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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to claim interpretation, the “terminal device” invokes 35 USC 112f due to the fact that the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
In response to 35 USC 112(b), there are additional 35 US 112(b) issues that need to be further review.
In response to 35 USC 112(a), it would appear that the applicant does not have support for a hash algorithm. Please see below. Applicant indicated that paragraph [0096] of the specification has support calculating hash value. However, the specification indicates a Merkle hash. Merkle hash are not a hashing algorithm.
In response to 35 USC 101, the 35 USC 101 rejection has been withdrawn in light of claim amendment.
In response to 35 USC 103, applicant argues that Kim fails to teach the claim limitation.
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot, because the newly recited amendment does not rely on the newly recited reference being applied to the prior rejection of record or any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: terminal device in claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11.
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-11 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.
Re. claim 1, The BRI of the claim requires the functional language that the server must somehow perform the function. The claimed functions are not performed by any structure recited in the claim.
The boundaries of the functional language is unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the server in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim.
Claims 2-11 fall together accordingly as they do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claim.
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 and 4-13 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.
Re. claims 1, 12 and 13; the claims recite “calculate a first authentication value from the data received from the terminal device comprising a first hash value that is uniquely associated with the data at a first timing; calculate a second authentication value after the first authentication value is calculated and the user confirmed, using the terminal device, that the data is target data to be registered and stored in the storage device, the second authentication value comprising a second hash value that is uniquely associated with the data at a second timing different from the first timing of calculating the first authentication value by the server”. No algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the function are found explained at all or in sufficient detail and simply the specification restates the function recited in the claim. In fact, the only portion of the specification relating to " a first authentication value calculator, second authentication value calculator" is found in paragraph 27 of the originally filed specification and it states “The first hash value calculator 30 calculates the hash value A that is a value unique to the evidence data” and in paragraph 28 discloses “The second hash value calculator 32 calculates the hash value B, which is a value unique to the evidence data, at a timing different from the calculation of the hash value A by the first hash value calculator 30”. However, the specification does not recite a hash algorithm in order to hash a value. The specification is silent on using a hash function or hash algorithms such as MD5 or sha-1. As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of an algorithm that device or server can hash the value.
MPEP 2161.01 (I), states "The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention."). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
While hashing might be known, description as to how the applicant intends to implement "hash" to hashing the value is not described at all. Therefore, the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent claims 4-11 fall together accordingly as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troia et al. (US 20200313861, hereinafter Troia) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20210250177, hereinafter Yoo).
Re. claim 1, Troia discloses a data authenticity proving system that is configured to prove that data received by a server from a terminal device operated by a user is not tampered with (Troia [0020]): the server (Troia discloses a memory device [0078][0036]); a storage device (Troia discloses a memory [0042]); and the terminal device (Troia discloses a host [0078][0036]), wherein the terminal device is configured to generate the data and transmit the data to the server without storing the data in the terminal device (Troia discloses host can transmit data to the memory device [0078][0084]), and the server is configured to calculate a first authentication value from the data received from the terminal device comprising first hash value that is uniquely associated with the data at a first timing (Troia discloses circuitry 210 can generate (e.g., calculate) a different run-time cryptographic hash for the data stored in each respective one of the first number of segments [0046]);
calculate a second authentication value after the first authentication value is calculated (Troia discloses validate the data stored in only a portion (e.g. less than all) of the segments during the powering (e.g., the booting) of the memory, using different cryptographic hashes associated with each respective one of those segments [0022]), the second authentication value comprising a second hash value that is uniquely associated with the data at a second timing different from the first timing of calculating the first authentication value by the server (Troia discloses circuitry 210 can generate a different run-time cryptographic hash for the data stored in each respective one of the second number of segments, and compare the run-time cryptographic hash generated for the data stored in each respective segment to the golden hash for that respective segment stored in register 216-3 [0052]);
compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value ([Troia discloses compare the run-time cryptographic hash generated for the data stored in each respective segment to the golden hash for that respective segment stored in register 216-3. validating the data stored in each respective one of the second number of the plurality of segments can be analogous to the process of validating the data stored in each respective one of the first number of the plurality of segments [0052]);
register the data by storing the data in a storage device (Troia discloses hashes may be stored in a non-volatile register [0043][0046]).
Troia discloses hash values, Troia does not explicitly teach but Yoo teaches calculate a second authentication value after the user confirmed, using the terminal device, that the data is target data to be registered and stored in the storage device (Yoo teaches discloses the information related to the registration hash value may be registered by the user terminal 10 by accessing the authentication server 30, or may be generated by the authentication server 30 and provided to the user terminal 10 that attempts to register [0065]. the registration hash value may be a value generated by using the first hash, the second hash, or the third hash, or may be a value generated by combining at least two among the first hash, the second hash, and the third hash [0083]. When the user terminal 10 intends to generate a registration hash value for attempting to register or requesting approval for control of the IoT device 20 [0085]. After the registration hash value is generated, the authentication server 30 records information related to the registration hash value in the blockchain 40, thereby completing the registration process for the registration hash value [0135]); register the data by storing the data in the storage device when determining that the first authentication value is equal to the second authentication value (Yoo teaches compares the value with the registration hash value recorded in the blockchain 40. As a result of the comparison, when the authentication hash value is the same as the registration hash value recorded in the blockchain 40, the authentication server 30 approves control of the IoT device 20 by the user terminal 10 [0105]. As a result of the comparison, when the authentication hash value is the same as the registration hash value, the authentication server 30 authenticates the user terminal 10 logged into the IoT device 20 as a valid user terminal 10, transmits an authentication success message to the IoT device, and registers a result of the authentication, the information on the authenticated user terminal 10, and the information on the IoT device [0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia to include calculate a second authentication value after the user confirmed, using the terminal device, that the data is target data to be registered and stored in the storage device; register the data by storing the data in the storage device when determining that the first authentication value is equal to the second authentication value as disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of authenticating validity of the user and preventing hacking (Yoo [0001]).
Re. claim 12, claim 12 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 1 above.
Re. claim 13, claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 1 above. Troia further teaches at least one processor (Troia discloses processor [0036]); and at least one memory storing computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor (Troia discloses data stored in memory [0021]. processor [0036]. Sends commands to performs operations program among other operations [0038][0040][0099]).
Claims 4, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troia et al. (US 20200313861, hereinafter Troia) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210271774, hereinafter Kim) and in further view of Guan et al. (US 11314731, hereinafter Guan).
Re. claim 4, Troia-Yoo teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 1, wherein the terminal device further configured to calculate an authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data and is configured to transmit the data and the authentication value to the server (Troia discloses a signature can be generated and sent with data [0091][0078]).
Troia-Yoo do not explicitly teach but Kim teaches the server is further configured to compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value after comparing the authentication value and the first authentication value (Kim teaches compare the stored process information with the process information after the second user input is generated, and if it is determined that the two items of process information correspond to or match each other, may compare the time stamp information on the first user input with the time stamp information on the second user input to further determine whether or not the interval time between the time stamps corresponds to a specified threshold value or more [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia to include the server is further configured to compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value after comparing the authentication value and the first authentication value as disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of determining whether or not the data is tampered with or has a possibility of being tampered with (Kim [0046]).
Re. claim 8, Troia-Yoo teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 1, Troia-Yoo do not explicitly teach but Kim teaches further comprising: a terminal device is further configured to determine that the received data is not authentic when a time difference between a timing of receiving the data and a timing of generating the data exceeds a predetermined time (Kim discloses it is determined that the calculated interval time is equal to or greater than the specified threshold value, the data is stored in a storage device [0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Yoo to include a determiner that is configured to determine that the received data is not authentic when a time difference between a timing of receiving the data and a timing of generating the data exceeds a predetermined time as disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of determining whether or not the data is tampered with or has a possibility of being tampered with (Kim [0046]).
Re. claim 9, Troia-Yoo teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 1, , Troia-Yoo do not explicitly teach but Kim teaches wherein when the terminal device cannot transmit and receive the data to/from the server and cannot transmit generated data to the server, the terminal device is configured to store the data in a storage area where access to the data is prohibited (Kim teaches the electronic device 100 may determine whether to operate the temporary storage space (or a separate storage device) based on the result of determining whether or not the content data is tampered with or has the possibility of being tampered with. For example, the electronic device 100 may block storage of the content data in the temporary storage space (or a separate storage device) if it is determined that the selected content data is tampered with or has the possibility of being tampered with [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Yoo to include wherein when the terminal device cannot transmit and receive the data to/from the server and cannot transmit generated data to the server, the terminal device is configured to store the data in a storage area where access to the data is prohibited as disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of prevent various security issues (Kim [0039]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troia et al. (US 20200313861, hereinafter Troia) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20210250177, hereinafter Yoo), in view of Kim et al. (US 20210271774, hereinafter Kim) and in further view of Masini (US 20190314726).
Re. claim 5, Troia-Yoo-Kim teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 4, Troia-Yoo-Kim do not explicitly teach but Masini teaches wherein the authentication value calculator is configured to acquire the authentication value by changing the calculated authentication value based on a predetermined rule (Masini teaches the transaction is validated. Different validation rules may include a timing mechanism for when the validation rules are to be implemented. For example, a change to a validation rule may be stored in a block on the blockchain. However, if the time for the implementation of the validation rule has not been reached, the blockchain client will use the older rule to validate the transaction. For example, a fee change may be set to take place on the 1st of the month. While this rule may be identified, if the 1st of the month has not been reached yet, the blockchain client will still use the old fee instead [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Yoo-Kim to include wherein the authentication value calculator is configured to acquire the authentication value by changing the calculated authentication value based on a predetermined rule as disclosed by Masini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of including a timing mechanism for when the validation rules are to be implemented, improves validation (Masini [0083]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troia et al. (US 20200313861, hereinafter Troia) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20210250177, hereinafter Yoo), in view of Kim et al. (US 20210271774, hereinafter Kim) and in further view of McKervey et al. (US 11062042, hereinafter McKervey).
Re. claim 6, Troia-Yoo-Kim teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 4, Troia-Yoo-Kim do not explicitly teach but McKervey teaches wherein the terminal device and the server are configured to calculate the authentication value and the first authentication value from the data divided into a plurality of data pieces (McKervey teaches the system 108 generates a hash for each data slice of a chunk of data, the block entry can include the hash of each data slice and the hash of the chunk of data or hash of the hashes of the data slices [Col 71 lines 49-67]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Yoo-Kim to include wherein the terminal device and the server are configured to calculate the authentication value and the first authentication value from the data divided into a plurality of data pieces as disclosed by McKervey. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of obfuscate identifying information about the chunk of data. Managing, understanding and effectively utilizing the data (McKervey [Col 61 lines 34-54][Col 1 lines 27-40]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troia et al. (US 20200313861, hereinafter Troia) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20210250177, hereinafter Yoo), in view of Kim et al. (US 20210271774, hereinafter Kim) and in further view of Asano et al. (US 20200184083, Asano).
Re. claim 7, Troia-Yoo-Kim teach the data authenticity proving system according to claim 4, Troia-Kim-Guan do not explicitly teach but Asano teaches wherein the terminal device and the server are configured to calculate the authentication value and the first authentication value from other data added to the data (Asano teaches receives the encryption key and the date/time information from the management server 300 and generates the encrypted data by using these pieces of information [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Yoo-Kim to include wherein the authentication value calculator and the first authentication value calculator are configured to calculate the authentication value and the first authentication value from other data added to the data as disclosed by Asano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of improving falsification by analyzing more information [0044].
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troia et al. (US 20200313861, hereinafter Troia) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20210250177, hereinafter Yoo), and in further view of Lee (US 11050567).
Re. claim 10, Troia-Yoo teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 1, Troia-Yoo do not explicitly teach but Lee teaches wherein the server is further configured to generate an information code used for reading the data stored in the storage device, and the information code is transmitted from the server to the terminal device (Lee teaches the security authentication server 300 may generate the one time use authentication information in the form of a QR code image, that is, a two dimensional bar code having encrypted data embedded therein, and transmit the generated one time use authentication information to a screen of the user terminal 100 such that the one time use authentication information is displayed on the screen of the user terminal 100 [Col 12 lines 33-40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Yoo to include wherein the server includes an information code generator that is configured to generate an information code used for reading the data stored in the storage device, and the information code is transmitted from the server to the terminal device as disclosed by Guan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of obtain information to determine whether the information is genuine. Enhance user engagement
Re. claim 11, Troia-Yoo teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 1, Troia-Yoo do not explicitly teach but Lee teaches wherein information code indicative of identification information of the data is generated in advance, the terminal device is configured to transmit the information code and the data to the server, and the server is configured to register the data in the storage device in association with identification information indicated by the information code (Lee teaches the security authentication server 300 may generate the one time use authentication information in the form of a QR code image, that is, a two dimensional bar code having encrypted data embedded therein, and transmit the generated one time use authentication information to a screen of the user terminal 100 such that the one time use authentication information is displayed on the screen of the user terminal 100 [Col 12 lines 33-40]. the security authentication server 300 makes the generated one time use authentication information into a database (DB), and stores the DB in an additional storage device 350 [Col 12 lines 41-44]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Kim to include wherein information code indicative of identification information of the data is generated in advance, the terminal device is configured to transmit the information code and the data to the server, and the register is configured to register the data in the storage device in association with identification information indicated by the information code as disclosed by Guan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of obtain information to determine whether the information is genuine. Enhance user engagement
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tokunaga (US 20230163971) discloses user terminal including a biometric authentication unit, a presence proof request information generation unit, and a data storage unit, a base station including a start time information generation unit, a verification unit, and a presence proof generation unit. The base station transmits, to the user terminal, a start time of presence proof processing, the user terminal transmits, to the base station, an authentication time when the biometric authentication is performed, when the start time, the authentication time, and a verification time in the verification unit are arranged in time series and a difference between the start time and the verification time is within a predetermined range, the base station transmits the presence proof to the user terminal, and the user terminal stores data related to the presence proof received from the base station in a data storage unit.
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 KEVIN A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-3912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM; Friday: Variable EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/KEVIN AYALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights