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 .
In a response filed 17 March 2026, Applicant amends claims 1, 12 & 17, cancels claims 5, 14 & 18, and claims 21-23 are newly added.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17 and 19-23 are presented for examination.
Examiner’s Remark
At the time of writing of the instant action, the Examiner is aware of potential avenues for advancing prosecution and encourages Applicant to contact the Examiner to advance prosecution.
Previous Action by Different Examiner
MPEP 706.04 states, at least in part, “Full faith and credit should be given to the search and action of a previous examiner unless there is a clear error in the previous action or knowledge of other prior art. In general, an examiner should not take an entirely new approach or attempt to reorient the point of view of a previous examiner, or make a new search in the mere hope of finding something. Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 69, 139, 57 USPQ2d 1449, 1499-50 (D. Mass. 2001).”
The instant application has been transferred to a different Examiner; accordingly, the Examiner has performed an updated search and consideration of the art consistent with the MPEP.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 17 March 2026, in combination with the filed amendments, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/112(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/112(1) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 17 March 2026, in combination with the filed amendments, with respect to the claim issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The issues are withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of claim rejections necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because each of the claims are directed to an a system comprising a memory and a controller.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed memory includes transitory signals. The Specification does not describe the metes and bounds, but also does not exclude transitory signals. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed controller includes software or software elements alone; such an interpretation is not expressly excluded. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007) and In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is transitory signals and software. It has been noted that the ordinary and customary meaning of "computer readable storage medium" or a memory, to a person of ordinary skill in the art is broad enough to encompass both non-transitory and transitory media. See Ex parte Mewherter (Appeal 2012-007682) (Precedential). Transitory, propagating signals such as carrier waves are not within any of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Therefore, a claim directed to computer instructions embodied in a signal is not statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The subject matter of the claims permitted within 35 U.S.C. 101 must be a machine, a manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. "[t]he four categories [of § 101] together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If the claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007); accord In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “The MPEP instructs that when a claim covers ‘both statutory and non-statutory embodiments,’ it is not eligible for patenting. MPEP § 2106 (9th ed. Mar. 2014.).” quoting Mentor Graphics v. Synopsys (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2017, Precedential).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOSTANCIOGLU et al (U.S. Pat US 10218519 B1), in view of BINGHAM (U.S. Pat Ap Pub 20100031349 A1), in further view of either Fay et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2015/0310865 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fay or Almaz et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2022/0014533 A1), hereinafter referred to as Almaz.
Re claim 1: BOSTANCIOGLU teaches:
A memory device, comprising: one or more components configured to: identify an operation to access content stored in a memory of the memory device ((50) Col 14 lines 35-37 "… at an operation 302, request information related to user requests for content may be obtained."),
wherein the operation is associated with a user profile ((50) Col 14 lines 37-39 "The request information related to an individual request may include one or more of an account identifier of a requesting user account …");
flag a user, associated with the user profile, as being potentially malicious based on the operation conflicting with a past content access pattern associated with the user profile ((54) Col 15 lines 9-16 "At an operation 310, the request information included in the log may be analyzed ... to identify one or more of the requesting user accounts that ... should not be provided access to the online content in the future. The request information may be analyzed according to individual ones of the requesting users.", Previously defining the log (23) Col 8 lines 44-51 "... the log may be analyzed to identify unauthorized and/or anomalous use associated with the online content.", and previously defining “anomalous use” (26) Col 9 lines 30-32 "... anomalous use may be derived from users' access behavior (e.g., indicated by the request information associated with a given user account)."); and
BINGHAM teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by BOSTANCIOGLU:
lock the memory based on the user being flagged ([0022] "… The appropriate action varies from simply locking storage device 12 to erasing all data on storage device 12.").
Identifying data operations by a user and associated with a user account or profile, and determining the user may be anomalous or malicious based on their previous data operations are known techniques in the art, as demonstrated by BOSTANCIOGLU. Further, locking a storage device in response to attempted access by a suspicious user is a known techniques in the art, as demonstrated by BINGHAM. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operation patterns and anomalous user identification of BOSTANCIOGLU with the storage lock of BINGHAM with the motivation to increase the security of the system by preventing any access to vulnerable to data by a user deemed untrustworthy or potentially malicious.
Fay teaches identify in association with the user profile, a past content access pattern over one or more power cycles of the memory device, wherein the past content access pattern is determined from user interactions with the memory device that are aggregated over the one or more power cycles (¶5; ¶22; ¶26-¶27; ¶40).
Alternatively, Almaz teaches identify in association with the user profile, a past content access pattern over one or more power cycles of the memory device, wherein the past content access pattern is determined from user interactions with the memory device that are aggregated over the one or more power cycles (¶74-¶75; ¶106; ¶187).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of BOSTANCIOGLU and BINGHAM with the teachings of either Fay or Almaz, for the purpose of providing the well-known results of retaining user profile data through multiple reboots; maintaining user profile data when a device has a hard restart is a well known result of record permanence.
Re claim 4: The combination of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz teaches:
The memory device of claim 1, wherein the past content access pattern is maintained across power cycles of the memory device (BOSTANCIOGLU Col 12 lines 61-65 "Electronic storage 122 may include one or more of optically readable storage media ..., magnetically readable storage media …").
Re claim 7: The combination of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz teaches:
The memory device of claim 1, wherein the one or more components, to lock the memory, are configured to: apply a timed lock to lock the memory for a duration of time (BINGHAM [0027] "… The data may be permanently locked, locked for a pre-determined amount of time, or locked pending receipt of an appropriate communication from key 24.").
Applying a timed lock to a storage device based on user actions is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by BINGHAM. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage device security of BOSTANCIOGLU and BINGHAM with the timed storage lock of BINGHAM with the motivation to only temporarily lock a device as opposed to making loss of data access permanent.
Re claim 10: The combination of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz teaches:
The memory device of claim 1, wherein the one or more components, to lock the memory, are configured to: apply a total lock to lock the memory, wherein the total lock prevents an access associated with the user profile (BINGHAM [0027] "… The data may be permanently locked, locked for a pre-determined amount of time, or locked pending receipt of an appropriate communication from key 24.").
Applying a total lock to a storage device based on user actions is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by BINGHAM. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage device security of BOSTANCIOGLU and BINGHAM with the timed storage lock of BINGHAM with the motivation to prevent any data access at in in the presence of a potentially malicious user attempting access to sensitive data.
Re claim 12: BOSTANCIOGLU teaches:
wherein subsequent access attempts associated with the user profile are blocked based on the locking mechanism ((20) Col 7 lines 64-67 "Responsive to a determination that the requesting user accounts should not be provided access ..., access component 110 may be configured to deny the user requests for content.").
The remainder of this claim’s limitations are rejected with the same prior art mapping and justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 1. (see supra).
Re claim 17: BOSTANCIOGLU teaches:
A system, comprising: memory; and
The remainder of this claim’s limitations are rejected with the same prior art mapping and justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claims 1 and 12.
Re claim 21: The combination of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz teaches the past content access pattern comprises typical read/write operations, types of operations, areas of the memory device that are accessed or not accessed, or a combination thereof, associated with the user profile (Fay: ¶5; ¶22; ¶26-¶27; ¶40; Almaz: Almaz).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable BOSTANCIOGLU et al (U.S. Pat US 10218519 B1), in view of BINGHAM (U.S. Pat Ap Pub 20100031349 A1), in further view of either Fay et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2015/0310865 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fay or Almaz et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2022/0014533 A1), hereinafter referred to as Almaz, and further in view of SUH (U.S. Pat App Pub 20230099543 A1).
Re claim 2: The combination of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz teaches
The memory device of claim 1,
SUH teaches:
wherein the operation is an operation to read content stored in the memory or an operation to write content to the memory ([0024] "Once the channel is established with the memory protection module 20, the user may securely conduct read and write I/O operations to the computer memory 18 and/or the storage device 22.").
Including read and write operations in a user’s profile is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by SUH. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage device security of of the combination with the user I/O operation monitoring of SUH with the motivation to ensure that I/O operations are among the operations monitored by the system so that patterns regarding I/O operations can be detected.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOSTANCIOGLU et al (U.S. Pat US 10218519 B1), in view of BINGHAM (U.S. Pat Ap Pub 20100031349 A1), in further view of either Fay et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2015/0310865 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fay or Almaz et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2022/0014533 A1), hereinafter referred to as Almaz, and further in view of JAKOBSSON (U.S. Pat App Pub 20210173897 A1).
Re claim 3: The combination of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz teaches
The memory device of claim 1,
JAKOBSSON teaches:
wherein the user profile indicates one or more of: a username associated with the user, a user password or passphrase, a user privilege level associated with accessing content, a credential expiry, or a selected recovery mechanism, and the user profile is stored on a secure portion of the memory device ([0024] "A profile is associated with a vault (e.g., vault 220). The vault, in turn, contains ... a username, and a credential. The vault can also contain other sensitive user information ..." and [0084] "… At least portions of the profile are stored securely at 1004; examples of such secure storing include storing the profile in a secure storage …").
Storing user profile data such as credential info in a secure area of storage is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by JAKOBSSON. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage device security of the combination with the secure user profile storage of JAKOBSSON with the motivation to secure user profile data from unauthorized viewing as it is used for determining operation patterns of the user.
Regarding claim 13:
This claim is rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 3 above.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOSTANCIOGLU et al (U.S. Pat US 10218519 B1), in view of BINGHAM (U.S. Pat Ap Pub 20100031349 A1), in further view of either Fay et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2015/0310865 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fay or Almaz et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2022/0014533 A1), hereinafter referred to as Almaz, and further in view of TAKASE (U.S. Pat App Pub 20180253353 A1).
Re claim 6: The combination of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz teaches
The memory device of claim 1,
TAKASE teaches:
The memory device of claim 1, wherein the operation is identified for a current active session associated with the user, and information regarding the operation is not retained across a reset or a power cycle of the memory device ([0057] "… When accepting a write request from the host 2 via the host I/F 15, the CPU 11 temporarily stores user data included in the write request in the SRAM 16 ...").
Storing temporary data in volatile memory so that it will be discarded during a device reset is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by TAKASE. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage device security of the combination with the I/O data SRAM storage of TAKASE with the motivation to ensure I/O operation data is discarded after a device rest so that it cannot be viewed by a future unauthorized user.
Re claim 15: This claim is rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 6 above.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOSTANCIOGLU et al (U.S. Pat US 10218519 B1), in view of BINGHAM (U.S. Pat Ap Pub 20100031349 A1), in further view of either Fay et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2015/0310865 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fay or Almaz et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2022/0014533 A1), hereinafter referred to as Almaz, and further in view of KWON et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 20180075236 A1).
Re claim 8: The combination of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz teaches
The memory device of claim 1,
KWON teaches the following limitation(s)
The memory device of claim 1, wherein the one or more components, to lock the memory, are configured to: apply a staggered lock to lock the memory with varying levels of access restrictions ([0076] "... the protection mode may … set the memory area 220 of the storage device 200 to “read-only” state, may set the protected area 222 of the memory area 220 to “read-only”, or may block an access to the protected area 222.").
“Staggering” a lock on a storage device so different types of access are permitted or denied, based on user actions, is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by KWON. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage device security of the combination with the staggered lock of KWON with the motivation to allow partial access to a user in the event that it is acceptable to allow access to non-sensitive data to users not proven to be malicious.
Re claim 9: The combination of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz teaches
The memory device of claim 1,
KWON teaches the following limitation(s)
The memory device of claim 1, wherein the one or more components, to lock the memory, are configured to: apply a zoned lock to lock the user profile from accessing a secure zone of the memory, wherein the secure zone is associated with a particular address range of the memory ([0040] "... the protected area 222 may store data ... needing heightened security, data (e.g., boot data) that is needed for booting, recovery data that is needed for recovery, etc." and [0076] "... the protection mode may … block an access to the protected area 222.").
Locking certain regions or areas of a storage device based on user actions is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by KWON. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage device security of the combination with the region lock of KWON with the motivation to allow partial access to a user in the event that it is acceptable to allow access to non-sensitive data to users not proven to be malicious.
Re claim 11: The combination of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz teaches
The memory device of claim 1,
KWON teaches the following limitation(s):
The memory device of claim 1, wherein the memory is an encrypted memory or an unencrypted memory, and the one or more components are implemented using embedded hardware and firmware of the memory device ([0033] "The storage device 200 may include an anti-virus/malware (anti-VM) unit 216 …" and [0036] "… the anti-VM 216 may be implemented with … firmware.").
Implementing security for a storage device within the firmware of the device is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by KWON. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage device security of the combination with the firmware implementation of KWON with the motivation to minimize the footprint of the security system so that it is limited to the device itself.
Re claims 16, 19 and 20: These claims are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as their counterpart claims 7-11 above.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable BOSTANCIOGLU et al (U.S. Pat US 10218519 B1), BINGHAM (U.S. Pat Ap Pub 20100031349 A1), and either Fay et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2015/0310865 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fay or Almaz et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2022/0014533 A1), hereinafter referred to as Almaz, in further view of Laffey et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2021/0135872 A1), hereinafter referred to as Laffey.
Re claim 22: The combination of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as previously stated.
Laffey teaches the one or more components, to identify the operation, are configured to: detect, based on the operation, that the user is trying to access data from a protected zone of the memory device (Fig 8; ¶82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz with the teachings of Laffey, for the purpose of providing predictable variations in the art of data security where Laffey explicitly imposes preventative measures to prevent data loss, security breaches and malicious attacks when an identified user is attempting to access a protected memory not set in an appropriate security state.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable BOSTANCIOGLU et al (U.S. Pat US 10218519 B1), BINGHAM (U.S. Pat Ap Pub 20100031349 A1), and either Fay et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2015/0310865 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fay or Almaz et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2022/0014533 A1), hereinafter referred to as Almaz, in further view of Sallam (U.S. Pat App Pub 2012/0255012 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sallam.
Re claim 23: The combination of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as previously stated.
Sallam teaches the one or more components, to identify the operation, are configured to: detect that the user is attempting to access and overwrite firmware on the memory device when the user profile is not associated with an administrator level (¶70; ¶78; ¶93; ¶125; ¶142; ¶273).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of BOSTANCIOGLU, BINGHAM and Fay/Almaz with the teachings of Laffey, for the purpose of providing predictable variations in the art of data security where Sallam provides for protecting and reporting unauthorized modification of software/firmware from entities.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note:
The Examiner identified and designated “the particular part[s] [of the references] relied on” as provided in 37 C.F.R § 1.104(c)(2).
A reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples. In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1 (CCPA 1982) (A prior art reference’s disclosure is not limited to its examples.). Nor do disclosed examples teach away from a reference’s broader disclosure. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3 (CCPA 1971); In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966) (All of the disclosures in a prior art reference “must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art.”).
“The prima facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production.” Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d. 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The court has, thus, held that the USPTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when its rejection satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132 by notifying the applicant of the reasons for rejection, “together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
MPEP 2123 [R – 08.2012] states: "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. "The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.").
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. See: Ralston Purina Co. v. FarMar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985), In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983), Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010), Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000), Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and TurboCare Div. of Demag Delavel Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTOL-892.
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 DARREN B SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-7pm EST, Monday-Thursday, 9am-5pm EST, Friday.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/DARREN B SCHWARTZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights