DETAILED ACTION
This office action has been issued in response to communications received on 11/26/2025. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 16 and 26-27 were amended. No new claims were added or cancelled. Claims 1-11, 13-17 and 26-27 are presented for examination. 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 filed 11/26/2025
Applicant’s amendments to claim 16 specifying that there is the authentication operation and the encryption operation is sufficient to overcome the rejection to the aforementioned claim under 35 USC 112, second paragraph. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1-11, 13-17 and 26-27 under 35 USC 103 have been considered, but were found non-persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the Remarks that Tsirkin does not teach the claim limitations “wherein the security operation comprises at least one operation, among a plurality of operations related to the target debug information, that is mapped to the access level, and
wherein the plurality of operations comprises an authentication operation and an encryption operation” because Tsirkin’s security policy “is intended to restrict access to specific types of data” and “based on the requested data type from an external device, the system restricts the external device’s access to a set of debug logs”, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant seems to be getting confused that the explicit term “access level” is not found in Tsirkin. Tsirkin discloses validating that a signature or cryptographic signature of a second computer to determine whether to permit a second computer to access debug logs (para. [0017]), and determining whether to grant a specific request by the second computer to access a portion and type of debug logs based upon evaluating a security policy to see whether the second computer is to be granted a specific permission to access (i.e. access level) a portion and type of requested debug logs (paras. [0018]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that by granting a requesting computer different types of access (i.e. with some requests granting to more/higher levels of access and other requests granting access to less/lower levels of access) to the debug logs, Tsirkin teaches performing authentication of the second computer to grant the access to decrypt the encrypted debug logs based upon determining a corresponding/mapped permission for accessing a specific portion and type of debug logs (i.e. a mapped access level of accessing debug logs). Applicant is free to further amend the claims to specify what is meant by accessing an access level of a debug log or the security operations.
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11, 13-17 and 26-27 under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot because newly added claim limitations requiring “wherein the security operation comprises at least one operation, among a plurality of operations related to the target debug information, that is mapped to the access level” require new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
The remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
Objections
Claim 16 is objected to for the following informalities: the claim phrase “memory configured to, when there is the authentication operation and the encryption operation, is grammatically incorrect since it is unclear what “there” is referring to. The Examiner recommends rephrasing the claim limitation to disclose “configured to, when [[there is]] the secure operation comprises both the authentication operation and the encryption operation”. Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
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 4 and 6 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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected as indefinite because they refer to “the authentication operation” disclosed in claim 1, when the authentication operation is one of multiple operations that may be or may not be part of the security operation. Therefore, clarification must be provided that these claim limitations in claims 4 and 6 occur “when the security operation comprises the authentication operation”. Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsirkin (US 2021/0240839).
Regarding claim 1, Tsirkin discloses the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A storage device comprising:
a first memory configured to store a plurality of pieces of debug information (paras. [0014], [0026], Figs. 1,3: storing debug logs in storage device of first computing system); and a controller configured to:
check an access level of target debug information among the plurality of pieces of debug information according to a debug information read command provided by a host device (paras. [0017]-[0018]: checking what type of access (i.e. access level) a requester is permitted to access specific types of debug logs according to a request to access/read debug logs (i.e. debug information read command) provided by a second computer system (i.e. host device)); and
perform a security operation for the target debug information based on the access level of the target debug information (paras. [0018], [0033]-[0034], [0047]-[0048]: evaluate security policies, verification procedures and encryption/decryption (i.e. security operations) is performed based on determining what type and portion of access (i.e. access level) for the second computer should be granted to the type of debug logs requested),
wherein the security operation comprises at least one operation, among a plurality of operations related to the target debug information, that is mapped to the access level (paras. [0017]-[0018], [0033]-[0034], [0047]-[0048]: performing evaluation of security policies to verify validation of the second computer to determine access to debug logs and perform encryption/decryption of debug logs (i.e. security operations related to target debug information) based on determining whether the second computer has the corresponding/mapped permissions for accessing the portions and type of requested debug logs (i.e. mapping to the access level)), and
wherein the plurality of operations comprises an authentication operation and an encryption operation (paras. [0017]-[0018], [0033]-[0034], [0047]-[0048]: performing evaluation of security policies to verify validation of the second computer to determine access to debug logs and perform encryption/decryption of debug logs (i.e. security operations related to target debug information).
Although Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose a debug information read command, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Tsirkin discloses that functionality because the request sent by the second computing system to the first computing system requesting access to the debug logs acts as a command to initiate the verification and security procedures necessary to access/read the debug logs (paras. [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 2, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The storage device of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to, based on the access level of the target debug information being a first access level, skip the security operation, read the target debug information from the first memory, and transmit the read target debug information to the host device (paras. [0017], [0033]-[0034], [0053]: instead of validating the second computer system and analyzing the security policy, automatically granting the second computer access (i.e. skipping security operation) to the debug logs during subsequent requests and transmitting the access key (i.e. read target debug information) to the second computer system).
Regarding claim 3, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The storage device of claim 2, wherein the target debug information is any one or any combination of general information and model number information of the storage device (paras. [0018], [0032], [0046]: stored requested debug logs may be of any type of data in the debug logs, such as interface data, or data associated with a specific function or task AND an identification of the computing/storage device may be stored).
Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose the content in the debug logs, but one of ordinary skill in the art would find that Tsirkin encompasses debug logs containing any type of data. Furthermore, it is a matter of design choice as to what to include in the debug information since this does not change the function of the storage device – it still stores data.
Regarding claim 4, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The storage device of claim 1, wherein the security operation comprises, based on the access level of the target debug information being a second access level, [[an]] the authentication operation of checking whether the host device is authenticated according to a debug user authentication flag (paras. [0017]-[0018], [0032]-[0033], [0049], [0064]: evaluating the security policy comprises determining a type of partial access to grant to the debug logs based on the type of debug logs requested (i.e. different levels of access based on different types of requested debug logs), where the evaluation process comprises determining whether the application of the requested second computing device was validated/authenticated and the access grant approved based on based on the permission status indicating access status as granted or denied for accessing the debug logs (i.e. debug user authentication flag)), and
wherein the controller is further configured to read the target debug information from the first memory and transmit the read target debug information to the host device based on the host device being authenticated and the access level of the target debug information being the second access level (paras. [0017]-[0018], [0033]-[0034]: reading the debug logs from storage and transmitting the requested access keys for decrypting the debug logs to the second computer system based on the second computer system being validated and the security policy granting the second computer system the requested access to the type of requested debug logs (i.e. a second level of access)).
Regarding claim 5, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 4.
Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The storage device of claim 4, wherein the target debug information comprises any one or any combination of temperature information of the storage device and failure history information about operations of the storage device (paras. [0018], [0044], [0046], [0049], [0053]: requested debug logs may be of any type of data in the debug logs and include permission and access history and access status of the device).
Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose the content in the debug logs, but one of ordinary skill in the art would find that Tsirkin encompasses debug logs containing any type of data. Furthermore, it is a matter of design choice as to what to include in the debug information since this does not change the function of the storage device – it still stores data.
Regarding claim 6, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 4.
Tsirkin and Koike teach the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The storage device of claim 4, wherein the controller is further configured to perform the (Tsirkin, paras. [0017]-[0018], [0033]: evaluation process comprises first validating/authenticating the requested second computing system) and store an authentication result in the debug user authentication flag (Tsirkin, paras. [0032], [0049], [0064]: storing result of validating/authenticating the application on the user/second computing system and determining whether to grant the access request by storing status of the application as authorized or not and storing permission status including access status as granted or denied).
Regarding claim 8, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The storage device of claim 1, wherein the security operation comprises, based on the access level of the target debug information being a third access level, ANY one or any combination of [[an]] the authentication operation of checking whether the host device is authenticated based on a debug user authentication flag and the encryption operation for the target debug information (paras. [0017], [0031], [0033]: in addition to applying security policy, the requested debug logs are encrypted), and
wherein the controller is further configured to control the target debug information encrypted by the encryption operation to be transmitted to the host device based on the host device being authenticated and the access level of the target debug information being the third access level (paras. [0017]-[0018], [0033]: controlling access to the requested debug information that is encrypted and transmitted to the second computer system based on the second computer system being validated/authenticated and the security policy granting the type of requested access to the type of debug logs).
Regarding claim 9, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 8.
Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The storage device of claim 8, wherein the target debug information comprises any one or any combination of key information for at least one security function supported by the storage device and code information about firmware executed by the controller (paras. [0018], [0046]: requested debug logs may be of any type of data in the debug logs).
Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose the content in the debug logs, but one of ordinary skill in the art would find that Tsirkin encompasses debug logs containing any type of data. Furthermore, it is a matter of design choice as to what to include in the debug information since this does not change the function of the storage device – it still stores data.
Regarding claim 11, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claims 1.
Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
The storage device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of operations further comprises an access dential, wherein the security operation comprises, based on the access level of the target debug information being a fourth access level, [[an]] the access denial operation of refusing access to the target debug information (paras. [0017]-[0018], [0033], [0035], [0037]: evaluating the security policy and perform verification procedures to determine whether to grant or deny (i.e. perform access denial operation) partial access or access to the requested type of debug logs based upon the type of the debug logs requested and whether the second computer system is authorized to access the requested logs), and
wherein the controller is further configured to notify the host device that the target debug information is not accessible based on the access level of the target debug information being the fourth access level (paras. [0035]-[0036]: the second computer system receives an indication that the request to access the debug logs has not been authorized when the second computer system does not receive the necessary access key to access the debug logs).
Regarding claim 26, Tsirkin teaches the limitations substantially as follows:
A storage device comprising:
a first memory configured to store a plurality of pieces of debug information (paras. [0014], [0026], Figs. 1,3: storing debug logs in storage device of first computing system);
a second memory configured to store security information for use in a security operation for the plurality of pieces of debug information (paras. [0032], [0040], [0049], [0053], Fig. 1: storing security policy, encrypted disk image with encrypted debug logs, access keys for decrypting the encrypted debug logs, information on whether an application is authorized, permission status including type of data permitted); and
a controller configured to perform the security operation by using the security information based on an access level of target debug information, among the plurality of pieces of debug information, according to a debug information read command, provided by a host device, for the target debug information (paras. [0018], [0033]-[0034], [0047]-[0048]: evaluate security policies and perform verification procedures in order to determine if the second computing system is authorized to access the type of debug logs requested (i.e. the access level for the debug information) based on the request provided by the second computing system for the type of debug information),
wherein the security operation comprises at least one operation, among an authentication operation for the host device and an encryption operation for the target debug information, that is mapped to the access level (paras. [0017]-[0018], [0033]-[0034], [0047]-[0048]: performing evaluation of security policies to verify validation of the second computer (i.e. authentication operation for host device) to determine access to debug logs and perform encryption/decryption (i.e. encryption operation) of debug logs (i.e. security operations related to target debug information) based on determining whether the second computer has the corresponding/mapped permissions for accessing the portions and type of requested debug logs (i.e. mapping to the access level)).
Although Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose a debug information read command, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Tsirkin discloses that functionality because the request sent by the second computing system to the first computing system requesting access to the debug logs acts as a command to initiate the verification and security procedures necessary to access/read the debug logs.
Regarding claim 27, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 26.
Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 27 as follows:
The storage device of claim 26, (Tsirkin, paras. [0017], [0031], [0033]-[0034]: in addition to applying security policy and validating/authenticating the second computer system (i.e. performing debug user authentication operation), the requested debug logs are encrypted (i.e. performing encryption operation)), and
wherein the security information comprises ANY ONE or any combination of a debug user authentication key for use in the debug user authentication operation, a debug user authentication flag indicating a result of the debug user authentication operation, and a debug encryption key for use in the encryption operation (paras. [0040], [0053]: storing keys for encrypting and accessing the debut logs).
Claims 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsirkin (US 2021/0240839), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Koike (US 2020/0076805).
Regarding claim 7, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claims 1, 4 and 6.
Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations of claim 7, however, in the same field of endeavor Koike discloses the remaining limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The storage device of claim 6, wherein the controller is further configured to perform the (paras. [0094], [0148]-[0149], [0165]: authenticating debug request using hash values).
Tsirkin is combinable with Koike because both are from the same field of endeavor of protecting access to debug information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Koike’s method of performing authentication of the debug request using hash values with the system of Tsirkin in order to increase the security of the system by comparing values that are protected using hashing (Tsirikin, para. [0149]).
Regarding claim 10, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
Tsirkin does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 10, but in the same field of endeavor Koike teaches the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The storage device of claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured to perform the encryption operation based on an advanced encryption standard (AES) method (paras. [0050]: performing encryption using advanced encryption standard).
Tsirkin is combinable with Koike because both are from the same field of endeavor of protecting access to debug information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Koike’s method of using AES to perform encryption with the system of Tsirkin in order to increase the security of the system by using an advanced encryption method to encrypt debug values transmitted between devices.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsirkin (US 2021/0240839), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kurts (US 2024/0110975).
Regarding claim 16, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 16 as follows:
The storage device of claim 1, wherein the security operation comprises ANY ONE or any combination of a debug user authentication operation for the host device and an encryption operation for the target debug information (Tsirkin, paras. [0017], [0031], [0033]-[0034]: in addition to applying security policy and validating/authenticating the second computer system (i.e. performing debug user authentication operation), the requested debug logs are encrypted (i.e. performing encryption operation)), and
wherein the storage device further comprises a second memory configured to, when there is the authentication operation and the encryption operation, store a debug user authentication key used in the (Tsirkin, paras. [0032], [0040], [0049], [0053], [0064]: storing keys for encrypting and accessing the debut logs and storing result of validating/authenticating the application on the user/second computing system and determining whether to grant the access request by storing status of the application as authorized or not and storing permission status including access status as granted or denied).
Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations of claim 16 as follows:
store a nonce used for generation of the debug user authentication key and the debug encryption key
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kurts discloses the remaining limitations of claim 16 as follows:
store a nonce used for generation of the debug user authentication key and the debug encryption key (paras. [0024], [0027], [0029]: create a random session key for encrypting debug information (i.e. debug encryption key) and an encrypted authentication key from a random number (i.e. nonce)).
Tsirkin is combinable with Kurts because both are from the same field of endeavor of protecting access to debug information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Kurts’ method of encrypting the random number twice to generate two keys with the system of Tsirkin in order to strengthen the security of the system by strengthening the complexity of the keys generated by encrypting the random number twice.
Regarding claim 17, Tsirkin and Kurts teach the limitations of claims 1 and 16.
Kurts teaches the limitations of claim 17 as follows:
The storage device of claim 16, wherein the controller is further configured to newly generate the nonce according to a debug key update request provided by the host device, update the debug user authentication key and the debug encryption key by using the generated nonce, encrypt the updated debug user authentication key and the updated debug encryption key, and transmit the encrypted debug user authentication key and the encrypted debug encryption key to the host device (paras. [0022], [0024], [0027], [0029]: generating a new key for each session comprising generating a new random session key for encrypting debug information (i.e. debug encryption key) and a new encrypted authentication key from a newly generated random number (i.e. nonce) and sending the keys to the host).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 16 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsirkin (US 2021/0240839), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Mendes (US 2021/0357125).
Regarding claim 13, Tsirkin teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Tsirkin does not teach, but in the same field of endeavor Mendes teaches the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
The storage device of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to generate a management table indicating access levels mapped to the plurality of pieces of debug information, and check the access level of the target debug information using the management table (paras. [0016], [0026], [0040], [0056], [0058], [0064], Fig. 8: generating memory cache with arrays & rows and columns (table) storing different levels of access for debugging data and using the stored different levels of access to determine what subset of debugging data is available to a requester).
Tsirkin is combinable with Kurts because both are from the same field of endeavor of protecting access to debug information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Kurts’ method of storing debug associated with a specific access level or type of debug information with the system of Tsirkin in order to enable faster response time to retrieve the corresponding debug information.
Regarding claim 14, Tsirkin and Mendes teach the limitations of claims 1 and 13.
Mendes teaches the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
The storage device of claim 13, wherein the management table comprises a start address field and an end address field indicating addresses respectively indicating locations where the plurality of pieces of debug information are stored (paras. [0016], [0026], [0040], [0056], [0058], Fig. 8: memory cache with arrays & rows and columns (table) comprises a range of addresses associated with a specific type of debug information requested), and an access level field indicating access levels of the plurality of pieces of debug information (paras. [0040], [0056], [0058], [0062], [0064], Fig. 8: stored privilege keys indicate access level of host to access debug information)
The same motivation to combine in claim 13 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Tsirkin and Mendes teach the limitations of claims 1 and 13.
Mendes teaches the limitations of claim of claim 15 as follows:
The storage device of claim 13, wherein the management table comprises a symbol field indicating the plurality of pieces of debug information (paras. [0016], [0026], [0040], [0056], [0058], Fig. 8: memory cache with arrays & rows and columns (table) comprises a range of addresses associated with a specific type of debug information requested) and an access level field indicating access levels of the plurality of pieces of debug information (paras. [0040], [0056], [0058], [0062], [0064], Fig. 8: stored privilege keys indicate access level of host to access debug information).
The same motivation to combine in claim 13 is equally applicable in the instant claim. Although Mendes does not explicitly disclose a symbol field, this is a design choice that does not affect the function of the field – it indicates pieces of debug information. One of ordinary skill in the art could chose other fields to indicate this information without changing the function of the table.
Prior art not relied upon but applied/considered includes:
1) Tsirkin (US 2021/0342463) teaches establishing controlled remote access to debug logs. A first computer system (e.g., a service provider's computer system) to receive one or more debug logs and traces in the form of an encrypted file from a second computer system (e.g., a customer's computer system). After receiving the encrypted file, the first computer system may run, within a trusted execution environment, a log access application that can be used to analyze the debug log. The first computer system may send a request for access to the debug log to the second computer system. In an example, the request may include a validation measurement (e.g., a cryptographic hash of executable code, or a cryptographic signature) generated by the trusted execution environment with respect to the log access application. Using the validation measurement, the second computer system may validate the log access application running in the first computer system's trusted execution environment. Upon validation, the second computer system may send, to the first computer system, an access key, which may be used for encrypting and/or decrypting the debug log. The second computer system may define a security policy that allows partial access to the debug log. (paras. [0014]-[0015], [0018]).
Conclusion
For the above reasons, claims 1-11, 13-17 and 26-27 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHARON S LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4583. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARON S LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438