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 .
Claims 1-8, 11-16, 19-20 are pending.
This is in response to communications filed on 6/17/26.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-12, 14-16, 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18776413 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the claim correspondence given below:
Claim 1 of the pending application
Claim 2 (claim 1 plus claim 2) of the co-pending application
A configuration file chaining system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause an Information Handling System (IHS) to:
An Information Handling System (IHS) comprising: a processor; and a manifest engine stored in a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the manifest engine to: generate the configuration chain: (claim 1 and claim 2)
sequentially receive a plurality of data structures, the data structures storing configuration data associated with a plurality of domains that each have a different level of priority relative to one another, wherein the configuration data comprises one or more parameters for an application; and for each data structure: when the configuration data comprises a parameter for the application and when the parameter does not exist in a template associated with the application, store the parameter in the template;
sequentially receive a plurality of data structures, the data structures storing configuration data associated with a plurality of domains that each have a different level of priority relative to one another, wherein the configuration data comprises one or more parameters for an application; and for each data structure, when the configuration data comprises a parameter for the application and when the parameter does not exist in a template associated with the application, store the parameter in the template.(claim 2)
and using the template, custom configure the application on a target computing device.
Custom configure the application on the target computing device using the template (claim 1)
For the limitations “wherein when the application is a Linux-based application, configure the application after installation, and wherein when the application is a Windows-based application, configure the application during installation” in pending claim 1, claim 7 and claim 8 of the co-pending application teaches the corresponding limitations. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the Linux based application after installation and windows-based application during the installation, since post installation configuration provides maximum control over the components while configuration during installation provides immediate control over the components. Both are user choices with associated benefits.
For claims 2, 12 and 20, claim 4 of the co-pending application teaches the corresponding limitations.
For claim 4, claim 2 and claim 3 of the co-pending application teaches the configuration file.
For claim 5, claim 9 of the co-pending application teaches the corresponding limitations.
For claim 6 and claim 14, the claims of the co-pending application do not mention configuring another application. However, that is within the scope of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure another application, since configuring plural application with the same parameter speeds the configuration process when applications are related and shares common parameters.
For claim 7 and claim 15, claim 6 of the co-pending application mention storing and receiving is performed at the vendor sites. Claim 6 does not mention configuring by the vendor. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure by the vendor, since such configuration enhances flexibility.
For claim 8 and claim 16, co-pending application does not mention various domains – user, system, application and customs. These domains are well known in art. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the plural domains including user, system, application and custom so that plural application in different domains can be optimally configured.
For claim 11, claims 10 and 11 of the co-pending application teach the corresponding limitations (as explained in the table)
For claim 19, claims 1 and 2 of the co-pending application teach the corresponding limitations (as explained in the table)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sans et al (US Patent 11888684), in view of Langendijk et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0225144 – FP is 1/4/24)
For claim 1, Sans et al teach the following limitations: A configuration file chaining system (Fig 1 – Fig 6; col 10 mentions Fig 5 shows the aggregation of various layers to generate aggregate table; thus Fig 5 shows the configuration file chaining system) comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause an Information Handling System (IHS) (line 64, col 14 through line 3, col 15, lines 45-62 of col 15 mention that storage medium stores the code causing a processor in the computing device to perform the techniques) to: sequentially receive a plurality of data structures (Fig 3B shows that step 312 and step 313 receives configuration metadata from system template layers and tenant specific layers; the layers are shown in Fig 4 and represent data structures; lines 35-40 of col 8) , the data structures storing configuration data (line 63, col 1 through line 5 col 2; line 49, col 7 through line 2 col 8 – each layer represents configuration data) associated with a plurality of domains (tenant specific domain, system domain and override domain for tenant/system as explained in col 9 and Fig 4; lines 63, col 1 through line 5 col 2 – system layer, tenant layer, override layer – system layer is for system domain and tenant layer is for tenant domain) that each have a different level of priority relative to one another (lines 55-66 of col 13 – override data/domain has higher priority, tenant override has the highest priority; system layer prioritizes system and tenant layer prioritizes tenant; lines 25-35 of col 2 and lines 60-65 of col 11 – tenant data and overrides are applied to system data – thus system data has lowest priority), wherein the configuration data comprises one or more parameters for an application (lines 1-13 of col 11; lines 60-65 of col 4; lines 45-50 of col 6; lines 1-10 of col 8 mention that each feature of software application (i.e., parameter of application is associated with configuration data)) ; and for each data structure: when the configuration data comprises a parameter for the application (Fig 3A, Fig 3C, line 22, col 12 through line 5 of col 13 mention the updating of the configuration data, whereas the layers have the configuration data including parameter of the application; lines 1-10 of col 8 and lines 20-30 of col 12); and when the parameter does not exist in a template associated with the application store the parameter in the template (Fig 5 501 is the template, lines 50-51 of col 8 – single list; Fig 5 shows the merging as explained in lines 1-25 of col 10 and step 314 of Fig 3B; thus the template is updated with the data from the layers); and using the template, custom configure the application on a target computing device (step 315 of Fig 3B; line 62, col 11 through line 6, col 12 software application receives the configuration data; lines 35-45 of col 11),
For the limitations “wherein when the application is a Linux-based application, configure the application after installation, and wherein when the application is a Windows-based application, configure the application during installation”, Sans teaches configure the application after installation and configure the application during the installation (lines 62-65 of col 10; lines 5-10 of col 11; lines 37-43 of col 11; lines 53-56 of col 11; line 67, col 11 through line 6 of col 12 mention that installed software can query and receive the configuration data to run various features and functions; an installation may issue a query to obtain configuration data; to the software installation, issuing a query for configuration data; thus, application can be configured with the configuration data during installation and after installation). However, Sans does not mention that the application is Linux or Windows. In other words, Sans does not mention the following limitations:
- wherein when the application is a Linux-based application, configure the application after installation, and wherein when the application is a Windows-based application, configure the application during installation
Langendijk et al teach the following:
configure the application during/after installation ([0040] – software component can be configured during or after installation; [0039] – software component can be an application) when the application is Linux/windows application ([0040]- OS can be Windows or Linux and application can be preinstalled or installed in the OS)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the Linux application after the installation and windows application before the installation. Sans teaches configuration of the application during and after installation (lines 62-65 of col 10; lines 5-10 of col 11; lines 37-43 of col 11; lines 53-56 of col 11; line 67, col 11 through line 6 of col 12) without mentioning the Linux;/Windows application. With the teachings from Langendijk et al, the application can be either Linux or Windows and both cases of configuration of application (i.e., before/after installation) are known in the art. With configuration during the installation, the installed software may be configured with default configuration and may perform the operations upon startup (lines 1-10 of col 11 and lines 37-43 of col 11 Sans). With configuration after the installation, the installed software may be configured when a particular configuration is needed to run a feature or function (lines 40-44 of col 11 Sans). These provisions provide flexibility in the system. Post installation configuration provides desired control over the components while configuration during installation provides immediate control over the components. Both are user choices with associated benefits.
For claim 2, Sans et al teach the following limitations: wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to: generate an answer file using the template; and custom configure the application using the answer file (lines 20-35 of col 10 – templates are files; thus 501 is a file; lines 1-10 of col 8 mention configuration; lines 45-51 of col 8 mention configuration with single list).
For claim 3, Sans teach the following limitations wherein the template comprises a template file that specifies a format and type of configuration data (lines 40-60 of col 7 – can be region or business type; lines 10-25 of col 8 – particular set of accounts - format) that is expected from one of an installer associated with the application or a configuration tool associated with the application (lines 25-30 of col 12 – input for automated software configuration).
For claim 4, Sans teaches that wherein the data structure comprises a configuration file that stores the parameter (lines 25-30 of col 10 -files and lines 1-45 of col 9 – layers store metadata corresponding to product feature).
For claim 5, Sans et al teach wherein the parameter comprises a configuration setting of the application (lines 1-25 of col 8 – each new feature is associated with metadata that is stored in database to configure the application – feature toggle enable functionality).
For claim 6, Sans et al teach the following limitations wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to custom configure, using the parameter, another application on the computing device (line 60, col 7 through line 2, col 8 features and parameters to be adapted to different use cases; lines 40-60 of col 7 – common configuration data; thus, one parameter is used to configure plural applications when there is relationship).
For claim 7, Sans et al teach wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to custom configure the application on the computing device by the vendor of the computing device (lines 15-25 of col 8 – software vendors can create configuration template to target specific vertical segments).
For claim 11, Sans et al teach the following limitations: A configuration file chaining method (Fig 1 – Fig 6; col 10 mentions Fig 5 shows the aggregation of various layers to generate aggregate table; thus Fig 5 shows the configuration file chaining system) comprising: sequentially receiving a plurality of data structures (Fig 3B shows that step 312 and step 313 receives configuration metadata from system template layers and tenant specific layers; the layers are shown in Fig 4 and represent data structures; lines 35-40 of col 8) , the data structures storing configuration data (line 63, col 1 through line 5 col 2; line 49, col 7 through line 2 col 8 – each layer represents configuration data) associated with a plurality of domains (tenant specific domain, system domain and override domain for tenant/system as explained in col 9 and Fig 4; lines 63, col 1 through line 5 col 2 – system layer, tenant layer, override layer – system layer is for system domain and tenant layer is for tenant domain) that each have a different level of priority relative to one another (lines 55-66 of col 13 – override data/domain has higher priority, tenant override has the highest priority; system layer prioritizes system and tenant layer prioritizes tenant; lines 25-35 of col 2 and lines 60-65 of col 11 – tenant data and overrides are applied to system data – thus system data has lowest priority), wherein the configuration data comprises one or more parameters for an application (lines 1-13 of col 11; lines 60-65 of col 4; lines 45-50 of col 6; lines 1-10 of col 8 mention that each feature of software application (i.e., parameter of application is associated with configuration data)) ; and for each data structure: when the configuration data comprises a parameter for the application (Fig 3A, Fig 3C, line 22, col 12 through line 5 of col 13 mention the updating of the configuration data, whereas the layers have the configuration data including parameter of the application; lines 1-10 of col 8 and lines 20-30 of col 12); and when the parameter does not exist in a template associated with the application storing the parameter in the template (Fig 5 501 is the template, lines 50-51 of col 8 – single list; Fig 5 shows the merging as explained in lines 1-25 of col 10 and step 314 of Fig 3B; thus the template is updated with the data from the layers); and using the template, custom configure the application on a target computing device (step 315 of Fig 3B; line 62, col 11 through line 6, col 12 software application receives the configuration data; lines 35-45 of col 11).
For the limitations “wherein when the application is a Linux-based application, configure the application after installation, and wherein when the application is a Windows-based application, configure the application during installation”, the limitations are conditional, and method can be practiced without either the first or second condition happening (application may not be Linux-based or Windows-based). Therefore, BRI does not include these conditional limitations as these conditions are not required to be occurred. However, for compact prosecution, Examiner is addressing these limitations. Sans teaches configure the application after installation and configure the application during the installation (lines 62-65 of col 10; lines 5-10 of col 11; lines 37-43 of col 11; lines 53-56 of col 11; line 67, col 11 through line 6 of col 12 mention that installed software can query and receive the configuration data to run various features and functions; an installation may issue a query to obtain configuration data; to the software installation, issuing a query for configuration data; thus, application can be configured with the configuration data during installation and after installation). However, Sans does not mention that the application is Linux or Windows. In other words, Sans does not mention the following limitations:
- wherein when the application is a Linux-based application, configure the application after installation, and wherein when the application is a Windows-based application, configure the application during installation
Langendijk et al teach the following:
configure the application during/after installation ([0040] – software component can be configured during or after installation; [0039] – software component can be an application) when the application is Linux/windows application ([0040]- OS can be Windows or Linux and application can be preinstalled or installed in the OS)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the Linux application after the installation and windows application before the installation. Sans teaches configuration of the application during and after installation (lines 62-65 of col 10; lines 5-10 of col 11; lines 37-43 of col 11; lines 53-56 of col 11; line 67, col 11 through line 6 of col 12) and with the teachings from Langendijk et al, the application can be either Linux or Windows. Both cases of configuration of application are known in the art. With configuration during the installation, the installed software may be configured with default configuration and may perform the operations upon startup (lines 1-10 of col 11 and lines 37-43 of col 11 Sans). With configuration after the installation, the installed software may be configured when a particular configuration is needed to run a feature or function (lines 40-44 of col 11 Sans). These provisions provide flexibility in the system. Post installation configuration provides desired control over the components while configuration during installation provides immediate control over the components. Both are user choices with associated benefits
For claim 12, Sans et al teach the following limitations: generating an answer file using the template; and custom configuring the application using the answer file (lines 20-35 of col 10 – templates are files; thus 501 is a file; lines 1-10 of col 8 mention configuration; lines 45-51 of col 8 mention configuration with single list).
For claim 13, Sans teach the following limitations wherein the template comprises a template file that specifies a format and type of configuration data (lines 40-60 of col 7 – can be region or business type; lines 10-25 of col 8 – particular set of accounts - format) that is expected from one of an installer associated with the application or a configuration tool associated with the application (lines 25-30 of col 12 – input for automated software configuration).
For claim 14, Sans et al teach the following limitations custom configuring, using the parameter, another application on the computing device (line 60, col 7 through line 2, col 8 features and parameters to be adapted to different use cases; lines 40-60 of col 7 – common configuration data; thus, one parameter is used to configure plural applications when there is relationship).
For claim 15, Sans et al teach custom configuring the application on the computing device by the vendor of the computing device (lines 15-25 of col 8 – software vendors can create configuration template to target specific vertical segments).
For claim 19, Sans et al teach the following limitations: A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by an Information Handling System (IHS) (line 64, col 14 through line 3, col 15, lines 45-62 of col 15 mention that storage medium stores the code causing a processor in the computing device to perform the techniques), cause the IHS to: sequentially receive a plurality of data structures (Fig 3B shows that step 312 and step 313 receives configuration metadata from system template layers and tenant specific layers; the layers are shown in Fig 4 and represent data structures; lines 35-40 of col 8) , the data structures storing configuration data (line 63, col 1 through line 5 col 2; line 49, col 7 through line 2 col 8 – each layer represents configuration data) associated with a plurality of domains (tenant specific domain, system domain and override domain for tenant/system as explained in col 9 and Fig 4; lines 63, col 1 through line 5 col 2 – system layer, tenant layer, override layer – system layer is for system domain and tenant layer is for tenant domain) that each have a different level of priority relative to one another (lines 55-66 of col 13 – override data/domain has higher priority, tenant override has the highest priority; system layer prioritizes system and tenant layer prioritizes tenant; lines 25-35 of col 2 and lines 60-65 of col 11 – tenant data and overrides are applied to system data – thus system data has lowest priority), wherein the configuration data comprises one or more parameters for an application (lines 1-13 of col 11; lines 60-65 of col 4; lines 45-50 of col 6; lines 1-10 of col 8 mention that each feature of software application (i.e., parameter of application is associated with configuration data)) ; and for each data structure: when the configuration data comprises a parameter for the application (Fig 3A, Fig 3C, line 22, col 12 through line 5 of col 13 mention the updating of the configuration data, whereas the layers have the configuration data including parameter of the application; lines 1-10 of col 8 and lines 20-30 of col 12); and when the parameter does not exist in a template associated with the application store the parameter in the template (Fig 5 501 is the template, lines 50-51 of col 8 – single list; Fig 5 shows the merging as explained in lines 1-25 of col 10 and step 314 of Fig 3B; thus the template is updated with the data from the layers); and using the template, custom configure the application on a target computing device (step 315 of Fig 3B; line 62, col 11 through line 6, col 12 software application receives the configuration data; lines 35-45 of col 11).
For the limitations “wherein when the application is a Linux-based application, configure the application after installation, and wherein when the application is a Windows-based application, configure the application during installation”, Sans teaches configure the application after installation and configure the application during the installation (lines 62-65 of col 10; lines 5-10 of col 11; lines 37-43 of col 11; lines 53-56 of col 11; line 67, col 11 through line 6 of col 12 mention that installed software can query and receive the configuration data to run various features and functions; an installation may issue a query to obtain configuration data; to the software installation, issuing a query for configuration data; thus, application can be configured with the configuration data during installation and after installation). However, Sans does not mention that the application is Linux or Windows. In other words, Sans does not mention the following limitations:
- wherein when the application is a Linux-based application, configure the application after installation, and wherein when the application is a Windows-based application, configure the application during installation
Langendijk et al teach the following:
configure the application during/after installation ([0040] – software component can be configured during or after installation; [0039] – software component can be an application) when the application is Linux/windows application ([0040]- OS can be Windows or Linux and application can be preinstalled or installed in the OS)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the Linux application after the installation and windows application before the installation. Sans teaches configuration of the application during and after installation (lines 62-65 of col 10; lines 5-10 of col 11; lines 37-43 of col 11; lines 53-56 of col 11; line 67, col 11 through line 6 of col 12) and with the teachings from Langendijk et al, the application can be either Linux or Windows. Both cases of configuration of application are known in the art. With configuration during the installation, the installed software may be configured with default configuration and may perform the operations upon startup (lines 1-10 of col 11 and lines 37-43 of col 11 Sans). With configuration after the installation, the installed software may be configured when a particular configuration is needed to run a feature or function (lines 40-44 of col 11 Sans). These provisions provide flexibility in the system. Post installation configuration provides desired control over the components while configuration during installation provides immediate control over the components. Both are user choices with associated benefits
For claim 20, Sans et al teach the following limitations: wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to: generate an answer file using the template; and custom configure the application using the answer file (lines 20-35 of col 10 – templates are files; thus 501 is a file; lines 1-10 of col 8 mention configuration; lines 45-51 of col 8 mention configuration with single list).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sans et al (US Patent 11888684), in view of Langendijk et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0225144 – FP is 1/4/24), and further in view of Pampati et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0422198).
For claim 8 and claim 16, Sans et al teach that the domains comprise a user domain (401C in Fig 4 – tenant), a system domain (401A in Fig 4 -system) and a custom domain (overrides 401B and 401D). Sans et al, in view of Langendijk et al do not explicitly mention about application domain. However, Sans et al uses any number of layers (lines 53-65 of col 8). Pampati et al teach configuration data corresponding to application ([0068] identity parameters of an application for a plurality of platform). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide additional domain corresponds to application (i.e., application domain), since that will further facilitate the application configuration more accurately.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, Examiner is addressing the arguments regarding claim interpretations.
Applicant argues that cited art does not teach configuring an application during or after installation based on the OS type. Examiner disagrees that claim requires configuring an application during or after installation based on the OS type. Claim only requires Linux application be configured after the installation and Windows application be configured during installation. This does not necessarily require Linux application (or Windows application) cannot be configured during installation (or after installation); the exclusion is not recited in the claim. Additionally, claims do not require application be either Linux or Windows application. Claim requires that the application can be a Linux application (or windows application) and if it is, then configure the application after the installation (or during installation). The newly cited art Langendijk et al teach that the application can be configured during/after installation, where the application can be Linux or Windows
PTO-892 cites additional references that teach configuring Linux/Windows application after/during installation respectively. Therefore, configuring Linux/windows application after/during installation is a known concept in the art.
Conclusion
PTO-892 cites additional references but are not relied upon for rejections. Ferris teaches an application that can be configured after installation ([0013]). Jiang teaches configuring windows application during installation ([0022]). Kang teaches configuring windows application during installation ([0039]). Jacob teaches configuration during installation (Fig 2; line 44, col 1 through line 32, col 2) of application for Linux/windows (lines 25-32 of col 2).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 AM - 7 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FAHMIDA RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights