DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having application No. 18/576,250 filed on January 3, 2024, presents claims 1-15 for examination. The instant application claims priority to foreign parent application KR10-2021-0087948, filed 7/5/2021, and to PCT/US2021/065214, filed 12/27/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/17/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, “a memory to store instructions”, suggestion: - a memory storing
Claims 2-8 are objected to for the same reason because they depend from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recite “A computer-readable recording medium …”. The claims does not specifically limit the “computer-readable recording medium" to only non-transitory medium, the context of the medium as used in the claim would fairly suggest to one of ordinary skills in the art that the medium could be signals, propagation or transmission media or any other type of transitory medium. Therefore, when the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 USC § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 9, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 9,
“updating stability information indicating compatibility between each version of the application and each platform version associated with a plurality of firmware installable in the image forming apparatus based on the received error log; and
identifying a firmware to be installed in the image forming device based on the updated stability information.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually update stability information as defined in the claim; human can manually identify a firmware to be installed as defined in the claim. Thus these claim limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional element
“receiving an error log for an application installed in an image forming device;”
Which is insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering data, according to MPEP 2106.05(g); thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “receiving …” is insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a server claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a server to implement a method that is disclosed in claim 9 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 9, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 9.
Claim 1 recites more additional elements that are not recited in claim 9, i.e. a remote management server, processor, and a memory, but these elements are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, are not an inventive concept.
With respect to claim 15, it claims a computer-readable recording medium, after signal per se is corrected, e.g. if the claim is amended to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a computer-readable recording medium to implement the method that is disclosed in claim 9 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 9, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 9.
Claim 15 recites more additional elements that are not recited in claim 9, i.e. a computer-readable recording medium, and a processor, but these elements are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, are not an inventive concept.
With respect to claim 2, “wherein the error log includes errors that occur based on the application running on a platform associated with the firmware installed in the image forming device.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claims 3 and 10, “wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, an indication that a firmware upgrade is not allowed in a case in which, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, it is detected that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of the firmware is installed in the image forming device.” Wherein “transmit …” process is insignificant extra-solution activity such as data transmitting which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. The “identification” and “detect” processes as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually identify whether the firmware is installable as defined in the claim, and can manually detect incompatibility as defined in the claim.
With respect to claims 4 and 11, “wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
identify a firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information and select to install a newest version of the firmware among the identified firmware in the image forming device.” Wherein “identify …” and “select …” processes as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually identify a firmware that is installable as defined in the claim, and can manually select the version of the firmware as defined in the claim. “to install” is intended use, and does not carry much patentability weight.
With respect to claims 5 and 12, “wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, a warning that a firmware upgrade is allowed but an incompatibility occurs in a case in which, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, it is detected that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of firmware is installed in the image forming device.” These two claims are similar to claims 3 and 10, please see the office action regarding claims 3 and 10 above.
With respect to claim 6, “wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, a notification that a firmware upgrade is allowed after the application of the image forming device which is not compatible with the platform of the latest version of firmware is deleted or deactivated based on, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, detecting that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of firmware is installed in the image forming device.” This claim is similar to claims 3 and 10, please see the office action regarding claims 3 and 10 above.
With respect to claims 7 and 13, “wherein the update of the stability information based on the received error log includes:
accumulating and recording a number of errors that occur between an application version and a platform version and, based on the number of errors that occur between the application version and the platform version being greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, detecting that there is no compatibility between the corresponding application version and the corresponding platform version.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually perform “accumulating and recording a number of errors” and “detecting” operations as defined in the claim.
With respect to claims 8 and 14, “further comprising:
receiving information about a device type of the image forming device with the error log for the application installed in the image forming device; and
updating the stability information based on the received error log and the information about the device type of the image forming device.” Wherein “receiving …” process is insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. The “updating” process as drafted, is functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually perform the updating operation as defined in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dattatri (US 20200034133 A1, hereinafter “Dattatri”) in view of JUNG et al. (KR 20170008712 A, hereinafter “JUNG ”, please refer to attached NPL copy).
With respect to claim 1, Dattatri discloses A remote management server comprising (e.g. Fig. 1, Server 104):
a processor (e.g. Fig. 10, Processor 1002); and
a memory to store instructions, wherein execution of the instructions cause the processor to (e.g. Fig. 10, Memory 1004):
receive an error log for an application installed in an image forming device (e.g. para [0058], “… During installation, an installation log may be created that includes information as to a success or failure of the installation process and any errors/issues encountered. …”);
update, based on the received error log, stability information indicating compatibility between each version of the application and each platform version associated with a plurality of firmware installable in the image forming device (e.g. para [0059], “At 616, the stability index (determined at 608) may be added to a stability index table. For example, in FIG. 1, the stability index 142 may be added to the stability index table 146 based on the associated configuration and platform. …”); and
Dattatri does not appear to explicitly disclose
identify a firmware to be installed in the image forming device based on the updated stability information.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Jung (e.g. p13, fourth paragraph, “When the latest version of the firmware is found, the firmware providing server 300 can determine whether the latest version of the firmware is compatible with the program installed in the print control terminal device 100, based on the compatibility information and the received program information (2840)….” Wherein the compatibility information reads on stability information.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Dattatri with the invention of Jung because it prevents unnecessary firmware upgrades. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing unnecessary firmware upgrades as suggested by Jung (see p13, nineth paragraph).
With respect to claim 4, Dattatri as modified by Jung discloses The remote management server of claim 1, Jung discloses wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
identify a firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information and select to install a newest version of the firmware among the identified firmware in the image forming device (e.g. p7, third paragraph, “If it is determined that the searched latest version of the firmware and the searched latest version of the program are compatible, the control unit 190 may control the user interface unit 120 to display the firmware and the program that can be installed to the user.” For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1).
With respect to claim 8, Dattatri discloses further comprising:
receiving information about a device type of the image forming device with the error log for the application installed in the image forming device (e.g. para [0020], “… The server may use the unique identifier (e.g., serial number, service tag, or the like) from the gathered data to identify a device platform and a configuration associated with the computing device that sent the data. …” wherein the gathered data read on the error log); and
updating the stability information based on the received error log and the information about the device type of the image forming device. (e.g. para [0020], “… The server may use the events included in the gathered data to determine/update a stability index associated with the software package for the identified device platform and configuration and store the stability index in a stability index table. …”).
With respect to claim 9, it is directed to a method that is disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 9.
With respect to claim 11, it recites same features as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 14, it recites same features as claim 8, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 15, it is directed to a computer-readable recording medium to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 15. Note that Dattatri discloses A computer-readable recording medium storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (e.g. Fig. 10, Memory 1004).
Claims 2, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dattatri in view of JUNG as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively, in further view of Nakamoto (US 20090161143 A1, hereinafter “Nakamoto”, cited from IDS filed 1/17/2024).
With respect to claim 2, Dattatri as modified by Jung discloses The remote management server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the error log includes errors that occur based on the application running on a platform associated with the firmware installed in the image forming device. However, this is taught in analogous art, Nakamoto (e.g. para [0178], “… the monitoring center host 111 refer to an error 1007 and identifies the firmware to be upgraded. As a result, in the example illustrated in FIG. 10, the monitoring center host 111 determines that an error has occurred on the R-CON. That is, in the example illustrated in FIG. 10, the R-CON is identified as the firmware that has caused the error.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Nakamoto because it provides techniques for appropriately upgrading firmware and applying the upgraded firmware even if an error has occurred on an apparatus constituting an image forming apparatus monitoring system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for appropriately upgrading firmware as suggested by Nakamoto (see para [0009]).
With respect to claim 7, Dattatri as modified by Jung discloses The remote management server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the update of the stability information based on the received error log includes:
accumulating and recording a number of errors that occur between an application version and a platform version and, based on the number of errors that occur between the application version and the platform version being greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, detecting that there is no compatibility between the corresponding application version and the corresponding platform version.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Nakamoto (e.g. Fig. 12, column 1203 accumulating and recording a number of errors, para [0172], “A frequency of occurrence (threshold value) 1203 indicates a threshold value for the frequency of occurrence of the corresponding error 1202 within a predetermined time period ("1 day" in FIG. 12) at which the firmware is to be replaced.” Wherein the firmware is to be replaced indicates that no compatibility is detected.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Nakamoto because it provides techniques for appropriately upgrading firmware and applying the upgraded firmware even if an error has occurred on an apparatus constituting an image forming apparatus monitoring system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for appropriately upgrading firmware as suggested by Nakamoto (see para [0009]).
With respect to claim 13, it recites same features as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dattatri in view of JUNG as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively, in further view of Murthy (US 20220253302 A1, hereinafter “Murthy”) and Wada (US 20120136844 A1, hereinafter “Wada”).
With respect to claim 3, Dattatri as modified by Jung discloses The remote management server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, an indication that a firmware upgrade is not allowed in a case in which, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, it is detected that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of the firmware is installed in the image forming device.
However, in analogous art, Murthy discloses wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
[transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, an indication that a firmware upgrade is not allowed] in a case in which, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, it is detected that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of the firmware is installed in the image forming device (e.g. para [0041], “… The baseline profile 129 can include all of the behaviors of the client device 109 from the behavior data 128 or a subset of the behaviors that are verified to be normal or acceptable. …” wherein the behaviors verified to be normal or acceptable suggest no compatibility issue, and the behaviors read on the updated stability information. para [0053], “ In step 309, the management service 120 can identify an update incompatibility based on updated behavior data 128 from the first subset of the client devices 109 that have installed the operating system update 155. …” also see para [0054, 0057])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Murthy because it provides a more efficient and effective solution for managing operating system updates. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a more efficient and effective solution for managing operating system updates as suggested by Murthy (see para [0009]).
Although Murthy also discloses providing update ticket through a user interface of the management service or transmitting to a client device, see para [0057] of Murthy, it does not explicitly disclose transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, an indication that a firmware upgrade is not allowed … However this is taught in analogous art, Wada (e.g. para [0076], “… After that, the control unit 101 ends this update data file transmission processing. Note that when the PC 200 receives that incompatibility command, the PC control unit 201 can control the display unit 207 to display GUI data indicating that the dependent program is not compatible with the version of the OS.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Wada because it provides techniques to notify a user of incompatibility information so that actions can be taken to resolve the detected incompatibility issue. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques to notify a user of incompatibility information so that actions can be taken to resolve the detected incompatibility issue as suggested by Wada (see para [0076-0077]).
With respect to claim 10, it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dattatri in view of JUNG as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively, in further view of Murthy (US 20220253302 A1, hereinafter “Murthy”).
With respect to claim 5, Dattatri as modified by Jung discloses The remote management server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, a warning that a firmware upgrade is allowed but an incompatibility occurs in a case in which, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, it is detected that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of firmware is installed in the image forming device.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Murthy (e.g. para [0041], “… The baseline profile 129 can include all of the behaviors of the client device 109 from the behavior data 128 or a subset of the behaviors that are verified to be normal or acceptable. …” wherein the behaviors verified to be normal or acceptable suggest no compatibility issue, and the behaviors read on the updated stability information. para [0053], “ In step 309, the management service 120 can identify an update incompatibility based on updated behavior data 128 from the first subset of the client devices 109 that have installed the operating system update 155. …” para [0057], “... The update ticket can identify an incompatible application or driver, and request appropriate action be taken to resolve the incompatibility. The update ticket can be provided through a user interface of the management service 120 or transmitted to a client device 109 associated with an information technology professional or administrator. ….”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Murthy because it provides a more efficient and effective solution for managing operating system updates. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a more efficient and effective solution for managing operating system updates as suggested by Murthy (see para [0009]).
With respect to claim 12, it recites same features as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dattatri in view of JUNG as applied to claim 1, in further view of Murthy (US 20220253302 A1, hereinafter “Murthy”) and Morley et al. (US 20160162275 A1, hereinafter “Morley”).
With respect to claim 6, Dattatri as modified by Jung discloses The remote management server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, a notification that a firmware upgrade is allowed after the application of the image forming device which is not compatible with the platform of the latest version of firmware is deleted or deactivated based on, as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, detecting that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of firmware is installed in the image forming device.
However, in analogous art, Murthy discloses wherein execution of the instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, a notification that a firmware upgrade is allowed [after the application of the image forming device which is not compatible with the platform of the latest version of firmware is deleted or deactivated based on], as a result of the identification of the firmware that is installable in the image forming device without any incompatibility based on the updated stability information, detecting that there is no compatibility between a platform of a latest version of the firmware and the application of the image forming device if the latest version of firmware is installed in the image forming device (e.g. para [0041], “… The baseline profile 129 can include all of the behaviors of the client device 109 from the behavior data 128 or a subset of the behaviors that are verified to be normal or acceptable. …” wherein the behaviors verified to be normal or acceptable suggest no compatibility issue, and the behaviors read on the updated stability information. para [0053], “ In step 309, the management service 120 can identify an update incompatibility based on updated behavior data 128 from the first subset of the client devices 109 that have installed the operating system update 155. …” para [0057], “... The update ticket can identify an incompatible application or driver, and request appropriate action be taken to resolve the incompatibility. The update ticket can be provided through a user interface of the management service 120 or transmitted to a client device 109 associated with an information technology professional or administrator. ….”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Murthy because it provides a more efficient and effective solution for managing operating system updates. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a more efficient and effective solution for managing operating system updates as suggested by Murthy (see para [0009]).
Dattatri as modified by Jung and Murthy does not appear to explicitly disclose (transmit a command for displaying, on a user interface of the image forming device, a notification that a firmware upgrade is allowed) after the application of the image forming device which is not compatible with the platform of the latest version of firmware is deleted or deactivated based on … However this is taught in analogous art, Morley (e.g. para [0044], “… if a compatibility match is not found in the target version catalog, as shown in step S240, the App Checker module 17 populates an application quarantine or removal database with the application identifying information, including the app ID, version number, build number, and a status of whether the application is affirmatively quarantined or removed. ...”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Morley because it provides techniques for managing incompatible applications for updating processes to overcome drawbacks. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for managing incompatible applications for updating processes to overcome drawbacks as suggested by Morley (see para [0002, 0025-0027]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Panchanathan et al., US 9983866 B1 teaches Upgrade Compatibility Checks In A Client-server Environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197