DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on June 16, 2026, entered by the RCE filed on July 8, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 17 are currently amended.
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 (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114.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 June 16, 2026 has been entered.
Internet Communications
Without a written authorization for Internet communications by the Applicant in place, the USPTO cannot communicate with the Applicant via email and will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122, such as claimed subject matter in an interview agenda or proposed claim amendments for an Examiner’s Amendment.
Therefore, in the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant to authorize Internet communications with the USPTO by using Form PTO/SB/439 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms). The form may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (Patent Center) using the document description “Internet Communications Authorized” to facilitate processing. The written authorization for Internet communications must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization for Internet communications may not be submitted via an email. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Claim Interpretation
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, the drawings, and the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.01(I).
Applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. Where an explicit definition is provided by the Applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV)(A). Any such lexicographic definition for a term will be expressly noted by the Examiner in the prior art rejections of the claims.
Claim Mapping
For clarity of the prosecution history record, the Examiner has provided annotations in the prior art rejections of the claims to aid the Applicant in understanding the Examiner’s interpretations of the claimed invention and the prior art, such as emphasizing notable and relevant portions of the prior art citations, using item-to-item matching to the prior art citations, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art citations, and/or clearly explaining the Examiner’s interpretation as to how a prior art citation maps to the claim language, especially when there is no one-to-one matching of terms. Furthermore, the annotations are provided in the prior art rejections of the claims at the Examiner’s discretion where the Examiner deemed to be appropriate and necessary.
Response to Amendment
<<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0144379 (hereinafter “Tsai”) in view of US 2011/0154305 (hereinafter “LeRoux”), US 2012/0099024 (hereinafter “Ryu”), US 2006/0206587 (hereinafter “Fabbrocino”), US 9,154,485 (hereinafter “Fallows”), and US 2010/0125839 (hereinafter “Gebis”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to seamlessly performing code modifications (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Tsai is generally directed to updating software in a computing device (specification, paragraph [0002]). And Ryu is generally directed to updating (or upgrading) software in a display apparatus (specification, paragraph [0003]). And Fabbrocino is generally directed to seamlessly updating, correcting, modifying, or upgrading software on an electronics device (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, LeRoux is generally directed to remote compilation of software applications suitable for native execution on multiple mobile device platforms (specification, paragraph [0002]). And Fallows is generally directed to revalidating a WebSocket connection (Abstract). And Gebis is generally directed to specifying, determining, and overriding software dependencies (specification, paragraph [0003]). Thus, Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis are all analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 1, Tsai discloses:
A computer-implemented method (CIM) (paragraph [0002], “The disclosure generally relates to […] a method for updating software in a computing device.”), comprising:
receiving, from a user, an identification (ID) and a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of a first module to be updated […] (Figure 4; paragraph [0025], “FIG. 4 shows a GUI for the user to select the software applications that need to be updated [receiving, from a user, an identification (ID) {…} of a first module to be updated]. The generating module 104 displays the update information of the software applications that have available updates in the GUI depicted by FIG. 4. The generating module 104 may sort the update information according to the criticality of each of these software applications which are listed in the GUI. For example, the criticality of a software application may be high, medium, or low. When the user selects one or more software applications by clicking the corresponding check boxes in the GUI, the generating module 104 can generate an update list and add the update information of the selected software applications to the update list. The update list may include a plurality of URLs to specify where a plurality of update files for the selected software applications is (emphasis added).”);
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
Tsai discloses that the user, using the GUI, selects the software applications that need to be updated. And that an update list is generated, which includes a plurality of URLs to specify where a plurality of update files for the selected software applications is. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the GUI shown in Figure 4 depicts the software application names (i.e., IDs) for the user to make the selection and the software applications selected by the user includes the corresponding URLs for downloading them.
receiving, from the user, IDs and URLs of a bundle of modules to be updated […] (Figure 4; paragraph [0025], “FIG. 4 shows a GUI for the user to select the software applications that need to be updated [receiving, from the user, IDs {…} of a bundle of modules to be updated]. The generating module 104 displays the update information of the software applications that have available updates in the GUI depicted by FIG. 4. The generating module 104 may sort the update information according to the criticality of each of these software applications which are listed in the GUI. For example, the criticality of a software application may be high, medium, or low. When the user selects one or more software applications by clicking the corresponding check boxes in the GUI, the generating module 104 can generate an update list and add the update information of the selected software applications to the update list. The update list may include a plurality of URLs to specify where a plurality of update files for the selected software applications is (emphasis added).”);
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
Tsai discloses that the user, using the GUI, selects the software applications that need to be updated. And that an update list is generated, which includes a plurality of URLs to specify where a plurality of update files for the selected software applications is. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the GUI shown in Figure 4 depicts the software application names (i.e., IDs) for the user to make the selection and the software applications selected by the user includes the corresponding URLs for downloading them.
in response to the bundle of modules being updated […] (paragraph [0035], “In step S606, the applying module 106 applies the one or more updates to the one or more corresponding software applications.”; paragraph [0036], “In step S606, the report module 107 displays result information on the display 130 to notify whether the updates have been applied to the one or more corresponding software applications successfully [in response to the bundle of modules being updated {…}].”);
in response to the first module being updated […] (paragraph [0035], “In step S606, the applying module 106 applies the one or more updates to the one or more corresponding software applications.”; paragraph [0036], “In step S606, the report module 107 displays result information on the display 130 to notify whether the updates have been applied to the one or more corresponding software applications successfully [in response to the first module being updated {…}].”); and
[…] to initiate an updating process for the updated first module (paragraph [0035], “In step S606, the applying module 106 applies the one or more updates to the one or more corresponding software applications [{…} to initiate an updating process for the updated first module].”).
Tsai does not explicitly disclose:
an Integrated Development Environment (IDE).
However, LeRoux discloses:
an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) (paragraph [0033], “[…] the IDE running on user computer 10 and used to write the HTML/Javascript source application 116 may be any suitable known IDE tool available for developing HTML/Javascript based applications, such as Eclipse™, Visual Studio™, Dreamweaver™, Textmate™ and Xcode™ IDEs, for example (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Tsai and LeRoux are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, 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 teaching of LeRoux into the teaching of Tsai to include “an Integrated Development Environment (IDE).” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to develop HTML/Javascript based applications (LeRoux, paragraph [0033]).
The combination of Tsai and LeRoux does not explicitly disclose:
storing the ID and URL for the first module in local storage.
However, Ryu discloses:
storing the ID and URL for the first module in local storage (paragraph [0212], “The software information stored in the memory 140 may be identification information of the updated software, and the identification information may include a name, a version information and/or location information, such as Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of corresponding software (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Ryu is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, 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 teaching of Ryu into the combined teachings of Tsai and LeRoux to include “storing the ID and URL for the first module in local storage.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to read an updated software from a memory and perform a software update (Ryu, paragraph [0222]).
The combination of Tsai, LeRoux, and Ryu discloses “the IDE,” but the combination of Tsai, LeRoux, and Ryu does not explicitly disclose:
updating the first module in the IDE by:
causing the first module to be unregistered, and
causing a new module source file to be force fetched in the IDE for the updated first module.
However, Fabbrocino discloses:
updating the first module […] by:
causing the first module to be unregistered (paragraph [0018], “[…] a software upgrade from version 3.6 to 3.7, and then 3.7 to 3.8, results in removal of the 3.6 version from the device [causing the first module to be unregistered]. When version 3.8 is upgraded to 3.9, the 3.7 version is removed [causing the first module to be unregistered]. Alternatively, prior versions are deleted in accordance with a predetermined amount of time or are stored elsewhere (emphasis added).”), and
causing a new module source file to be force fetched […] for the updated first module (paragraph [0006], “Providers often force, or push, upgrades to the user device and users are typically denied access to the device until upgrades are installed. Alternatively, a provider may prevent a user from closing out of an application until the upgrade is downloaded. When the provider forces downloads of upgrades the user’s device typically functions more slowly or not at all until upgrades are downloaded [causing a new module source file to be force fetched {…} for the updated first module] (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Fabbrocino is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, 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 teaching of Fabbrocino into the combined teachings of Tsai, LeRoux, and Ryu to include “updating the first module in the IDE by: causing the first module to be unregistered, and causing a new module source file to be force fetched in the IDE for the updated first module.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to constantly update a computer software to keep pace with new features, prevent problems from arising, or fix known or recurrent problems (Fabbrocino, paragraph [0002]).
Tsai discloses “the bundle of updated modules” and “the updated first module,” but the combination of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, and Fabbrocino does not explicitly disclose:
[…] automatically receiving a websocket message with new URLs for the bundle of updated modules;
causing a websocket message with a new URL to be generated for the updated first module […];
[…] automatically receiving the websocket message with the new URL for the updated first module; and
using the websocket message […].
However, Fallows discloses:
[…] automatically receiving a websocket message with new URLs […] (col. 12 lines 4 and 5, “At 602, a WebSocket frame is received.”; col. 15 lines 13-18, “[…] the control message WebSocket frame that is provided may include in its payload data portion an identifier of the authentication to be revalidated and/or a location identifier (e.g., URL) of a location where an update revalidating the authentication should be provided (emphasis added).”);
causing a websocket message with a new URL to be generated […] (col. 12 lines 30-39, “[…] interpreting the WebSocket frame as a control message includes processing the control message included in the payload data portion of the WebSocket frame. This data may specify a configuration parameter, metadata, and/or a data to be otherwise processed. In some embodiments, the control message is managed, created, and/or processed at a processing level distinct from an end destination application [causing a websocket message with a new URL to be generated {…}]. For example, the control message is managed by a web browser distinct from the processing level of a web application executing within the web browser (emphasis added).”; col. 15 lines 13-18, “[…] the control message WebSocket frame that is provided may include in its payload data portion an identifier of the authentication to be revalidated and/or a location identifier (e.g., URL) of a location where an update revalidating the authentication should be provided (emphasis added).”);
[…] automatically receiving the websocket message with the new URL […] (col. 12 lines 4 and 5, “At 602, a WebSocket frame is received (emphasis added).”; col. 15 lines 13-18, “[…] the control message WebSocket frame that is provided may include in its payload data portion an identifier of the authentication to be revalidated and/or a location identifier (e.g., URL) of a location where an update revalidating the authentication should be provided (emphasis added).”); and
using the websocket message […] (col. 12 lines 22-24, “If the payload data does include other data, at 608, the received WebSocket frame is interpreted as including a control message [using the websocket message {…}].”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Fallows is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, 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 teaching of Fallows into the combined teachings of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, and Fabbrocino to include “[…] automatically receiving a websocket message with new URLs for the bundle of updated modules; causing a websocket message with a new URL to be generated for the updated first module […]; […] automatically receiving the websocket message with the new URL for the updated first module; and using the websocket message […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable traditional half-duplex Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or HTTP over SSL (HTTPS) communication to be upgraded to a bi-directional, full-duplex communication channel over a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection (Fallows, col. 1 lines 5-9).
The combination of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, and Fallows discloses “causing a websocket message with a new URL to be generated for the updated first module […],” but the combination of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, and Fallows does not explicitly disclose:
causing a websocket message with a new URL to be generated for the updated first module by identifying dependencies that stem from the first module, and converting those dependencies to refer to the updated first module.
However, Gebis discloses:
[…] identifying dependencies that stem from the first module, and converting those dependencies to refer to the updated first module (Figure 4; paragraph [0027], “The manager program 170 may use an overrides file 175 which stores information about overrides to default dependency settings (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0029], “During installation or upgrading of a given program package, a new or updated dependency list 165 may also be installed (i.e., installed on the storage medium 140 or made available to the processor 150). The dependency list 165 may be assigned a name corresponding to the program package, or placed in a location which shows the association between the dependency list and its program package (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0042], “The list 415 may include the names of all or a subset of the installed program packages. The list 415 may include only those program packages with dependencies, locally installed, available to be run, and/or having manageable dependencies [{…} identifying dependencies that stem from the first module]. The list 415 may include some but not all installed versions of a given program package (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0046], “For Statengine, the right pane 450 shows radio button options 453, 454, 455, 456. The first option 453 is no override, which is normally a default. The default may be to use the highest compatible version of the installed versions of the secondary program package. The user may override this default 453 by selecting one of the specific versions listed 454, 455, 456 [converting those dependencies to refer to the updated first module]. For Tcl, a similar arrangement applies in the example, with a default 457 and one override option 458 (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Gebis is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, 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 teaching of Gebis into the combined teachings of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, and Fallows to include “causing a websocket message with a new URL to be generated for the updated first module by identifying dependencies that stem from the first module, and converting those dependencies to refer to the updated first module.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify settings for a primary program package to force it to load a particular version of a secondary program package (Gebis, paragraph [0048]).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Tsai, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the IDE is configured for JavaScript® software development.
However, LeRoux discloses:
wherein the IDE is configured for JavaScript® software development (paragraph [0033], “[…] the IDE running on user computer 10 and used to write the HTML/Javascript source application 116 may be any suitable known IDE tool available for developing HTML/Javascript based applications, such as Eclipse™, Visual Studio™, Dreamweaver™, Textmate™ and Xcode™ IDEs, for example.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, LeRoux is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, 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 teaching of LeRoux into the combined teachings of Tsai, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis to include “wherein the IDE is configured for JavaScript® software development.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to develop HTML/Javascript based applications (LeRoux, paragraph [0033]).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, and Fallows discloses “using the websocket message to initiate an updating process for the updated first module,” but the combination of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, and Fallows does not explicitly disclose:
wherein using the websocket message to initiate an updating process for the updated first module includes:
replacing references to the first module, with references to correlated new code in the updated first module.
However, Gebis discloses:
replacing references to the first module, with references to correlated new code in the updated first module (Figure 4; paragraph [0027], “The manager program 170 may use an overrides file 175 which stores information about overrides to default dependency settings.”; paragraph [0029], “During installation or upgrading of a given program package, a new or updated dependency list 165 may also be installed (i.e., installed on the storage medium 140 or made available to the processor 150). The dependency list 165 may be assigned a name corresponding to the program package, or placed in a location which shows the association between the dependency list and its program package.”; paragraph [0042], “The list 415 may include the names of all or a subset of the installed program packages. The list 415 may include only those program packages with dependencies, locally installed, available to be run, and/or having manageable dependencies. The list 415 may include some but not all installed versions of a given program package.”; paragraph [0046], “For Statengine, the right pane 450 shows radio button options 453, 454, 455, 456. The first option 453 is no override, which is normally a default. The default may be to use the highest compatible version of the installed versions of the secondary program package. The user may override this default 453 by selecting one of the specific versions listed 454, 455, 456. For Tcl, a similar arrangement applies in the example, with a default 457 and one override option 458.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Gebis is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, 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 teaching of Gebis into the combined teachings of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, and Fallows to include “wherein using the websocket message to initiate an updating process for the updated first module includes: replacing references to the first module, with references to correlated new code in the updated first module.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify settings for a primary program package to force it to load a particular version of a secondary program package (Gebis, paragraph [0048]).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Tsai further discloses:
receiving an ID and a URL of a second module to be updated […] (Figure 4; paragraph [0025], “FIG. 4 shows a GUI for the user to select the software applications that need to be updated. The generating module 104 displays the update information of the software applications that have available updates in the GUI depicted by FIG. 4. The generating module 104 may sort the update information according to the criticality of each of these software applications which are listed in the GUI. For example, the criticality of a software application may be high, medium, or low. When the user selects one or more software applications by clicking the corresponding check boxes in the GUI, the generating module 104 can generate an update list and add the update information of the selected software applications to the update list. The update list may include a plurality of URLs to specify where a plurality of update files for the selected software applications is.”);
in response to the second module being updated […], determining whether the updating process should be initiated for the updated second module (paragraph [0033], “In step S604, the generating module 104 compares the current version information of each of the plurality of software applications to the corresponding latest version information. If the current version number of a software application is smaller than the corresponding latest version number of the software application, the generating module 104 can combine the current version information and the corresponding latest version information as update information for the software application.”);
in response to determining that the updating process should be initiated for the updated second module, requesting the updated second module (paragraph [0034], “In step S605, the download module 105 downloads one or more update files according to the update list.”); and
using the updated second module to initiate the updating process (paragraph [0035], “In step S606, the applying module 106 applies the one or more updates to the one or more corresponding software applications.”).
The combination of Tsai, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis does not explicitly disclose:
an Integrated Development Environment (IDE).
However, LeRoux discloses:
an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) (paragraph [0033], “[…] the IDE running on user computer 10 and used to write the HTML/Javascript source application 116 may be any suitable known IDE tool available for developing HTML/Javascript based applications, such as Eclipse™, Visual Studio™, Dreamweaver™, Textmate™ and Xcode™ IDEs, for example.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, LeRoux is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, 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 teaching of LeRoux into the combined teachings of Tsai, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis to include “an Integrated Development Environment (IDE).” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to develop HTML/Javascript based applications (LeRoux, paragraph [0033]).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated; and Tsai further discloses:
wherein the determining whether the updating process should be initiated for the updated second module includes:
requesting authorization from the user to initiate the updating process for the updated second module (Figure 4; paragraph [0026], “When the user selects one or more software applications and clicks the update button in the GUI of FIG. 4, the download module 105 can download one or more update files according to the plurality of URLs in the update list.”); and
in response to receiving authorization from the user, initiating the updating process for the updated second module (Figure 4; paragraph [0027], “The applying module 106 may execute or deploy the downloaded one or more update files to apply updates to the one or more corresponding software applications.”).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated; and Tsai further discloses:
wherein the requesting of the authorization from the user to initiate the updating process for the updated second module includes: causing a display to present at least one logical button to the user, the at least one logical button being configured to initiate the updating process in response to being activated by the user (Figure 4; paragraph [0026], “When the user selects one or more software applications and clicks the update button in the GUI of FIG. 4, the download module 105 can download one or more update files according to the plurality of URLs in the update list.”; paragraph [0027], “The applying module 106 may execute or deploy the downloaded one or more update files to apply updates to the one or more corresponding software applications.”).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated; and Tsai further discloses:
wherein the updated second module is retrieved from [a software management server] (paragraph [0026], “[…] the software management server 20 stores the one or more update files. The download module 105 can download the one or more update files from the software management server 20.”).
The combination of Tsai, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis does not explicitly disclose:
an Integrated Development Environment (IDE).
However, LeRoux discloses:
an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) (paragraph [0033], “[…] the IDE running on user computer 10 and used to write the HTML/Javascript source application 116 may be any suitable known IDE tool available for developing HTML/Javascript based applications, such as Eclipse™, Visual Studio™, Dreamweaver™, Textmate™ and Xcode™ IDEs, for example.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, LeRoux is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, 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 teaching of LeRoux into the combined teachings of Tsai, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis to include “an Integrated Development Environment (IDE).” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to develop HTML/Javascript based applications (LeRoux, paragraph [0033]).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Tsai further discloses:
in response to the bundle of modules being updated […] (paragraph [0035], “In step S606, the applying module 106 applies the one or more updates to the one or more corresponding software applications.”; paragraph [0036], “In step S606, the report module 107 displays result information on the display 130 to notify whether the updates have been applied to the one or more corresponding software applications successfully.”); and
[…] to initiate an updating process for each of the updated modules in the bundle (paragraph [0035], “In step S606, the applying module 106 applies the one or more updates to the one or more corresponding software applications.”).
The combination of Tsai, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis does not explicitly disclose:
an Integrated Development Environment (IDE).
However, LeRoux discloses:
an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) (paragraph [0033], “[…] the IDE running on user computer 10 and used to write the HTML/Javascript source application 116 may be any suitable known IDE tool available for developing HTML/Javascript based applications, such as Eclipse™, Visual Studio™, Dreamweaver™, Textmate™ and Xcode™ IDEs, for example.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, LeRoux is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, 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 teaching of LeRoux into the combined teachings of Tsai, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis to include “an Integrated Development Environment (IDE).” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to develop HTML/Javascript based applications (LeRoux, paragraph [0033]).
The combination of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, and Gebis does not explicitly disclose:
using the websocket message […].
However, Fallows discloses:
using the websocket message […] (col. 12 lines 22-24, “If the payload data does include other data, at 608, the received WebSocket frame is interpreted as including a control message.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Fallows is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, 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 teaching of Fallows into the combined teachings of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, and Gebis to include “using the websocket message […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable traditional half-duplex Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or HTTP over SSL (HTTPS) communication to be upgraded to a bi-directional, full-duplex communication channel over a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection (Fallows, col. 1 lines 5-9).
Claims 9-16 are computer program product (CPP) claims corresponding to the computer-implemented method (CIM) claims hereinabove (Claims 1-8, respectively). Therefore, Claims 9-16 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-8, respectively.
Claims 17-19 are computer system (CS) claims corresponding to the computer-implemented method (CIM) claims hereinabove (Claims 1, 3, and 8, respectively). Therefore, Claims 17-19 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1, 3, and 8, respectively.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis as applied to Claim 19 above, and further in view of US 2014/0250367 (hereinafter “Ivory”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to seamlessly performing code modifications (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Ivory is generally directed to prioritizing the loading of a portion of a web page based on a user designation (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Ivory is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 20, the rejection of Claim 19 is incorporated; and the combination of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the bundle of modules includes a plurality of asynchronous module definition (AMD) based modules.
However, Ivory discloses:
wherein the bundle of modules includes a plurality of asynchronous module definition (AMD) based modules (paragraph [0030], “At operation 310, the request for the web page may be issued to the server 120 through a loader according to an embodiment. For example, the loader may be in a known Asynchronous Module Definition (AMD) format for defining reusable modules that can be used across different frameworks. AMD provides a way to define modules such that they could be loaded asynchronously using a native browser script element-based mechanism.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Ivory is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, 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 teaching of Ivory into the combined teachings of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis to include “wherein the bundle of modules includes a plurality of asynchronous module definition (AMD) based modules.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a way to define modules such that they could be loaded asynchronously using a native browser script element-based mechanism (Ivory, paragraph [0030]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 16, 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, the Applicant argues:
Tsai does not apply as it seemingly only provides for a system that collects a current version information of a plurality of software applications that are installed in the computing device and obtains the latest version information from a management server. The system then generates an update list with the information gathered. Any updating is very basic and only is made by downloading information according to the update list.
[…]
LaRoux does not cure the deficiencies of Tsai as it seemingly relates very specifically to methodology for providing an SDK to a client computer which includes executable instructions for communicating with a build server. Very specifically this has to be received I [sic] in an HTML/Javascript source application and a configuration file referencing one or more source application files has to also be provided over a network from the client computer to the build server. These sending and receiving (transmitting) of the HTML/Javascript source application and configuration file is a very restrictive feature that is not a requirement of the present amended claims.
[…]
Ryu does not cure the deficiencies of Tsia [sic] or LaRoux as it seemingly provides a specific and unrelated problem and solution to the current application and to Tsia [sic] and LaRoux. It provides a multifunctional display apparatus provided by a tuner and network interface and a controller that may determine whether software stored in the storage device is to be updated. In the update mode, the display apparatus receives updated software and power to the display is OFF, and the controller provides the display apparatus in a turn-off mode after completing the update mode. In the turn-off mode, power to additional components of the display apparatus is OFF.
[…]
Fabbrocino does not cure the deficiencies of Ryu, Tsia [sic] or LaRoux because it seemingly only provides for a way to allow a user of an electronic device with an Automatic Upgrade Functionality (AUF), the ability to automatically upgrade software installations with a configurable amount of user interaction and interruption. The need for AUF seem to be essential.
Similarly, Fallows does not cure the deficiencies of Ryu, Tsia [sic], Fabbrocino or LaRoux as it seems to only discuss how a WebSocket connection is established, such as with a requester of the connection. This deals mostly with authentication configuration, updates and expirations.
Furthermore, Gebis does not cure the deficiencies of Ryu, Tsia [sic], Fabbrocino, Fallows or LaRoux as it is very particular in the solution and problem it addresses. Gebis provides methods mostly to override software dependencies of program packages available to be run on a processor. The program packages have respective version numbers, and plural versions of at least one of the program packages are available to be run on the processor. Default dependency settings may be overridden by a user. During run-time, the override settings are referenced and utilized.
(See Remarks, pages 9-12.)
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the Applicant’s assertion that Claim 1 is not provided by Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
First, the Examiner respectfully submits the relevant portions of MPEP § 714.02 and 37 CFR § 1.111(b) with emphasis added for purposes of convenience in discussion and illustration:
MPEP § 714.02 Must Be Fully Responsive
The claims may be amended by canceling particular claims, by presenting new claims, or by rewriting particular claims as indicated in 37 CFR 1.121(c). The requirements of 37 CFR 1.111(b) must be complied with by pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims patentable over the references in presenting arguments in support of new claims and amendments.
37 CFR § 1.111(b) Reply by applicant or patent owner to a non-final Office action.
(b) In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. 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 does not comply with the requirements of this section.
According to the portions of the MPEP and the patent rule provided hereinabove, the Examiner would like to point out that the Applicant’s arguments do not provide any specific reasons as to why either the findings of fact or the legal conclusion of obviousness is allegedly in error. Rather, the Applicant’s arguments are only conclusory generalizations not tied to the specific facts of the references based on a reasoned explanation. Thus, the Applicant’s arguments in response to the obviousness rejection do not comply with MPEP § 714.02 and 37 CFR § 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. However, the Applicant’s reply is considered to be a bona fide attempt at a response and is being accepted as a complete response.
Second, the Examiner respectfully submits the relevant portions of MPEP §§ 2142 and 2145(IV) with emphasis added for purposes of convenience in discussion and illustration:
MPEP § 2142 Legal Concept of Prima Facie Obviousness
35 U.S.C. 103 authorizes a rejection where, to meet the claim, it is necessary to modify a single reference or to combine it with one or more other references. After indicating that the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner should set forth in the Office action:
(A) the relevant teachings of the prior art relied upon, preferably with reference to the relevant column or page number(s) and line number(s) where appropriate,
(B) the difference or differences in the claim over the applied reference(s),
(C) the proposed modification of the applied reference(s) necessary to arrive at the claimed subject matter, and
(D) an explanation as to why the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.
MPEP § 2145(IV) ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because “[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA].” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
According to the portions of the MPEP provided hereinabove, the Examiner would like to point out that the Applicant’s arguments do not take into consideration that it is the combination of teachings that teaches and fairly suggests the claimed invention as set forth by the Examiner. Applicant is attempting to separate the combination of references and argue each reference in isolation. Applicant’s arguments improperly focus on specific differences between the individual references and the claimed limitations and thus, fail to address the propriety of the combination. In other words, the Applicant’s arguments include a portion of the subject matter relied upon by a reference in each limitation which is argued to not be taught or suggested by each of the individual references. Such arguments are not persuasive of error since they do not address the combined teachings as set forth by the Examiner. Therefore, in response to the Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Third, the Examiner respectfully submits that, as stated in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claim 1 hereinabove, Tsai discloses “receiving, from the user, IDs and URLs of a bundle of modules to be updated […]” (Figure 4; paragraph [0025], “FIG. 4 shows a GUI for the user to select the software applications that need to be updated [receiving, from the user, IDs {…} of a bundle of modules to be updated]. The generating module 104 displays the update information of the software applications that have available updates in the GUI depicted by FIG. 4. The generating module 104 may sort the update information according to the criticality of each of these software applications which are listed in the GUI. For example, the criticality of a software application may be high, medium, or low. When the user selects one or more software applications by clicking the corresponding check boxes in the GUI, the generating module 104 can generate an update list and add the update information of the selected software applications to the update list. The update list may include a plurality of URLs to specify where a plurality of update files for the selected software applications is (emphasis added).”) and “in response to the bundle of modules being updated […]” (paragraph [0035], “In step S606, the applying module 106 applies the one or more updates to the one or more corresponding software applications.”; paragraph [0036], “In step S606, the report module 107 displays result information on the display 130 to notify whether the updates have been applied to the one or more corresponding software applications successfully [in response to the bundle of modules being updated {…}].”).
The combination of Tsai, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis does not explicitly disclose “an Integrated Development Environment (IDE).” However, LeRoux discloses “an Integrated Development Environment (IDE)” (paragraph [0033], “[…] the IDE running on user computer 10 and used to write the HTML/Javascript source application 116 may be any suitable known IDE tool available for developing HTML/Javascript based applications, such as Eclipse™, Visual Studio™, Dreamweaver™, Textmate™ and Xcode™ IDEs, for example (emphasis added).”). Therefore, 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 teaching of LeRoux into the combined teachings of Tsai, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis to include “an Integrated Development Environment (IDE).” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to develop HTML/Javascript based applications (LeRoux, paragraph [0033]).
Tsai discloses “the bundle of updated modules,” but the combination of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, and Gebis does not explicitly disclose “[…] automatically receiving a websocket message with new URLs for the bundle of updated modules.” However, Fallows discloses “[…] automatically receiving a websocket message with new URLs […]” (col. 12 lines 4 and 5, “At 602, a WebSocket frame is received.”; col. 15 lines 13-18, “[…] the control message WebSocket frame that is provided may include in its payload data portion an identifier of the authentication to be revalidated and/or a location identifier (e.g., URL) of a location where an update revalidating the authentication should be provided (emphasis added).”). Therefore, 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 teaching of Fallows into the combined teachings of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, and Gebis to include “[…] automatically receiving a websocket message with new URLs for the bundle of updated modules; and using the websocket message […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable traditional half-duplex Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or HTTP over SSL (HTTPS) communication to be upgraded to a bi-directional, full-duplex communication channel over a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection (Fallows, col. 1 lines 5-9).
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to Claim 1 is proper and therefore, maintained.
In the Remarks, the Applicant argues:
It should also be noted that more than 6 different references has been combined to provide the 103 rejections. While the Examiner can provide and combine as many references as needed, the amount of references combined here, nonetheless, provides the impression that such combination perhaps are due to hindsight as opposed to obviousness, especially since not all references are in the same field particularly.
(See Remarks, page 13.)
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the Applicant’s assertion that “[w]hile the Examiner can provide and combine as many references as needed, the amount of references combined here, nonetheless, provides the impression that such combination perhaps are due to hindsight as opposed to obviousness, especially since not all references are in the same field particularly,” the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
First, the Examiner respectfully submits the portion of MPEP § 2145(V) with emphasis added for purposes of convenience in discussion and illustration:
MPEP § 2145(V) ARGUING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF REFERENCES COMBINED
Reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Court affirmed a rejection of a detailed claim to a candy sucker shaped like a thumb on a stick based on thirteen prior art references.).
According to the portion of the MPEP provided hereinabove, reliance on 6 references in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claim 1 does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the Applicant has used conclusory statements, or lacked a detailed obviousness analysis that specifies the supposed errors in the Examiner’s multi-reference combination.
Second, the Examiner respectfully submits the relevant portions of MPEP §§ 2144(I) and 2145(X)(A) with emphasis added for purposes of convenience in discussion and illustration:
MPEP § 2144(I) RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT
The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
MPEP § 2145(X)(A) Impermissible Hindsight
Applicants may argue that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on improper hindsight reasoning. However, “[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). “A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning. … Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). Applicants may also argue that the combination of two or more references is “hindsight” because “express” motivation to combine the references is lacking. However, there is no requirement that an “express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 82 USPQ2d at 1389 (“The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.”) See also Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339-40, 2020 USPQ2d 10476 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[W]e hold that the Board erred when it determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Okubo with Konishi’s server-side plotting to render obvious the limitation ‘software … to transmit the map with plotted locations to the first individual.’ This combination does not represent ‘impermissible hindsight’. … Rather, because Okubo’s terminal-side plotting and Konishi’s server-side plotting were both well known in the art, and were the only two identified, predictable solutions for transmitting a map and plotting locations, it would have been obvious to substitute server-side plotting for terminal-side plotting in a combination of Okubo and Konishi.”).
According to the portions of the MPEP provided hereinabove, the Examiner would like to point out that the reasoning cited by the Examiner is not expressly found in the Applicant’s disclosure, but rather comes from the cited prior art. Because the Examiner did not expressly rely on the Applicant’s teaching, and the Examiner had some reasoning based on the cited prior art, improper hindsight is not present. Applicant does not identify any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as noted by the Examiner with respect to the teachings of Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).
Third, the Examiner respectfully submits that, as stated in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claim 1 hereinabove, Tsai, LeRoux, Ryu, Fabbrocino, Fallows, and Gebis are all analogous art to the claimed invention because they are either (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if they address different problems); or (2) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if they are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Thus, they are proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to Claim 1 is proper and therefore, maintained.
As the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent Claim 1 is maintained for at least the reasons stated hereinabove, the rejections with respect to the remaining independent claims are also maintained for at least the identical reasons set forth hereinabove, and the rejections with respect to their dependent claims are also maintained since the Applicant has not pointed out any further deficiencies of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections with respect to their dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for more information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights