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 .
Applicant has canceled claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, 20 and added claims 21-24 on 09/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
112th rejection:
112th rejection cited on 06/18/2025 has been withdrawn based on the amendments.
101 Rejection
101 rejections have been withdrawn based on the amendments.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-18, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 14 recites “duplicating the first data by uploading the first data from the parent storage device back to the first child storage device”, which is not supported by the specification. Fig.5 element 556 and paragraph [0049] describes uploading back the data to the child storage location. The fig. 5 and paragraph [0049] does not describes duplicating data. Paragraphs [0020, 0021] discusses detecting duplicates and not storing the duplicate data again. Therefore, there is no support for the duplicating data.
The dependent claims depend from the independent claims and they are likewise rejected.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 14 recites “the first child storage device including a plurality of copies of the first data, and the second child storage device including a plurality of copies of the second data”, which is not supported by the specification.
Claim requires plurality of duplicates/copies of the same instance i.e. first data and plurality of duplicates/copies of the same instance i.e. second data and the specification paragraph [0048] describes entries in the storage but does not describe duplicate copies of the same first data or same second data. Therefore, there is no support for the plurality of copies of data.
The dependent claims depend from the independent claims and they are likewise rejected.
Dependent claim 21 recites “the second child storage device including a plurality of copies of the first data”, which is not supported by the specification.
Claim requires plurality of duplicates/copies of the same instance i.e. first data and the specification paragraph [0048] describes multiple entries in the storage but does not describe duplicate copies of the same first data. Therefore, there is no support for the plurality of copies of data.
The dependent claims depend from the independent claims and they are likewise rejected.
Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 21.
Claim 24 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 21.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-18, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Intendent claims 1, 8, 14 recite “duplicating the first data by uploading the first data from the parent storage device back to the first child storage device”, which is not supported by the specification. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation. For the purpose of the examination, it is interpreted as uploading data back to the child storage again.
The dependent claims depend from the independent claims and they are likewise rejected.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 14 recites “the first child storage device including a plurality of copies of the first data, and the second child storage device including a plurality of copies of the second data”, which is not supported by the specification. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by “plurality of copies of first data” and “plurality of copies of second data”. For the purpose of the examination, it is interpreted as entries in the storage devices.
The dependent claims depend from the independent claims and they are likewise rejected.
Dependent claim 21 recites “the second child storage device including a plurality of copies of the first data”, which is not supported by the specification.
Claim requires plurality of duplicates/copies of the same instance i.e. first data and the specification paragraph [0048] describes multiple entries in the storage but does not describe duplicate copies of the same first data. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by “plurality of copies of first data”. For the purpose of the examination, it is interpreted as entries in the storage devices.
Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 21.
Claim 24 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak (US 2014/0325147) and in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US 8,898,407) and in view of Mitkar et al. (US 2017/0262520) and in view of Hagerstrom et al. (US 7,599,971)
With respect to Claim 1, Nayak teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by processors of a data management system including a storage device and storage devices ([0007, the storage system may also temporarily store/cache particular data in a smaller cache memory in storage system memory for faster access], multiple storage devices), cause the processors to perform a method for using the storage device to deduplicate and duplicate data across the storage devices, the method comprising ([0015, Data blocks in cache memory are typically deduplicated based only on the deduplication of data blocks on the storage devices, and further deduplication processing of the data blocks in cache memory is not performed], deduplicating data from multiple storage devices):
examining files from both a first storage device and a second storage device to identify files in the first and second storage devices ([0132, the content identifier/fingerprint of a block or sequence of blocks is determined using a checksum operation that produces a checksum value representing the data contents of the block or sequence of blocks, the checksum value comprising the content identifier of the block or sequence of blocks], [0194, At step 1715, for the data blocks (referred to as "new data blocks") received since the just previous time interval expired and when the deduplication process was last initiated, the method 1700 identifies all new data blocks that are redundant with any data blocks (referred to as "previous data blocks") previously stored on the storage devices], the data blocks (files) are examined in the storage devices (multiple storage devices) to identify which data blocks are redundant);
calculating checksums for each of the identified files, one or more checksums by applying a hashing algorithm to the entire identified file or to each of a plurality of chunks of the identified file ([0085, the hash function may be applied to an input hash value (comprising the search data) to produce an output hash value. The output hash value may be used to identify a particular slot in the hash table, the slot containing data for locating data related to the search data.], [0132, the content identifier/fingerprint of a block or sequence of blocks is determined using a checksum operation that produces a checksum value representing the data contents of the block or sequence of blocks, the checksum value comprising the content identifier of the block or sequence of blocks], checksum is calculated for the blocks (file) by using hash algorithm);
deduplicating storing unique data corresponding to a subset of the calculated checksums including first data from the first storage device and second data from the second storage device ([0096, the deduplication layer 275 resides in the storage-side layers 370 for deduplicating data on the storage devices 125], [0100, the deduplication layer 275 may process the blocks in the accumulated write logs for possible deduplication before the blocks are written to the storage devices 125], the deduplication of data based on the calculated checksum from the storages)):
storing a copy of the first data and a copy of the second data in the storage device ([0205, copies of new data blocks of new write requests are stored to the cache memory 225 upon being received], the cache memory stores (parent) copies of data).
Nayak does not explicitly teach parent and child storage, directories or archive files, the first child storage device including a plurality of copies of the first data, and the second child storage device including a plurality of copies of the second data; replacing, in the first child storage device, each copy of the first data with a reference to the first data in the parent storage device, and replacing, in the second child storage device; and duplicating the first data by uploading the first data from the parent storage device back to the first child storage device.
However, Balasubramanian teaches first child storage, second child storage ([col. 4, lines 15-20, “the child virtual container is populated with the changed blocks. In step 308, the child virtual container is linked with a parent virtual container”; col 5, lines 63-65, “wherein the parent virtual container and all linked child virtual containers are stored in a deduplicated virtual storage device”], the parent and multiple child storages).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Balasubramanian i.e. parent/child storages into the system of Nayak to have parent/child storages. Nayak, Balasubramanian are analogous arts because each art teaches storage management of data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporating functionalities of Balasubramanian into the system of Nayak to improve the performance of storage management of data to deduplicate data accurately (Hagerstrom, col. 1, lines 35-40, “Data migration systems have been developed to facilitate the efficient storage of large amounts of data”).
Nayak, Balasubramanian do not explicitly teach directories or archive files, the first child storage device including a plurality of copies of the first data, and the second child storage device including a plurality of copies of the second data; replacing, in the first child storage device, each copy of the first data with a reference to the first data in the parent storage device and replacing, in the second child storage device; and duplicating the first data by uploading the first data from the parent storage device back to the first child storage device.
However, Mitkar teaches directories or archive files ([0069, A secondary copy 116 may be stored in a backup or archive format, or in some other format different from the native source application format or other format of primary data 112], archive files in the storages), the first child storage device including a plurality of copies of the first data, and the second child storage device including a plurality of copies of the second data ([0069, Secondary copies 116 can be stored in the same storage device as primary data 112], [0070, Secondary storage computing devices 106 may index secondary copies 116 (e.g., using a media agent 144), so that users can browse and restore at a later time], multiple copies are stored in the secondary devices, parent/child storages are taught by Balasubramanian).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Mitkar i.e. archive files, storing multiple copies into the system Nayak/ Balasubramanian to have achieve files and storing multiple copies of data. Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar are analogous arts because each art teaches storage management of data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporating functionalities of Mitkar into the system of Nayak/Balasubramanian to have efficient storage management and data durability (Mitkar, [0130, Index 153 provides a fast and efficient mechanism for locating/browsing secondary copies 11]).
Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar in combination do not explicitly teach replacing, in the first child storage device, each copy of the first data with a reference to the first data in the parent storage device and replacing, in the second child storage device; and duplicating the first data by uploading the first data from the parent storage device back to the first child storage device.
However, Hagerstrom teaches replacing, in the first child storage device, each copy of the first data with a reference to the first data in the parent storage device and replacing, in the second child storage device ([col. 6, lines 55-60, “the references 214 and 216 may include pointers that describe the location (e.g., directory path and filename) of the corresponding placeholder file 202 and 204 or secondary file 212 being referenced”], the file is replace with the pointer, parent/child storages are taught by Balasubramanian);
and duplicating the first data by uploading the first data from the parent storage device back to the first child storage device ([col. 8, lines 60-65, “a user may delete a placeholder file, and later restore the deleted placeholder file from a backup location. When the placeholder file is restored, it may be restored with a content address that is not identified by the online reference of the corresponding secondary file”], the files are restored from the backup to the storage device, duplicating data by restoring the data (uploading back)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities i.e. replacing the file with reference and uploading back the data to the storage devices of Hagerstrom into the system of Nayak/Balasubramanian/Mitkar to have an efficient duplicating system. Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar, Hagerstrom are analogous arts because each art teaches storage management of data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporating functionalities of Hagerstrom into the system of Nayak/Balasubramanian/Mitkar to improve the performance of deduplication of data which will make the system faster and more cost efficient (Hagerstrom, col. 1, lines 35-40, “Data migration systems have been developed to facilitate the efficient storage of large amounts of data”).
With respect to claim 2, Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar, Hagerstrom the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 1, Nayak further teaches wherein duplicating the first data further comprises:
retrieving a checksum at the parent storage device associated with the first data ([0132, the content identifier/fingerprint of a block or sequence of blocks is determined using a checksum operation that produces a checksum value representing the data contents of the block or sequence of blocks, the checksum value comprising the content identifier of the block or sequence of blocks], checksum is calculated for data);
retrieving the first data at the parent storage device, the first data corresponding to the retrieved checksums ([0132, the content identifier/fingerprint of a block or sequence of blocks is determined using a checksum operation that produces a checksum value representing the data contents of the block or sequence of blocks, the checksum value comprising the content identifier of the block or sequence of blocks], checksum is calculated for the data and data is retrieved based on the checksum, parent storage is taught by Balasubramanian).
Claim 8 encompasses the same scope of limitation as claim 1, in additions of a method (para. [0005]). Therefore, claim 8 is rejected as the same basis of rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14 encompasses the same scope of limitation as claim 1, in additions of a network interface, a processor, a me memory (para. [0005]). Therefore, claim 14 is rejected as the same basis of rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 2.
With respect to claim 21, Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar, Hagerstrom the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 1, Mitkar teaches wherein the second child storage device further includes a plurality of copies of the first data ([0069, Secondary copies 116 can be stored in the same storage device as primary data 112], [0070, Secondary storage computing devices 106 may index secondary copies 116 (e.g., using a media agent 144), so that users can browse and restore at a later time], multiple copies are stored in the secondary devices, parent/child storages are taught by Balasubramanian), Hagerstrom teaches and deduplicating the data corresponding to the subset of the calculated checksums further comprises the following step: replacing, in the second child storage device, each copy of the first data with a reference to the first data in the parent storage device ([col. 6, lines 55-60, “the references 214 and 216 may include pointers that describe the location (e.g., directory path and filename) of the corresponding placeholder file 202 and 204 or secondary file 212 being referenced”], the file is replace with the pointer, parent/child storages are taught by Balasubramanian).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities i.e. replacing the file with reference of Hagerstrom into the system of Nayak/Balasubramanian/Mitkar to have an efficient duplicating system. Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar, Hagerstrom are analogous arts because each art teaches storage management of data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporating functionalities of Hagerstrom into the system of Nayak/Balasubramanian/Mitkar to improve the performance of deduplication of data which will make the system faster and more cost efficient (Hagerstrom, col. 1, lines 35-40, “Data migration systems have been developed to facilitate the efficient storage of large amounts of data”).
With respect to claim 22, Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar, Hagerstrom the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 8, Nayak further teaches wherein duplicating the first data comprises: retrieving a checksum at the parent storage device associated with the first data; and retrieving the first data at the parent storage device, the first data corresponding to the retrieved checksum ([0132, the content identifier/fingerprint of a block or sequence of blocks is determined using a checksum operation that produces a checksum value representing the data contents of the block or sequence of blocks, the checksum value comprising the content identifier of the block or sequence of blocks], checksum is calculated for the data and data is retrieved based on the checksum, parent storage is taught by Balasubramanian).
Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 21.
Claim 24 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 21.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak (US 2014/0325147) and in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US 8,898,407) and in view of Mitkar et al. (US 2017/0262520) and in view of Hagerstrom et al. (US 7,599,971) and in view of Ngo et al. (US 8,930,306).
With respect to claim 3, Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar, Hagerstrom teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: Nayak further teaches obtaining a checksum ([0233, At step 2115, the method 2100 identifies all data blocks previously stored on the storage devices (referred to as "previous data blocks") that are redundant with the new data block (have the same data content). The method may do so, for example, using the fingerprint DS 245 to identify any previous data blocks that have a fingerprint matching the fingerprint of the new data block], the checksum is obtained for data) but does not explicitly teach in response to a request from a software application to access the first data, the request being received after the first data is deduplicated, obtaining a checksum at the first child storage device corresponding to the first data; and requesting the parent storage device for the first data, using the obtained checksum.
However, Ngo teaches in response to a request from a software application to access the first data, the request being received after the first data is deduplicated, obtaining a checksum at the first child storage device corresponding to the first data ([col. 7, lines 53-55, “The file system 124 can be provided to facilitate and control file access by the operating system and application software 122. File systems 122 can facilitate access to local and remote storage devices for file or data access and storage”], [col. 10, lines 1-5, “The process can continue through subsequent deduplication operations in which the reference table is updated with new entries, relevant subsets of the entries are identified in light of the changes to the reference table, and synchronization performed based on the reference table subset”], [col. 9, lines “Storage repository 151 deduplicates the data, creating a reference table in the process. For example, in terms of the example described above with respect to FIG. 1, storage repository 151 segments of data, hashes each segment to create a hash value signature, and compares the signature to existing entries in the reference table 127. Accordingly, a result of step 181 is storage of deduplicated data and creation of the reference table (such as, for example a hash table 127)”], software application can access data from storages, the updating process is subsequent to deduplication and hash is calculated (checksum) for each data); and requesting the parent storage device for the first data, using the obtained checksum ([col. 5, lines 17-20, “the client device can send the hash value or other reference table information to the central storage (or other location maintaining the main reference table) so that the primary reference table can be updated with the information on the newly added segment”], the data associated with the hash value is send to the central storage; parent and child storage is taught by Balasubramanian).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities i.e. software application to access data, request to access data is received after deduplication and requesting using the obtained checksum of Ngo into the system of Nayak/Balasubramanian/Mitkar/Hagerstrom to have an efficient duplicating system. Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar, Hagerstrom, Ngo are analogous arts because each art teaches storage management of data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporating functionalities of Ngo into the system of Nayak/Balasubramanian/Mitkar/Hagerstrom to improve the performance of deduplication of data which will make the system faster and more cost efficient (Ngo, col. 5, lines 43-45, “result in increased efficiency and reduce synchronization problems with the database”).
With respect to claim 4, Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar, Hagerstrom teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises: in response to a request from a software application to upload third data from the first child storage device, calculating one or more checksums of the third data; determining, based on the calculated one or more checksums of the third data, whether the third data is currently stored in the parent storage device; and uploading the third data from the first child storage device to the parent storage device and when the third data is determined not to currently be stored in the parent storage device.
However, Ngo teaches in response to a request from a software application to upload third data from the first child storage device, calculating one or more checksums of the third data ([col. 7, lines 53-55, “The file system 124 can be provided to facilitate and control file access by the operating system and application software 122. File systems 122 can facilitate access to local and remote storage devices for file or data access and storage”], [col. 10, lines 1-5, “The process can continue through subsequent deduplication operations in which the reference table is updated with new entries, relevant subsets of the entries are identified in light of the changes to the reference table, and synchronization performed based on the reference table subset”], [col. 9, lines “Storage repository 151 deduplicates the data, creating a reference table in the process. For example, in terms of the example described above with respect to FIG. 1, storage repository 151 segments of data, hashes each segment to create a hash value signature, and compares the signature to existing entries in the reference table 127. Accordingly, a result of step 181 is storage of deduplicated data and creation of the reference table (such as, for example a hash table 127)”], software application can access data from storages, hash is calculated (checksum) for each data);
determining, based on the calculated one or more checksums of the third data, whether the third data is currently stored in the parent storage device ([col. 8, lines 23-28, “If, on the other hand, the signature value does not already exist in table 127, the bit sequence is not in data storage. In such a case, this segment is placed into storage and the signature is placed in a new entry in table 127 along with a pointer to the storage location of the new segment”], determining that the hash already exists for not); and
uploading the third data from the first child storage device to the parent storage device and when the third data is determined not to currently be stored in the parent storage device ([col. 8, lines 23-28, “If, on the other hand, the signature value does not already exist in table 127, the bit sequence is not in data storage. In such a case, this segment is placed into storage and the signature is placed in a new entry in table 127 along with a pointer to the storage location of the new segment”], determining that the hash already exists for not, if the value does not exists storing the files). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities i.e. software application to access data, checking if the exist or not and storing the data if not stored of Ngo into the system of Nayak/Balasubramanian/Mitkar/Hagerstrom to have an efficient duplicating system. Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar, Hagerstrom, Ngo are analogous arts because each art teaches storage management of data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporating functionalities of Ngo into the system of Nayak/Balasubramanian/Mitkar/Hagerstrom to improve the performance of deduplication of data which will make the system faster and more cost efficient (Ngo, col. 5, lines 43-45, “result in increased efficiency and reduce synchronization problems with the database”).
With respect to claim 5, Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar, Hagerstrom the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
in response to a request from a software application to remove third data from the first child storage device, the third data having been deduplicated to the parent storage device (([col. 7, lines 53-55, “The file system 124 can be provided to facilitate and control file access by the operating system and application software 122. File systems 122 can facilitate access to local and remote storage devices for file or data access and storage”], [col. 9, lines 47-53, “ For example, new entries to the reference table are made to include signatures and pointers for new data segments received and old signatures and pointers are removed from the table as segments are deleted from the repository”], software application can access data from storages, and deleting data from the storages), deleting the third data at the parent storage device and deleting an entry at the first child storage device associated with the third data ([col. 9, lines 47-53, “ For example, new entries to the reference table are made to include signatures and pointers for new data segments received and old signatures and pointers are removed from the table as segments are deleted from the repository”], software application can access data from storages, and deleting data from the storages, parent storage and child storage is taught by Balasubramanian).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities i.e. deleting data of Ngo into the system of Nayak/Balasubramanian/Mitkar/Hagerstrom to have an efficient duplicating system. Nayak, Balasubramanian, Mitkar, Hagerstrom, Ngo are analogous arts because each art teaches storage management of data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporating functionalities of Ngo into the system of Nayak/Balasubramanian/Mitkar/Hagerstrom to improve the performance of deduplication of data which will make the system faster and more cost efficient (Ngo, col. 5, lines 43-45, “result in increased efficiency and reduce synchronization problems with the database”).
Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 3.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 4.
Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 5.
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 FATIMA P MINA whose telephone number is (571)270-3556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/FATIMA P MINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159