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 .
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-13 and 15-23 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, 12 and 19 have been amended to recite that the storage system average latencies are “based on read latencies or write latencies of devices of the first storage system and the second storage system”. The Examiner is unable to find support in the specification for such an amendment. Paragraphs 66-67, among other places, disclose higher and lower average latencies of storage systems but are silent regarding devices of those storage systems. There does not appear to be any disclosure in the specification regarding any devices of the storage systems or their performance/latency. For purposes of examination, the claims are being examined as if there was support for the above limitation. Claims 2, 4-9, 11-13 and 15-23 are rejected for their dependencies on claims 1, 12 and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-13, 15 and 19-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slik (US 2016/0314043) in view of Franklin et al. (US 9,158,927), and further in view of Wozniak et al. (US 2020/0326885).
Regarding claim 1, Slik teaches a method comprising:
receiving a request for a data block (data object), FIG. 7. [0102] At block 710, a request module 416 receives a read request for obtaining a data object. wherein the data block corresponds to a set of fragments (encoded data fragments), [0103] A mapping of the object identifier (of data object) and the fragment identifiers of the encoded data fragments. wherein the data block can be fully reconstructed using a threshold number (k) of the set of fragments, [0105] Use the first k fragments for regenerating the data object. wherein a first subset of the set of fragments are stored in a first storage system, and wherein a second subset of the set of fragments are stored in a second storage system; [0104] The storage devices where each of the encoded data fragments is stored. [0105] Obtain sufficient number of the encoded data fragments required to generate the data object from the identified storage devices. As such, there are k number of encoded data fragments of the data object are obtained from the identified storage devices to regenerate the data object, while the remaining number of encoded data fragments of the data object are stored in other storage devices. According, the identified storage devices that store k number of encoded data fragments to be obtained to regenerate the data object are a first storage system, and the storage devices that store the remaining number of encoded data fragments of the data object are a second storage system.
responsive to receiving the request for the data block, requesting the first subset of the set of fragments; [0102] Receive a read request for obtaining a data object. [0105] Obtain sufficient number of the encoded data fragments required to generate the data object from the identified storage devices. FIG. 7 shows the receive the read request at block 710, then obtain at least k encoded data fragments at block 725.
receiving at least the threshold number of the first subset of the fragments; [0105] Obtain k number of the encoded data fragments.
reconstructing the data block using the received fragments of the first subset of the fragments; and [0107] Generate the data object after obtaining the encoded data fragments and decoding the encoded data fragments.
providing the reconstructed data block. [0108] Transmit the data object in response to the read request.
Slik does not expressly disclose requesting the first subset of the set of fragments from the firs storage system without requesting the second subset of fragments and determining whether the threshold number of the set of fragments is available from the first storage system and that access to the second storage system is not required, wherein the second storage system is characterized by a higher average latency than the first storage system; based on determining that the threshold number of the set of fragments is available from the first storage system: receiving at least the threshold number of the set of fragments from the first subset of the set of fragments; and reconstructing the data block using the received fragments of the first subset of the set of fragments, without accessing the second storage system; and based on determining that the threshold number of the set of fragments is not available from the first storage system: requesting the second subset of the set of fragments from the second storage system; receiving the second subset of the set of fragments from the second storage system; reconstructing the data block using received fragments of the first subset of the set of fragments and the second subset of the set of fragments.
Franklin discloses a system for recovery of erasure coded data, in which a threshold number, m, of data fragments are needed to reconstruct a file [see Col. 4, lines 51-67]. The data fragments are dispersed across a plurality of servers that may be located in different regions. Each server may comprise a subset of different fragments (i.e. a first server may comprise a first subset and a second server may comprise a second subset) [see Col. 5, lines 58-67 to Col. 6, lines 1-7 & Col. 9, lines 8-23]. When reconstructing data from fragments, a server may search its own memory for a sufficient (threshold m) amount of valid fragments to do the rebuilding first, without the need of additional servers from regional storage systems. If the local server does not have sufficient (threshold m amount) fragments, servers of regional storage system are then searched for fragments until a sufficient amount of fragments are found to rebuild the data. The local memory and regional servers are searched in a sequential manner of broadening scope until a sufficient amount of fragments is found to reconstruct data. Therefore, the local memory (comprising a first subset of fragments) is searched first, and if a sufficient amount of fragments are found locally, a second subset (or any amount) of fragments will not be requested from the second or additional regional storage, as they are not required to reconstruct the data [see Col. 6, lines 17-39 & Col. 11, lines 15-33]. The first server memory searched is local to the requesting server, while the additional regional servers are not local and are located a distance away. Therefore, the regional servers of Franklin would be characterized to have a higher latency than the local memory of a requesting server, as they are located a further distance away from a requesting server than local memory.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Franklin to rebuild data from fragments of a first storage system before using fragments of other storage systems in the system of Slik.
The motivation for doing so would have been to decrease overall network bandwidth [see Franklin, Col. 6, lines 17-39].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Franklin with Slik for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-13, 15 and 19-20 and 23.
The combination of Slik and Franklin does not expressly disclose the average latency of the first and second storage system is based on read latencies or write latencies of devices of the first storage system and the second storage system.
Wozniak discloses a distributed storage system in which a data object is reconstructed using dispersed slices (fragments). The slices may first be requested from a storage device having a higher average latency than that of a second storage device [see paragraphs 46-48]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the storage device latency teachings of Wozniak in the system of Slik and Franklin.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reconstruct a data object in a more timely manner due to the decreased latency [see Wozniak, paragraph 46].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wozniak with Slik and Franklin for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-13, 15 and 19-20 and 23.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, Slik further teaches
receiving a second request for a second data block (data object), FIG. 7. [0060] The request module 416 receives read requests from the clients of the storage system 400. [0102] At block 710, a request module 416 receives a read request for obtaining a data object. As such, a second request is interpreted as any one of the read requests received from the clients. wherein the second data block corresponds to a second set of fragments (encoded data fragments) stored in the first storage system, wherein the second data block can be fully reconstructed using a threshold number of the second set of fragments; [0103] A mapping of the object identifier (of data object) and the fragment identifiers of the encoded data fragments. [0104] The storage devices where each of the encoded data fragments is stored. [0105] Obtain sufficient number of the encoded data fragments required to generate the data object from the identified storage devices. As such, there are k number of encoded data fragments of the data object are obtained from the identified storage devices to regenerate the data object, while the remaining number of encoded data fragments of the data object are stored in other storage devices. According, the identified storage devices that store k number of encoded data fragments to be obtained to regenerate the data object are a first storage system & Franklin, Col. 5, lines 57-67; in an embodiment, each server comprises enough fragments to fully reconstruct a file.
requesting the second set of fragments from the first storage system; [0102] Receive a read request for obtaining a data object. [0105] Obtain sufficient number of the encoded data fragments required to generate the data object from the identified storage devices. FIG. 7 shows the receive the read request at block 710, then obtain at least k encoded data fragments at block 725.
receiving at least the threshold number of the second set of fragments from the first storage system; and [0105] Obtain k number of the encoded data fragments.
reconstructing the second data block based on the received threshold number of the second set of fragments. [0107] Generate the data object after obtaining the encoded data fragments and decoding the encoded data fragments & Franklin, Col. 5, lines 57-67; in an embodiment, each server comprises enough fragments to fully reconstruct a file.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein requesting the second set of fragments from the first storage system comprises requesting at least the threshold number of the second set of fragments from the first storage system without requesting fragments from the second storage [see Franklin, Col. 6, lines 17-39 & Col. 11, lines 15-33; file may be reconstructed fully from first local storage if the threshold m fragments are available].
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the method of claim 1. Slik further teaches
detecting that at least one of the fragments in the first subset of the set of fragments is compromised; [0030] A set of data fragments are lost due to failure of a storage device.
responsive to detecting that the at least one of the fragments is compromised, requesting the threshold number of fragments from a combination of the first subset of the set of fragments and the second subset of the set of fragments; [0030] If a set of data fragments are lost due to failure of a storage device, the set of data fragments can be reconstructed by obtaining at least k data fragments from the remaining of the storage devices and generating the replacement data fragments as a function of the obtained data fragments. [0072] If a disk has failed and there are insufficient protection fragments stored in the storage subsystem 306, the additional fragments can be retrieved from the latent storage 450. As such, when a set of data fragments are lost due to failure of a storage device, k data fragments are obtained from the storage subsystem 306 and the latent storage 450.
receiving the requested threshold number of the set of fragments; [0105] Obtain k number of the encoded data fragments.
in response to receiving the requested threshold number of fragments, reconstructing the data block using the received threshold number of fragments; and [0107] Generate the data object after obtaining the encoded data fragments and decoding the encoded data fragments.
storing the reconstructed data block across the first storage system and the second storage system. [0085] Generate new data fragments as a function of the data fragments obtained from the other storage devices, and writes the new data fragments on one or more of the remaining storage devices. As such, the new data fragments are stored in the remaining storage devices, such as the storage subsystem 306 and the latent storage 450.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the method of claim 1. Slik further teaches wherein the first subset of the fragments comprises a number of fragments equal to the threshold number, and [0030] Obtaining at least k data fragments from the remaining of the storage devices. wherein any remaining fragments above the threshold number are stored as part of the second subset in the second storage system. [0072] If a disk has failed and there are insufficient protection fragments stored in the storage subsystem 306, the additional fragments can be retrieved from the latent storage 450.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the method of claim 1. Slik further teaches
receiving a request to store a new data block; FIG. 6. [0094] Receive a write request including payload data.
dividing the new data block into a plurality of fragments; [0095] Encode the data object to generate a number of encoded data fragments, e.g., encoded data fragments F1-FN. Accordingly, the generation of a number of encoded data fragments F1-FN is the step of dividing the new data block into a plurality of fragments.
identifying a required number of fragments for reconstruction; and [0095] Generate a number of encoded data fragments, e.g., encoded data fragments F1-FN. The number of encoded data fragments generated can be expressed as a function, e.g., n=k+m, where variable “k” is the original amount of data fragments or the minimum number of data fragments required to regenerate or rebuild the data object.
storing the required number of fragments for reconstruction in the first storage system, and [0098] Determine a storage layout for storing the encoded data fragments across a number of storage devices, e.g., storage devices of storage subsystem 306.
any remaining fragments in the second storage system. [0099] The storage layout module 420 determines which encoded fragments to store at a latent storage, e.g., latent storage 450.
Claims 12-13, 15 and 18-19 recite similar claim limitations as claims 1-2 and 5-8 and are rejected using the same citations and interpretations as used above.
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the system of claim 19 wherein the operations further comprise:
responsive to receiving less than the threshold number of the first subset of the set of fragments, requesting the second subset of the set of fragments from the second storage system; and reconstructing the data block using the received fragments of the first subset of the set of fragments and the second subset of the set of fragments [see Franklin, Col. 6, lines 17-39 & Col. 11, lines 15-33; if threshold m fragments are not in the first subset of fragments at local storage, additional fragments may be retrieved from additional server storage in order to reconstruct the data file].
Regarding claim 23, the combination discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein a third subset of the set of fragments is stored in a third storage system characterized by a higher average latency than the second storage system based on read latencies or write latencies of devices of the third storage system [see Franklin, Fig. 1 & Col. 10, lines 37-52; multiple storage systems may be configured to store the fragments, the systems geographically dispersed, and the further away the system is located the higher the latency will be]; and
based on determining that the threshold number of the set of fragments is not available from a combination of the first storage system and the second storage system: requesting the third subset of the set of fragments from the third storage system; receiving the third subset of the set of fragments from the third storage system; and reconstructing the data block using received fragments from the first subset, the second subset, and the third subset [see Franklin, Col. 6, lines 17-39 & Col. 11, lines 15-33; if threshold m fragments are not in the first subset of fragments at local storage, additional fragments may be retrieved from additional servers sequentially until the threshold m is met in order to reconstruct the data file].
Claims 7-8, 16-17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slik in view of Franklin and Wozniak, and further in view of Ammari et al. (US 2024/0303191 A1), hereinafter Ammari.
Regarding claim 7, Slik and Franklin and Wozniak teach the method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach but Ammari teaches detecting a request to migrate a plurality of data blocks; [0183] Migrating pages from one tier to another. [0184] The pages may be from chunks, which [0136] may represent one or more consecutive physical memory pages. responsive to detecting the request to migrate the plurality of data blocks, identifying a plurality of fragments stored in the first storage system, [0184] Identify a number of pages to be migrated. wherein each of the plurality of fragments is associated with one of the plurality of data blocks; and [0184] The pages may be from chunks, which [0136] may represent one or more consecutive physical memory pages. migrating the identified plurality of fragments to the second storage system. [0183] Migrating pages from one tier to another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Slik and Franklin and Wozniak to incorporate the teaching of Ammari such that the data storage architecture implemented in a tier configuration of Slik and Franklin and Wozniak with a storage system with multiple tiers of memory hierarchy provided by Ammari with a process for migrating pages from one tier to another. The motivation is for migration of one or more pages represented by one or more chunk-sized nodes referred to as chunks, which would minimize the space/capacity overhead needed to track pages, as disclosed in Ammari [0136]-[0137].
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the method of claim 7.
Ammari further teaches wherein identifying a plurality of fragments stored in the first storage system further comprises identifying fragments to migrate to the second storage based on geographic location associated with the first storage system and second storage system. [0147] The metadata 1700 may further store a page mask 1708 for indicating the location (e.g., top tier 1600 or low tier 1602) of a page represented by the chunk 1604.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Slik and Franklin to incorporate the teaching of Ammari such that the data storage architecture implemented in a tier configuration of Slik and Franklin with a storage system with multiple tiers at different locations of memory hierarchy provided by Ammari with a process for migrating pages from one tier to another. The motivation is for migration of one or more pages represented by one or more chunk-sized nodes referred to as chunks, which would minimize the space/capacity overhead needed to track pages, as disclosed in Ammari [0136]-[0137].
Regarding claim 16, Slik and Franklin teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 12.
The combination does not teach but Ammari teaches detect a request to migrate a plurality of data blocks; [0183] Migrating pages from one tier to another. [0184] The pages may be from chunks, which [0136] may represent one or more consecutive physical memory pages. responsive to detecting the request to migrate the plurality of data blocks, identify a plurality of fragments stored in the first storage system, [0184] Identify a number of pages to be migrated. wherein each of the plurality of fragments is associated with one of the plurality of data blocks; and [0184] The pages may be from chunks, which [0136] may represent one or more consecutive physical memory pages. migrate the identified plurality of fragments to the second storage system. [0183] Migrating pages from one tier to another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Slik and Franklin to incorporate the teaching of Ammari such that the data storage architecture implemented in a tier configuration of Slik and Franklin with a storage system with multiple tiers of memory hierarchy provided by Ammari with a process for migrating pages from one tier to another. The motivation is for migration of one or more pages represented by one or more chunk-sized nodes referred to as chunks, which would minimize the space/capacity overhead needed to track pages, as disclosed in Ammari [0136]-[0137].
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16.
Ammari further teaches wherein the instructions to identify a plurality of fragments stored in the first storage system further comprise instructions to identify fragments to migrate to the second storage based on geographic location associated with the first storage system and second storage system. [0147] The metadata 1700 may further store a page mask 1708 for indicating the location (e.g., top tier 1600 or low tier 1602) of a page represented by the chunk 1604.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Slik and Franklin to incorporate the teaching of Ammari such that the data storage architecture implemented in a tier configuration of Slik and Franklin with a storage system with multiple tiers at different locations of memory hierarchy provided by Ammari with a process for migrating pages from one tier to another. The motivation is for migration of one or more pages represented by one or more chunk-sized nodes referred to as chunks, which would minimize the space/capacity overhead needed to track pages, as disclosed in Ammari [0136]-[0137].
Regarding claim 21, the combination discloses the method of claim 7, wherein detecting the request to migrate the plurality of data blocks comprises:
determining that available storage in the first storage system is below a predetermined
threshold; and generating the request to migrate to increase the available storage in the first storage system [see Ammari, paragraph 67; wherein data is migrated from the first tier to the second tier when the amount of pages in the first tier exceeds a threshold (i.e. when the amount of available pages (capacity) in the first tier is below a threshold, the data is migrated].
Regarding claim 22, the combination discloses the method of claim 11, wherein storing the required number of fragments for reconstruction in the first storage system comprises:
determining an expected access frequency for the new data block; and selecting the first storage system based on the expected access frequency exceeding a predetermined threshold [see Ammani, paragraphs 39 & 150; data pages considered hot (access exceed a threshold) may be placed in a higher first tier of storage].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slik in view of Franklin and Wozniak and further in view of Danilov et al. (US 2018/0181324 A1), hereinafter Danilov.
Regarding claim 9, Slik and Franklin and Wozniak teach the method of claim 1.
Slik does not teach but Danilov teaches wherein one of the fragments is an exclusive-or of two other fragments. [0018] A and B refer to chunks of user data, also referred to as primary data, that are subject to geographically or otherwise distributed data protection replication. X refers to a combined chunk of data generated with exclusive or (XOR) encoding, in this case the XOR combination of A and B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Slik, Franklin and Woziak to incorporate the teaching of Danilov such that the data storage architecture implemented in a tier configuration having fragments distributed across the storage devices of Slik, Franklin and Wozniak with a distributed data storage system provided by Danilov subject to geographically or otherwise distributed data protection replication. The motivation is to carry out a distributed data protection replication in a replication target zone that protects data using XOR, as disclosed in Danilov [0020].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the combination of Slik and Franklin fails to disclose a first subset of the set of fragments are stored in a first storage system a second subset of the set of fragments are stored in a second storage system characterized by a higher average latency than the first storage system based on read latencies or write latencies of devices of the first storage system and the second storage system, attention is first drawn to the above 112 rejection. The Examiner is unable to find support in the specification for such an amendment. For purposes of Examination, the prior art of Wozniak has been applied above to show teachings that when rebuilding a data file from fragments, a storage device with less latency than another device may be first selected to acquire fragments for reconstruction.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the combination of Slik and Franklin fails to disclose requesting the threshold number of the set of fragments from the first storage system comprising the first subset of the set of fragments without requesting the second subset of the set of fragments, attention is drawn to Franklin. Franklin discloses, in Col. 5, lines 32-45, that a threshold m number of fragments of an original file are required to reconstruct a fragmented data file. Franklin further discloses, in Col. 5, lines 58-67 to Col. 6, lines 1-7 & Col. 9, lines 8-23, that data fragments are dispersed across a plurality of servers that may be located in different regions. Each server may comprise a subset of different fragments (i.e. a first server may comprise a first subset and a second server may comprise a second subset). The subset may “store enough encrypted fragments to allow reconstruction of the original data file, and each server may store a different fragment or different combination of fragments. It is also contemplated that, in another implementation, an individual server may not store enough of the encrypted fragments to reproduce the original data file on its own”. Therefore, each server of Franklin will store a subset of fragments (i.e. a first server may store a first subset and a second server may store a second subset). It is noted that the claims do not detail or differentiate the contents of claimed first and second sets. Franklin additionally, in Col. 6, lines 17-39 & Col. 11, lines 15-33, that when reconstructing data from fragments, a server may search its own local memory for a sufficient (threshold m) amount of valid fragments to do the rebuilding first, and the file is rebuilt without the need of additional servers from regional storage systems if sufficient (threshold m amount) of fragments are stored in the first local storage. If the local server does not have sufficient (threshold m amount) fragments, servers of regional storage systems are then searched for fragments until a sufficient (threshold m) amount of fragments are found to rebuild the data. The local memory and regional servers are searched in a sequential/serial manner of broadening scope until a sufficient amount of fragments is found to reconstruct data. Therefore, the local memory (comprising a first subset of fragments) is searched first, and if a sufficient amount of fragments are found locally, a second subset (or any amount) of fragments will not be requested from the second or additional regional storage, as they are not required to reconstruct the data. The first server memory searched is local to the requesting server, while the additional regional servers are not local and are located a distance away. Therefore, the regional servers of Franklin would be characterized to have a higher latency than the local memory of a requesting server, as they are located a further distance away from a requesting server than local memory. Therefore, it is believed that the combination of Slik and Franklin discloses requesting the threshold number of the set of fragments from the first storage system comprising the first subset of the set of fragments without requesting the second subset of the set of fragments.
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 RYAN BERTRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5MNT.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/RYAN BERTRAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights