network system, and the third data is completely confidential data.
However, Mizuno teaches wherein the first data is public data, the second data is local data in the local network system, and the third data is completely confidential data (collection of data on setting items that are required to be set and setting values for each use environment is referred to as a “security template”. A plurality of setting items and the setting values of the setting items are stored as a template in association with a predetermined use environment such as the company intranet environment, the in-home environment, highly confidential information management environment or the public space environment in the data storage unit 202, paragraph 48).
Tanaka and Inada are combinable with Mizuno because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with image processing apparatuses and transmitting/receiving image processing data between them.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tanaka and Inada with the teachings of Mizuno for the benefit of providing a mechanism for assisting a setting so that a setting value corresponding to a setting item included in an image processing apparatus is a setting value suitable for the use environment of the image processing apparatus as taught by Mizuno at paragraph 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki, US 2019/0227758
Ichida, US 2014/0320883
Komatsu, US 2023/0412743
Zhang, US 2023/0308556
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 PAWANDEEP DHINGRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/PAWAN DHINGRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683