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In response to amendments to claim 9-16, the 101 rejections to claims 9-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because of the reasons below:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that MOMOTAKE is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, MOMOTAKE discloses a multi-processing architecture where a first processing unit (second device/controller) and a second processing unit (first device/controller) communicate via a shared memory. A monitoring mechanism where the first unit stores access information (including service-type and access-state identifiers) in the shared memory. The second unit reading this information to determine faults or errors in the first processing unit.
In response to applicant's argument that Plozin is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Plozin discloses that the system checks for a "trust zone memory attribute identifying the corresponding trust zone." This attribute functions as a service-type identifier because it classifies the nature or destination type of the current memory service (i.e., identifying which specific secure domain or Trust Zone service is being requested).
In response to applicant's argument that ZHOU is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, ZHOU discloses that the recording and timing oversight are executed by the underlying monitoring hardware or software architecture. In this context, that role is filled by the second processing unit, which acts as the independent observer recording the performance of the target program.
In response to application argument on page 18-19:
“It can be seen that in Dunne, since the target memory segments of different devices differ, the corresponding execution behavioral properties also differ, and thus each device has a unique device identifier. Moreover, the device identifier is generated based on the corrupted memory locations in the device's memory, is associated with hardware inherent nature, and is therefore difficult to masquerade, which can effectively prevent device credential theft, improving device security. Dunne solves the problem of easy user credential or device credential theft in electronic device communication, posing a security risk. That is, Dunne focuses on preventing device credential theft to improve device security, and does not involve accessing the security zone and determining the cause of a fault in the process of accessing the security zone.
Therefore, Dunne fails to disclose or inspire the distinguishing technical features, and cannot implement the technical effects of claim 1 as amended.”
Polzin does disclose TrustZone memory is restricted-access memory that requires a specific trust zone attribute to allow any memory operations to proceed. While Dunne teaches generate a unique identifier for an electronic device by monitoring how its system behaves during a memory access task. The combination of Polzin and Dunne results in a system or method where an electronic device generates a unique identifier by monitoring system behavior during a memory access task, specifically where that task involves restricted-access TrustZone memory that requires a specific trust zone attribute to allow any memory operations to proceed.
In response to application argument on page 18-19:
“It can be seen that in Dunne, since the target memory segments of different devices differ, the corresponding execution behavioral properties also differ, and thus each device has a unique device identifier. Moreover, the device identifier is generated based on the corrupted memory locations in the device's memory, is associated with hardware inherent nature, and is therefore difficult to masquerade, which can effectively prevent device credential theft, improving device security. Dunne solves the problem of easy user credential or device credential theft in electronic device communication, posing a security risk. That is, Dunne focuses on preventing device credential theft to improve device security, and does not involve accessing the security zone and determining the cause of a fault in the process of accessing the security zone.
Therefore, Dunne fails to disclose or inspire the distinguishing technical features, and cannot implement the technical effects of claim 1 as amended.”
Polzin does disclose TrustZone memory is restricted-access memory that requires a specific trust zone attribute to allow any memory operations to proceed. While Dunne teaches generate a unique identifier for an electronic device by monitoring how its system behaves during a memory access task. The combination of Polzin and Dunne results in a system or method where an electronic device generates a unique identifier by monitoring system behavior during a memory access task, specifically where that task involves restricted-access TrustZone memory that requires a specific trust zone attribute to allow any memory operations to proceed.
“It can be seen that in Mohan, a process independently assesses the entropic information associated with the resource grant status, which implements smart access request timing
adjustment, enabling the process to independently learn and determine the optimum access request time using the entropic information it has, achieving decentralized process scheduling, thereby reducing scheduling latency, improving scheduling efficiency, improving the utilization efficiency of computer resources and the overall performance of the system. Mohan solves the problem of low efficiency caused by process scheduling with a central scheduler. That is, Mohan focuses on achieving decentralized process scheduling to improve resource utilization efficiency, and does not involve accessing the security zone and determining the cause of a fault in the process of accessing the security zone. Therefore, Mohan fails to disclose or inspire the distinguishing technical features, and cannot implement the technical effects of claim 1 as amended.”
Polzin does disclose TrustZone memory is restricted-access memory that requires a specific trust zone attribute to allow any memory operations to proceed. While Mohan teaches for dynamic scheduling and access-request mechanics. The combination of Polzin and Mohan results in enhancing system security by storing scheduling parameters within protected memory to prevent unauthorized access
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new
ground(s) of rejection is made in view of LI (US 20210334270 A1) based on the new amendments to
the claims 1, 9, 17.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11-13, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOMOTAKE (US 20190012292 A1) in view of Polzin (US 20140089617 A1) in view of LI (US 20210334270 A1) in view of ZHOU (CN 115480884 A).
Regarding claim 1, MOMOTAKE teaches a chip monitoring method, applicable to a chip comprising a first processing unit and a second processing unit, wherein the method comprises:
storing, by the first processing unit, access information into a shared memory of the first processing unit and the second processing unit (Claim 1: a first device comprising a first controller (second processing unit); a second device comprising a second controller (first processing unit); a shared memory configured to be shared by the first device and the second device.);
reading, by the second processing unit, the access information from the shared memory (Claim 1. Claim 2: first circuitry (second processing unit) configured: to acquire, when the second controller accesses the shared memory, information regarding the access from the second device; and to output, to the first device, the acquired information regarding the access.); and
determining, by the second processing unit, based on the service-type identifier in the access information (Claim 1. Claim 2: first circuitry (second processing unit) configured: to acquire, when the second controller accesses the shared memory, information regarding the access from the second device; and to output, to the first device, the acquired information regarding the access.);
a service type with a fault in the first processing unit when the second processing unit determines that the access-state identifier in the access information is the first identifier (Claim 4: first device comprising a first controller; a second device comprising a second controller; a shared memory configured to be shared by the first controller and the second controller; and first circuitry configured: to acquire, when an error has occurred in the second controller, information regarding the error from the second device; and to output, to the first device, the acquired information regarding the error.).
MOMOTAKE does not explicitly disclose when the first processing unit accesses a security zone of the first processing unit, wherein the access information comprises an access-state identifier and a service-type identifier of the current access, and the access-state identifier is a first identifier indicating that the first processing unit starts the access to the security zone or a second identifier indicating that the first processing unit completes the access to the security zone; when it is determined that the first processing unit accesses the security zone.
Polzin does disclose when the first processing unit accesses a security zone of the first processing unit (Para [0084]: Trust zone memory may be restricted-access memory. Only a memory operation having a trust zone memory attribute identifying the corresponding trust zone may be permitted to proceed.), wherein the access information comprises an access-state identifier and a service-type identifier of the current access, and the access-state identifier is a first identifier indicating that the first processing unit starts the access to the security zone or a second identifier indicating that the first processing unit completes the access to the security zone (Para [0084]: Trust zone memory may be restricted-access memory. Only a memory operation having a trust zone memory attribute identifying the corresponding trust zone may be permitted to proceed.);
when it is determined that the first processing unit accesses the security zone (Para [0084]: trust zone memory may be restricted-access memory. Only a memory operation having a trust zone memory attribute identifying the corresponding trust zone may be permitted to proceed.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MOMOTAKE with the teachings of Polzin to include when the first processing unit accesses a security zone of the first processing unit, wherein the access information comprises an access-state identifier and a service-type identifier of the current access, and the access-state identifier is a first identifier indicating that the first processing unit starts the access to the security zone or a second identifier indicating that the first processing unit completes the access to the security zone; when it is determined that the first processing unit accesses the security zone in order to permit to proceed only memory operation having a trust zone memory based on attribute identifying the corresponding trust zone (Polzin Para [0084]).
MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI does not explicitly disclose wherein the service-type identifier indicates a service type of a service that the first processing unit is implementing.
Li teaches wherein the service-type identifier indicates a service type of a service that the first processing unit is implementing (Para [0069]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI with the teachings of LI to include wherein the service-type identifier indicates a service type of a service that the first processing unit is implementing in order to restrict unauthorized access.
MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI does not explicitly disclose starting timing by the second processing unit; determines that duration of the timing and execution duration required for the current access meet a preset size relationship.
ZHOU does disclose starting timing by the second processing unit (Para [0014]: recording the running data of the target interrupt service program after starting the timing; and recording the timing result in response to a second event.);
determines that duration of the timing and execution duration required for the current access meet a preset size relationship (Para [0014]: recording the running data of the target interrupt service program after starting the timing; and recording the timing result in response to a second event in which the timing result is greater than a preset execution time threshold of the target interrupt service program.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI with the teachings of ZHOU to include when the first processing unit accesses a security zone of the first processing unit, wherein the access information comprises an access-state identifier and a service-type identifier of the current access, and the access-state identifier is a first identifier indicating that the first processing unit starts the access to the security zone or a second identifier indicating that the first processing unit completes the access to the security zone; when it is determined that the first processing unit accesses the security zone in order to detect any system error using the timing result (ZHOU Para [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the access information further comprises a core identifier of the first processing unit that is called for the current access, or the access information further comprises a core identifier and a thread identifier of the first processing unit that is called for the current access (MOMOTAKE Claim 1: a first device comprising a first controller; a second device comprising a second controller; a shared memory configured to be shared by the first device and the second device.).
Regarding claim 4, MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein after the service type with a fault in the first processing unit is determined by the second processing unit based on the service-type identifier, the method further comprises:
when the access information further comprises the core identifier of the first processing unit, determining, by the second processing unit, the first processing unit with a fault based on the core identifier (MOMOTAKE Claim 4: first device comprising a first controller; a second device comprising a second controller; a shared memory configured to be shared by the first controller and the second controller; and first circuitry configured: to acquire, when an error has occurred in the second controller, information regarding the error from the second device; and to output, to the first device, the acquired information regarding the error.); or
when the access information further comprises the core identifier and the thread identifier of the first processing unit that is called for the current access, determining, by the second processing unit, the first processing unit with a fault and a thread with a fault based on the core identifier and the thread identifier.
Regarding claim 5, MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the reading, by the second processing unit, the access information from the shared memory comprises: reading, by the second processing unit, the access information from the shared memory periodically based on a preset first period; or determining, by the second processing unit, a target moment at which the second processing unit reads the access information based on the execution duration required for the current access and a moment at which the access information is stored into the shared memory; and reading, by the second processing unit, the access information from the shared memory at the target moment (MOMOTAKE Para [0035]: [0035] As described thus far, the control device 100 according to the first embodiment includes the monitoring circuitry 13 that acquires, when the CPU 31 of the slave device 30 accesses the shared memory 11, the information regarding this access from the slave device 30 and then outputs, to the master device 20, the acquired information regarding the access. With this, it is no longer necessary to carry out processing of, for example, repeatedly accessing the shared memory 11 on a regular basis in order to acquire data from the shared memory 11. Accordingly, a processing burden while data is transmitted and received via the shared memory 11 can be reduced. As a result, a data load of the motherboard 10 can be reduced, while the overall performance of the control device 100 can be enhanced.).
Regarding claim 7, MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the starting timing by the second processing unit when it is determined that the first processing unit accesses the security zone comprises:
obtaining, by the second processing unit, a trigger instruction that is generated by the first processing unit when accessing the security zone (MOMOTAKE Claim 1. Claim 2: first circuitry (second processing unit) configured: to acquire, when the second controller accesses the shared memory, information regarding the access from the second device; and to output, to the first device, the acquired information regarding the access. Polzin Para [0084]: trust zone memory may be restricted-access memory. Only a memory operation having a trust zone memory attribute identifying the corresponding trust zone may be permitted to proceed.); and
in response to the trigger instruction, starting the timing by the second processing unit (ZHOU
Para [0014]: recording the running data of the target interrupt service program after starting the timing; and recording the timing result in response to a second event.).
As per claims 9, 11, 12, 13, the claims claim the method essentially corresponding to thecomputer readable storage medium claims 1, 3, 4, 5 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
As per claims 17, 19, the claims claim the method essentially corresponding to theelectronic device claims 1, 3 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
As per claims 20, the claims claim the method essentially corresponding to theelectronic device claims 4 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
Claim 2, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOMOTAKE (US 20190012292 A1) in view of Polzin (US 20140089617 A1) in view of LI (US 20210334270 A1) in view of ZHOU (CN 115480884 A) in view of Dunne (US 20170063819 A1).
Regarding claim 2, MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU teaches the method according to claim 1.
MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU does not explicitly disclose wherein the execution duration required for the current access is execution duration that is determined by the second processing unit based on a preset protocol and the service-type identifier comprised in the access information, wherein the preset protocol comprises a corresponding relationship between at least one service-type identifier and the execution duration; or the execution duration required for the current access is execution duration required for the current access that is comprised in the access information.
Dunne does disclose wherein the execution duration required for the current access is execution duration that is determined by the second processing unit based on a preset protocol and the service-type identifier comprised in the access information, wherein the preset protocol comprises a corresponding relationship between at least one service-type identifier and the execution duration; or
the execution duration required for the current access is execution duration required for the current access that is comprised in the access information (Para [0040]-[0042]: a device identification generation program for generating a device identifier for a requesting electronic device 1. FIG. 3 depicts a flowchart of a device authentication program for authenticating the requesting electronic device 10 by the arbitrating electronic device 20 based on the device identifier generated by the electronic device 10, in accordance with at least one embodiment of the present invention. The device identification generation program generates an identifier for an electronic device. The electronic device comprises a processor and a memory. The memory is communicatively coupled to the processor and comprises a plurality of memory locations. At step 200, the program identifies a target memory segment. The target memory segment is a subset of the plurality of memory locations. At step 201, the program accesses, by an access procedure, the target memory segment. At step 202, the program monitors one or more execution behavioral properties associated with the execution of the access procedure. At Step 203, the program generates a device identifier based on the one or more execution behavioral properties.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU with the teachings of Dunne to include wherein the execution duration required for the current access is execution duration that is determined by the second processing unit based on a preset protocol and the service-type identifier comprised in the access information, wherein the preset protocol comprises a corresponding relationship between at least one service-type identifier and the execution duration; or the execution duration required for the current access is execution duration required for the current access that is comprised in the access information in order to monitor the execution behavioral properties associated with the execution of the access procedure (Dunne Para [0040]-[0042])
Regarding claim 7, MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU teaches the method according to claim 1.
MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU does not explicitly disclose wherein the execution duration required for the current access is execution duration that is determined by the second processing unit based on a preset protocol and the service-type identifier comprised in the access information, wherein the preset protocol comprises a corresponding relationship between at least one service-type identifier and the execution duration; or
the execution duration required for the current access is execution duration required for the current access that is comprised in the access information.
Dunne teaches wherein the execution duration required for the current access is execution duration that is determined by the second processing unit based on a preset protocol and the service-type identifier comprised in the access information, wherein the preset protocol comprises a corresponding relationship between at least one service-type identifier and the execution duration; or
the execution duration required for the current access is execution duration required for the current access that is comprised in the access information (Para [0040]-[0042]: a device identification generation program for generating a device identifier for a requesting electronic device 1. FIG. 3 depicts a flowchart of a device authentication program for authenticating the requesting electronic device 10 by the arbitrating electronic device 20 based on the device identifier generated by the electronic device 10, in accordance with at least one embodiment of the present invention. The device identification generation program generates an identifier for an electronic device. The electronic device comprises a processor and a memory. The memory is communicatively coupled to the processor and comprises a plurality of memory locations. At step 200, the program identifies a target memory segment. The target memory segment is a subset of the plurality of memory locations. At step 201, the program accesses, by an access procedure, the target memory segment. At step 202, the program monitors one or more execution behavioral properties associated with the execution of the access procedure. At Step 203, the program generates a device identifier based on the one or more execution behavioral properties.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU with the teachings of Dunne to include wherein the execution duration required for the current access is execution duration that is determined by the second processing unit based on a preset protocol and the service-type identifier comprised in the access information, wherein the preset protocol comprises a corresponding relationship between at least one service-type identifier and the execution duration; or the execution duration required for the current access is execution duration required for the current access that is comprised in the access information in order to monitor the execution behavioral properties associated with the execution of the access procedure (Dunne Para [0040]-[0042])
Regarding claim 8, MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU teaches the method according to claim 1.
MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU does not explicitly disclose wherein service types for accessing the security zone by the first processing unit comprise any one of the following:
key creation, key deletion, key importing, key exporting, symmetric encryption and decryption, hash obtaining, asymmetric encryption and decryption, asymmetric signature, and signature verification.
Dunne teaches wherein service types for accessing the security zone by the first processing unit comprise any one of the following:
key creation, key deletion, key importing, key exporting, symmetric encryption and decryption, hash obtaining, asymmetric encryption and decryption, asymmetric signature, and signature verification (Para [0036]: the system of the requesting electronic device 10 for instance may instead use the pre-existing corrupted memory locations of the memory 13 to create a hash key. The created hash key may be communicated to the arbitrating electronic device 20 for authenticating based on the hash key and/or may be embedded into the execution code of the access procedure to be executed by the processor 11 when generating the device identifier such that a resonant signature is created when the access procedure is executed. The hash key value may be used to influence the priority of the threads running on the processor 11 or to influence the default memory location search on the requesting electronic device 10 when performing a file search with the processor 11.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU with the teachings of Dunne to include wherein service types for accessing the security zone by the first processing unit comprise any one of the following: key creation, key deletion, key importing, key exporting, symmetric encryption and decryption, hash obtaining, asymmetric encryption and decryption, asymmetric signature, and signature verification in order to monitor the execution behavioral properties associated with the execution of the access procedure (Dunne Para [0040]-[0042]).
As per claim 10, 15, 16, the claim claiming the computer readable storage medium essentially corresponding to the method claim 2, 7, 8 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
As per claim 18, the claim claiming the electronic device essentially corresponding to the method claim 2 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
Claims 6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOMOTAKE (US 20190012292 A1) in view of Polzin (US 20140089617 A1) in view of LI (US 20210334270 A1) in view of ZHOU (CN 115480884 A) in view of Mohan (US 20230070949 A1).
Regarding claim 6, MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the storing access information into a shared memory of the first processing unit and the second processing unit comprises:
when starting the current access, storing, by the first processing unit, the service-type identifier of the current access and the first identifier into the shared memory (Claim 1: a first device comprising a first controller (second processing unit); a second device comprising a second controller (first processing unit); a shared memory configured to be shared by the first device and the second device.);
MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU does not explicitly disclose and after completing the current access, updating, by the first processing unit, the first identifier in the shared memory as the second identifier.
Mohan does disclose and after completing the current access, updating, by the first processing unit, the first identifier in the shared memory as the second identifier (Para [0026]. Para [0035]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MOMOTAKE in view of Polzin in view of LI in view of ZHOU with the teachings of Dunne to include wherein service types for accessing the security zone by the first processing unit comprise any one of the following: key creation, key deletion, key importing, key exporting, symmetric encryption and decryption, hash obtaining, asymmetric encryption and decryption, asymmetric signature, and signature verification in order to updated access request times 256 that are used to request access to resource (Mohan Para [0026]. Para [0035]).
As per claim 14, the claim claiming the computer readable storage medium essentially corresponding to the method claim 6 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
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 JUDY BAZNA whose telephone number is (703)756-1258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 08:30 AM-05:00 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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at (571) 272-3739. 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.
/JUDY BAZNA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2495
/FARID HOMAYOUNMEHR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2495
