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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn in response to a
filed terminal disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Regarding the newly amended claim 1, Applicant argues that “Jonsson is directed to determining that access rights associated with a particular user in relation to particular content have expired. The appearance of the content is degraded and amplified over a grace period after the access rights have expired. Jonsson does not teach setting an alert in advance of a change, monitoring for permission revocation events, sending a separate message with an embedded access-renewal mechanism, and request routing to a responsible party. Jonsson is directed to reactive DRM, not proactive access-change notification. SHUSAKU is directed to document management, where a duplicate of document data is saved and digital watermark data is extracted to periodically determine whether the document data body of the document data has expired. If expired, the document data is erased and an image representing the erasure due to the expiration is output. SHUSAKU is cited for teaching that an email notification is sent. SHUSAKU does not teach user-specific access rights revocation, alerts tied to permission changes, a renewal or request mechanism, and notifications separate from the document. SHUSAKU is directed to with document lifecycle, not user permission lifecycle. Fredinburg is directed to receiving an access request for data in which temporal access options are provided. Fredinburg is cited for teaching the mechanism for requesting access. However, Fredinburg does not teach alerts set by users to detect future loss, detection of changes made by third parties, notification containing a renewal UI, and file-specific access loss notifications. Fredinburg assumes the system itself granted the access and knows its expiration; it does not address surprise revocation by others. IsDecisions2 is a web reference cited for teaching "alert" gaps. However, assuming IsDecisions2 teaches some form of notification or decision logic, IsDecisions2 does not teach user-set alerts tied to specific files, and embedding a renewal mechanism in the notification. None of Jonsson, SHUSAKU, Fredinburg, nor IsDecisions2, alone or combination, teach or suggest the above features for setting an alert prior to a change in access rights and detecting the change based on that alert, where the change alters an ability of the user to access the given electronic file. Based on the alert being set, the change to the particular access right assigned to the user to access the given electronic file is detected. Based on the detected change, loss of the particular access right for the user relative to the given electronic file is determined. In response to the loss of the particular access rights, an electronic message is sent to the user that is separate from the given electronic file. The message includes: a file identifier that identifies the given electronic file; an indication of the determination of the loss of access rights, and a user input mechanism actuatable to send a request for renewed access relative to the given electronic file. In response to an indication of user actuation of the user input mechanism in the electronic message, the request for renewed access for the user relative to the given electronic file is sent. Jonsson, SHUSAKU, Fredinburg, and IsDecisions2 do not teach or suggest such features.”
In response, Examiner relies on a new combination of references.
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 1-2, 4-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Oshurkov (US 2017/0149829 Al) in view of Fredinburg (US 9,659,179 Bl)
Regarding claim 1, Oshurkov discloses: A computing system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing system to: set an alert to be generated for a change to a particular access right assigned to a user for a given electronic file, (Oshurkov, [0006] providing relevant event notifications to users which alert such users of actions taken by other users. The event notifications further alert users of changes of access rights granted to other users; [0024] notifications sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred [0008], e.g. wherein the notification rule defines, for each of the plurality of users, a plurality of notification settings corresponding to the plurality of actions;)
the particular access right allowing the user to access the given electronic file (Oshurkov, [0047] in FIG. 11, user Amy has read, print and copy permissions for document Doc_00l (see FIG. 6), so the content of the first web-based tool displayed to Amy (the top panel in FIG. 11) shows which other users have read, print and copy permission; [0042] "Document User" refers to users of the DRM system who may have access rights to the document and may receive event notifications for the documents.)
and wherein the change alters an ability of the user to access the given electronic file; (Oshurkov, [0048] allow some users to change the permissions of other users; [0062] change of permission policy for a document; [0064] notification sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred…permissions to access a document may be changed…Brian's print permission is changed to No;)
based on the alert being set, detect the change to the particular access right assigned to the user to access the given electronic file; (Oshurkov, [0024] notifications sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred; [0006] providing relevant event notifications to users which alert such users of actions taken by other users. The event notifications further alert users of changes of access rights granted to other users; [0008], e.g. wherein the notification rule defines, for each of the plurality of users, a plurality of notification settings corresponding to the plurality of actions;)
based on the detected change, determine loss of the particular access right for the user relative to the given electronic file; (Oshurkov, [0056]-[0062], e.g. [0056] the RMS Server continuously monitors various events, [0062] the notification rules for each document may define other events that can be monitored and will trigger event notifications, such as…change of permission policy for a document; [0065] for user Brian, since he no longer has print permission, the print permissions for other users are no longer displayed ( as indicated by the gray areas). In addition, his own print permission (No) is highlighted to inform him of the change; [0024] notifications sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred; [0006] providing relevant event notifications to users which alert such users of actions taken by other users. The event notifications further alert users of changes of access rights; [0008], e.g. wherein the notification rule defines, for each of the plurality of users, a plurality of notification settings corresponding to the plurality of actions; [0064], e.g. the following permissions have been changed: Brian's print permission is changed to No,)
in response to the determination of the loss of the particular access right, send an electronic message to the user that is separate from the given electronic file and includes: a file identifier that identifies the given electronic file; (Oshurkov, Fig.7, e.g. item S105, “Monitor if a given event occurs on the registered document”, S111 “Send a notification to users”; [0058] Examples of event notifications sent by the RMS server in the notification step S111 are shown in FIG. 13…The notification includes …e.g. the document ID or some other identifiers such as a file name; [0062] the notification rules for each document may define other events that can be monitored and will trigger event notifications, such as… change of permission policy for a document; [0051] select the notification delivery method, such as email, short message service (SMS), messenger, social network, etc.)
an indication of the determination of the loss of access right, (Oshurkov, fig. 14; [0024] FIG. 14 schematically illustrates examples of notifications sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred; [0064], e.g. The notification displays shown in FIG. 14 includes a list of users and their permissions, with the changes highlighted. Similar to the displays shown in FIG. 11 (which are a part of the greeting message when the document is initially registered); [0051] select the notification delivery method, such as email, short message service (SMS), messenger, social network, etc.)
However Oshurkov does not clearly disclose:
and a user input mechanism actuatable to send a request for renewed access relative to the given electronic file; and in response to an indication of user actuation of the user input mechanism in the electronic message, send the request for renewed access for the user relative to the given electronic file.
However Fredinburg discloses:
and a user input mechanism actuatable to send a request for renewed access relative to the given electronic file; and in response to an indication of user actuation of the user input mechanism in the electronic message, send the request for renewed access for the user relative to the given electronic file. (Fredinburg, column 2, line 1- The temporal access rights may be revoked after the expiry of the access time period. A temporal access rights expiration reminder may be provided to the user prior to the expiry of the access time period. An extension request may be received from the user in response to the temporal access rights expiration reminder, requesting an extension of the access time period. A temporal access rights extension may be granted based upon the extension request from the user; column 6, line 43- Through temporal access rights expiration reminder 168, user 36 may select (using onscreen pointer 162) "extend" button 170 (corresponding to “a user input mechanism”), which may result in the generation of extension request 58. Access control process 10 may receive 112 extension request 58 (requesting an extension of the access time period) from user 36 in response to user 36 selecting the "extend" button included within temporal access rights expiration reminder 168; and may grant 114 a temporal access rights extension based upon extension request 58 from user 36; column 5, line 21- social network 150 may be configured to provide users ( e.g., users 36, 38, 40, 42) of social network 150 with the ability to play games (e.g., gaming application 152) within social network 150; column 7, line 15- 56. Accordingly, access control process 10 may revoke 118 the temporal access rights granted to gaming application 152 in the event that user 36 fails to use gaming application 152 for the access inactivity period.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Oshurkov with the teaching of Fredinburg to allow users to engage in a quasi-real-time, interactive dialogue, (Fredinburg, column 1, line 19), and also to allow user to request access rights extension and to allow user to define the length of the temporal access rights extension in the event that user wishes to extend the access rights, (Fredinburg, column 6, lines 52-61).
Claim 9 corresponds to claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Oshurkov in view of Fredinburg discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 2 further recites: wherein the electronic message comprises an electronic mail (email) message. (Oshurkov, [0062] the notification rules for each document may define other events that can be monitored and will trigger event notifications, such as… change of permission policy for a document; [0051] select the notification delivery method, such as email, short message service (SMS), messenger, social network, etc.)
Claim 10 corresponds to claim 2, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 4, Oshurkov in view of Fredinburg discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Oshurkov does not clearly disclose: wherein the request for renewed access is sent to a responsible party having a right to grant the renewed access for the user to the given electronic file.
However Fredinburg discloses:
wherein the request for renewed access is sent to a responsible party having a right to grant the renewed access for the user to the given electronic file. (Fredinburg Column 6, line 43- Through temporal access rights expiration reminder 168, user 36 may select (using onscreen pointer 162) "extend" button 170, which may result in the generation of extension request 58. Access control process 10 may receive 112 extension request 58 (requesting an extension of the access time period) from user 36 in response to user 36 selecting the "extend" button included within temporal access rights expiration reminder 168; and may grant 114 a temporal access rights extension based upon extension request 58 from user 36.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Oshurkov with the teaching of Fredinburg to allow users to engage in a quasi-real-time, interactive dialogue, (Fredinburg, column 1, line 19), and also to allow user to request access rights extension and to allow user to define the length of the temporal access rights extension in the event that user wishes to extend the access rights, (Fredinburg, column 6, lines 52-61).
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 4, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 5, Oshurkov in view of Fredinburg discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 5 further recites: generate a user interface including a user interface element that, when actuated, sets an alert for the loss of access right to the given electronic file; (Oshurkov, Fig.8, Fig. 9; [0043]-[0045], e.g. [0044] a notification policy setting window 90 shown in FIG. 9 is displayed to allow the publisher to create a new notification policy. The notification policy setting window 90 has an input field for the publisher to enter a notification policy name, and multiple input tools 92-96 ( e.g. radio buttons) to allow the publisher to set the various flags for the new notification policy, including Narrow down by Group, Narrow down by Role, Allowing end user to change Rule, Notifying User list, and Expired Notification; [0045] Based on the user input received via the document registration window 80 and (if applicable) the notification policy setting window 90, the RMS server generates a notification rule for the registered document (step S102); Figs, 11-14)
store an alert association between the user and the given electronic file, (Oshurkov, [0014] FIG. 4 schematically illustrates an example of a document-permission policy association table maintained by the RMS server; [0027] a permission policy table 16, a document-permission policy association table 17, a notification policy table 18; [0034] The notification policy table 18 and the notification rule table 19 together define how and to whom the event notifications will be sent for each document.)
the alert association defining the loss of access alert for a loss of access right of the user to the given electronic file; (Oshurkov, [0062] the notification rules for each document may define other events that can be monitored and will trigger event notifications, such as …failure to access the document by a user within a defined time period, change of permission policy for a document; [0024] notifications sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred; [0006] providing relevant event notifications to users which alert such users of actions taken by other users. The event notifications further alert users of changes of access rights; [0008], e.g. wherein the notification rule defines, for each of the plurality of users, a plurality of notification settings corresponding to the plurality of actions; [0064], e.g. the following permissions have been changed: Brian's print permission is changed to No, [0065] In the second panel, for user Brian, since he no longer has print permission, the print permissions for other users are no longer displayed ( as indicated by the gray areas). In addition, his own print permission (No) is highlighted to inform him of the change)
and in response to the determination of the loss of access right, access the stored alert association, and send the electronic message to the user based on the stored alert association. (Oshurkov, Fig.7, e.g. item S105, “Monitor if a given event occurs on the registered document”, S111 “Send a notification to users”; [0058] Examples of event notifications sent by the RMS server in the notification step Slll are shown in FIG. 13…The notification includes …e.g. the document ID or some other identifiers such as a file name; [0062] the notification rules for each document may define other events that can be monitored and will trigger event notifications, such as… change of permission policy for a document; [0051] select the notification delivery method, such as email, short message service (SMS), messenger, social network, etc.)
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 5, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 6, Oshurkov in view of Fredinburg discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 6 further recites: wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing system to: determine one or more users who have lost the access right relative to the given electronic file; (Oshurkov, [0024] notifications sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred; [0006] providing relevant event notifications to users which alert such users of actions taken by other users. The event notifications further alert users of changes of access rights; [0008], e.g. wherein the notification rule defines, for each of the plurality of users, a plurality of notification settings corresponding to the plurality of actions; [0064], e.g. the following permissions have been changed: Brian's print permission is changed to No, [0065] In the second panel, for user Brian, since he no longer has print permission, the print permissions for other users are no longer displayed ( as indicated by the gray areas). In addition, his own print permission (No) is highlighted to inform him of the change)
and determine that the one or more users includes the user and, in response, send the electronic message to the user. (Oshurkov, Fig.7, e.g. item S105, “Monitor if a given event occurs on the registered document”, S111 “Send a notification to users”; [0058] Examples of event notifications sent by the RMS server in the notification step Slll are shown in FIG. 13…The notification includes …e.g. the document ID or some other identifiers such as a file name; [0064], e.g. the following permissions have been changed: Brian's print permission is changed to No; [0062] the notification rules for each document may define other events that can be monitored and will trigger event notifications, such as… change of permission policy for a document; [0051] select the notification delivery method, such as email, short message service (SMS), messenger, social network, etc.)
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 6, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 7, Oshurkov in view of Fredinburg discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 7 further recites: wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing system to: determine user interest in the given electronic file based on a determination that user interaction by the user with the given electronic file is above a threshold; and based on the user interest, set a loss of access alert on the given electronic file. (Oshurkov, [0063] Still other examples of monitored events for notification purposes may include when a document is accessed during defined time periods ( such as out of business hours, weekends, etc.), when a document is accessed more than a defined number of times during a defined time period, etc; [0064] FIG. 14 schematically illustrates an example of a notification sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred)
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 7, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 8, Oshurkov in view of Fredinburg discloses all of the features with respect to claim 7 as outlined above. Claim 8 further recites: wherein the threshold comprises a number of times that the user has interacted with the given electronic file within a defined time period. (Oshurkov, [0063] Still other examples of monitored events for notification purposes may include when a document is accessed during defined time periods ( such as out of business hours, weekends, etc.), when a document is accessed more than a defined number of times during a defined time period, etc; [0064] FIG. 14 schematically illustrates an example of a notification sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred)
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 8, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 17, Oshurkov discloses: A computer system comprising: at least one processor; and memory operably coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to: receive an indication of an access right corresponding to a particular user, wherein the access right allows the user access to a particular electronic file; (Oshurkov, [0047] More specifically, if the notified user is granted a certain type of permission to the document ( e.g. read, print, etc.), then he/she will be shown information indicating which other users have that type of permission; …in FIG. 11, user Amy has read, print and copy permissions for document Doc_00l (see FIG. 6), so the content of the first web-based tool displayed to Amy (the top panel in FIG. 11) shows which other users have read, print and copy permission; [0006] providing relevant event notifications to users which alert such users of actions taken by other users. The event notifications further alert users of changes of access rights granted to other users; )
store an alert association between the particular user and the particular electronic file, (Oshurkov, [0014] FIG. 4 schematically illustrates an example of a document-permission policy association table maintained by the RMS server; [0027] a permission policy table 16, a document-permission policy association table 17, a notification policy table 18; [0034] The notification policy table 18 and the notification rule table 19 together define how and to whom the event notifications will be sent for each document.)
the alert association defining a loss of access alert for a loss of the access right, corresponding to the particular user, to the particular electronic file; (Oshurkov, [0062] the notification rules for each document may define other events that can be monitored and will trigger event notifications, such as …failure to access the document by a user within a defined time period, change of permission policy for a document; [0024] notifications sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred; [0006] providing relevant event notifications to users which alert such users of actions taken by other users. The event notifications further alert users of changes of access rights; [0008], e.g. wherein the notification rule defines, for each of the plurality of users, a plurality of notification settings corresponding to the plurality of actions; [0064], e.g. the following permissions have been changed: Brian's print permission is changed to No, [0065] In the second panel, for user Brian, since he no longer has print permission, the print permissions for other users are no longer displayed ( as indicated by the gray areas). In addition, his own print permission (No) is highlighted to inform him of the change)
based on the alert being set, detect occurrence of the loss of the access right of the particular user to the particular electronic file, wherein the loss comprises a change that alters an ability of the user to access the given electronic file, and wherein after the occurrence of the loss of the access right, the particular user no longer has the access to the particular electronic file; (Oshurkov, [0062] the notification rules for each document may define other events that can be monitored and will trigger event notifications, such as …failure to access the document by a user within a defined time period, change of permission policy for a document; [0024] notifications sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred; [0006] providing relevant event notifications to users which alert such users of actions taken by other users. The event notifications further alert users of changes of access rights; [0008], e.g. wherein the notification rule defines, for each of the plurality of users, a plurality of notification settings corresponding to the plurality of actions; [0064], e.g. the following permissions have been changed: Brian's print permission is changed to No, [0065] In the second panel, for user Brian, since he no longer has print permission, the print permissions for other users are no longer displayed ( as indicated by the gray areas). In addition, his own print permission (No) is highlighted to inform him of the change)
and in response to the occurrence of loss of the access right, send a notification to the particular user based on the stored alert association, wherein the notification includes a file identifier that identifies the particular electronic file, an indication of the occurrence of the loss of the access right, (Oshurkov, Fig.7, e.g. item S105, “Monitor if a given event occurs on the registered document”, S111 “Send a notification to users”; [0058] Examples of event notifications sent by the RMS server in the notification step Slll are shown in FIG. 13…The notification includes …e.g. the document ID or some other identifiers such as a file name; [0062] the notification rules for each document may define other events that can be monitored and will trigger event notifications, such as… change of permission policy for a document; [0051] select the notification delivery method, such as email, short message service (SMS), messenger, social network, etc.)
However Oshurkov does not clearly disclose:
and includes a user input mechanism configured to request renewed access to the particular electronic file for the particular user based on user actuation of the user input mechanism in the notification.
However Fredinburg discloses:
and includes a user input mechanism configured to request renewed access to the particular electronic file for the particular user based on user actuation of the user input mechanism in the notification. (Fredinburg, column 6, line 43- Through temporal access rights expiration reminder 168, user 36 may select (using onscreen pointer 162) "extend" button 170, which may result in the generation of extension request 58. Access control process 10 may receive 112 extension request 58 (requesting an extension of the access time period) from user 36 in response to user 36 selecting the "extend" button included within temporal access rights expiration reminder 168; and may grant 114 a temporal access rights extension based upon extension request 58 from user 36.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Oshurkov with the teaching of Fredinburg to allow users to engage in a quasi-real-time, interactive dialogue, (Fredinburg, column 1, line 19), and also to allow user to request access rights extension and to allow user to define the length of the temporal access rights extension in the event that user wishes to extend the access rights, (Fredinburg, column 6, lines 52-61).
Regarding claim 18, Oshurkov in view of Fredinburg discloses all of the features with respect to claim 17 as outlined above. Claim 18 further recites: wherein the instructions cause the processor to: automatically set the loss of access alert based on a determination that user interaction with the particular electronic file is above a threshold. (Oshurkov, [0063] Still other examples of monitored events for notification purposes may include when a document is accessed during defined time periods ( such as out of business hours, weekends, etc.), when a document is accessed more than a defined number of times during a defined time period, etc; [0064] FIG. 14 schematically illustrates an example of a notification sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred; [0062] the notification rules for each document may define other events that can be monitored and will trigger event notifications, such as… change of permission policy for a document)
Regarding claim 19, Oshurkov in view of Fredinburg discloses all of the features with respect to claim 18 as outlined above. Claim 19 further recites: wherein the threshold includes a number of times that the particular user has interacted with the particular electronic file within a defined time period. (Oshurkov, [0063] Still other examples of monitored events for notification purposes may include when a document is accessed during defined time periods ( such as out of business hours, weekends, etc.), when a document is accessed more than a defined number of times during a defined time period, etc; [0064] FIG. 14 schematically illustrates an example of a notification sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred)
Regarding claim 20, Oshurkov in view of Fredinburg discloses all of the features with respect to claim 17 as outlined above. Claim 20 further recites: wherein the notification comprises an electronic message to the particular user that is separate from the particular electronic file. (Oshurkov, Fig.7, e.g. item S105, “Monitor if a given event occurs on the registered document”, S111 “Send a notification to users”; [0058] Examples of event notifications sent by the RMS server in the notification step Slll are shown in FIG. 13…The notification includes …e.g. the document ID or some other identifiers such as a file name; [0062] the notification rules for each document may define other events that can be monitored and will trigger event notifications, such as… change of permission policy for a document; [0051] select the notification delivery method, such as email, short message service (SMS), messenger, social network, etc; [0064] FIG. 14 schematically illustrates an example of a notification sent to various users when a change of permission policy for a document occurred.)
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshurkov (US 2017/0149829 Al) in view of Fredinburg (US 9,659,179 Bl)
in further view of Kozuka (US 2013/0145481)
Regarding claim 3, Oshurkov in view of Fredinburg discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Oshurkov in view of Fredinburg does not clearly disclose:
wherein the electronic message includes an indication of a party that caused the loss of access right for the user to the given electronic file.
However, Kozuka discloses:
wherein the electronic message includes an indication of a party that caused the loss of access right for the user to the given electronic file. (Kozuka ,fig. 44; [0533] Notification data 331b illustrated in FIG. 44 is notification data for the case when the content provider is a movie company A. In this example, the user is shown the following notification: "Movie company A has determined that this terminal device is unauthorized. Use of content is therefore not permitted. Please call 03-XXXX-XXXX (telephone number for movie company A)"; [0008]; [0017])
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Oshurkov in view of Fredinburg with the teaching of Kozuka to make it clear to whom the user should direct inquiries and prevent the user from complaining to or contacting the manufacturer of the terminal device. Rather, the user can direct inquiries to the content provider, (Kozuka, [0534]) .
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 3, and is rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Faezeh Forouharnejad whose telephone number is (571)270-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shah Sanjiv can be reached on (571)272-4098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/F.F. /
Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights