DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This communication is in response to the Applicant’s response filed on 18/809,930 to a prior Office Action. Claim 1-20 are pending for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 28, 2026 has been entered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, supports are shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated January 28, 2026 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of Teitelbaum et al. (US Patent Publication No. 8,571,882 B1).
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 9 that “Slember fails to disclose that the current source bucket continuously tracks changes of the objects with each database having an independent storage policy on a granularity of a bucket. Rather, the current source bucket ceases tracking changes or triggering replications.”, is acknowledged but not deemed to be persuasive.
Slember, Col 10, lines 8-9 discloses that a change in state of the object is sensed by the CRS (A CRS is configured to provide the ability to discover and track all objects in user specified buckets, Slember, Col 10, lines 8-9. Slember, Col 12, lines 41-46 discloses for example, by polling the bucket to determine the headers (including metadata) of each of the objects in the bucket. New objects are identified as having no previous metadata or object name, or changed objects have different metadata from the last time the metadata was scanned (i.e., continuously tracking changes), Slember, Col 11, lines 57-63 discloses that when the object is initially stored, the user constructs or selects rules for replicating or otherwise managing the subsequent procedural history of the object (e.g., replication, tiering) and sends the rule and the appropriate permissions including source and destination buckets to the CRS. The CRS needs to observe the rules (protocols) particular to each storage provider for accessing the storage endpoint (i.e., databases having rules or policies). Therefore, Slember teaches the above argued limitation of claim 1.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 9,767,187. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Patent No. 12,079,193
Instant Application No. 18/809,930
1. A computer implemented method performed by one or more processing resources of a distributed storage system, the method comprising:
managing storage of objects and continuously tracking changes of the objects using a distributed object storage database that includes a first database of a first type and one or more chapter databases of a second type with the distributed object storage database supporting a primary lookup index for a chapter database to locate a record by object name and a secondary lookup index implemented in the chapter database to organize pending work items for one or more peer buckets in order to locate a record based on a peer link identifier;
creating a record for an object having an object name, the object being stored in a bucket of the distributed object storage database of the distributed storage system;
linking the bucket to a peer bucket based on a directive that describes a pending work item for the peer bucket; and
automatically adding a work item for the object to the secondary lookup index of a chapter database based on the record being created in the bucket and a state of the peer bucket.
1. A computer implemented method performed by one or more processing resources of a distributed storage system, the method comprising:
managing storage of objects in a bucket of a first database of a first storage site and replicating the objects to one or more peer buckets of a second database of a second storage site of the distributed storage system;
continuously tracking changes of the objects and storing the objects using a distributed object storage database that includes the first and second databases with each database having an independent storage policy on a granularity of a bucket;
supporting and implementing, with the first database, a lookup index to dynamically organize pending work items of the first database for changes to the one or more peer buckets based on a multiple-field sort function to sort the pending work items with multiple fields including sorting by a peer link identifier to identify each of the one or more peer buckets and sorting by an object change time field.
2. The computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
creating a record for an object having an object name, the object being stored in the bucket of the distributed object storage database of the distributed storage system;
linking the bucket to a peer bucket based on a directive that describes a pending work item for the peer bucket;
generating a peer marker field for the record to store one peer marker of multiple different peer markers depending on a relationship between the bucket and the peer bucket; and
automatically adding a work item for the object to the lookup index of a chapter database based on the record being created in the bucket and a state of the peer marker for the peer bucket.
Table 1
As exemplarily illustrated in Table 1 above, both are directed to distributed storage systems and methods to pride change tracking integrating with scalable databases; see claim language of both for detail. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-20 of patent 12,079,193 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application 18/809,930 because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. It has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Karlson (CCPA), 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Please also see MPEP § 804.
Independent claims 8 and 17 are substantially encompass the method recited in claim 1 and are also being rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,079,193.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slember et al. (US Patent No. 11,468,087 B1, ‘Slember’, hereafter) in view of Teitelbaum et al. (US Patent Publication No. 8,571,882 B1, ‘Teitelbaum’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1. Slember teaches a computer implemented method performed by one or more processing resources of a distributed storage system (The system and method disclosed herein overcomes a number of underlying structural and procedural issues that limit the efficiency, the effectivity and the economic benefits that could be available using a globally distributed storage and data processing environment, Slember, Col 4, lines 50-54 and Col 8, lines 5-16), the method comprising:
managing storage of objects in a bucket of a first database of a first storage site and replicating the objects to one or more peer buckets of a second database of a second storage site of the distributed storage system (receiving a rule for managing an object in a replication group of objects stored by a user in a bucket in a first cloud environment of a plurality of cloud environments (i.e., managing storage object in a distributed storage system), Slember, Col 4, lines 2-5. When the object is initially stored, the user constructs or selects rules for replicating or otherwise managing the subsequent procedural history of the object (e.g., replication, tiering) and sends the rule and the appropriate permissions including source and destination buckets to the CRS (i.e., managing storage object), Slember, Col 11, lines 57-63. When a change is detected, for example, by scanning bucket headers or receiving a notification from the cloud provider, the rule is consulted and the Cloud Replication System (CRS) initiates whatever process is needed to satisfy the rule. Replicate an object from the current location in cloud 3 to a named bucket in cloud 2, for which the CRS has been provided with appropriate access permissions (i.e., replicating the objects to one or more peer buckets of a second database), Slember, Col 12, lines 41-60. When the source bucket change operation commences, the Cloud Replication System (CRS) may make snapshots of the states of the current source buckets and the designated replacement source bucket Snapshots may include a listing of the matching contents of the bucket (the replication group members), along with the per-object metadata. The current source bucket ceases tracking changes or triggering replications. The objects subject to the replication policy are copied to the designated replacement source bucket and replicating resumes, with any changes transpiring between the last snapshot and the start of replication being added to a change list (i.e., replicating the objects to one or more peer buckets of a second database), Slember, Col 22, lines 46-57 );
continuously tracking changes of the objects and storing the objects using a distributed object storage database that includes the first and second databases with each database having an independent storage policy on a granularity of a bucket (A change in state of the object is sensed by the CRS (A CRS is configured to provide the ability to discover and track all objects in user specified buckets, Slember, Col 10, lines 8-9), for example, by polling the bucket to determine the headers (including metadata) of each of the objects in the bucket. New objects are identified as having no previous metadata or object name, or changed objects have different metadata from the last time the metadata was scanned (i.e., continuously tracking changes), Slember, Col 12, lines 41-46. When the object is initially stored, the user constructs or selects rules for replicating or otherwise managing the subsequent procedural history of the object (e.g., replication, tiering) and sends the rule and the appropriate permissions including source and destination buckets to the CRS. The CRS needs to observe the rules (protocols) particular to each storage provider for accessing the storage endpoint (i.e., databases having rules or policies), Slember, Col 11, lines 57-63. When the source bucket change operation commences, the Cloud Replication System (CRS) may make snapshots of the states of the current source buckets and the designated replacement source bucket Snapshots may include a listing of the matching contents of the bucket (the replication group members), along with the per-object metadata. The current source bucket ceases tracking changes or triggering replications. The objects subject to the replication policy are copied to the designated replacement source bucket and replicating resumes, with any changes transpiring between the last snapshot the start of replication being added to a change list (i.e., replicating the objects to one or more peer buckets of a second database based on rules and policies), Slember, Col 22, lines 46-57); and
Slember does not explicitly teaches
supporting and implementing, with the first database, a lookup index to dynamically organize pending work items of the first database for changes to the one or more peer buckets based on a multiple-field sort function to sort the pending work items with multiple fields including sorting by a peer link identifier to identify each of the one or more peer buckets and sorting by an object change time field.
However, Teitelbaum teaches
supporting and implementing, with the first database, a lookup index to dynamically organize pending work items of the first database for changes to the one or more peer buckets based on a multiple-field sort function to sort the pending work items with multiple fields including sorting by a peer link identifier to identify each of the one or more peer buckets and sorting by an object change time field (the P2P index may provide a modifiable index on a peer to peer database that supports many different types of indexes which may include lookup, data aggregation, data sorting, Teitelbaum, (40) Col 5, lines 14-17. The application may use the index address to retrieve the index from the peer-to-peer database, and may retrieve the value from the index and use it to lookup the indexed data. The index may be used as a sorting index (i.e., lookup index is used to sort data), Teitelbaum, (52) Col 7, lines 25-29. Optimized the data replication by grouping data into buckets by a deterministic algorithm using both the closet network node address and the age of the data, Teitelbaum, (19) Col 10, lines 41-43, (66) Col 17, lines 39-57. The near locality grouping algorithm or index persistence definition which may be attached to an index definition which creates a linked listing of summary nodes grouped (i.e., buckets)and persisted at a deterministic location by generating value that can be sorted for grouping (i.e., sorting by peer link for buckets). For example, for sorting an index by the index values first letter each node would report its local data index values and then run the resulting value through a grouping algorithm (to retrieve the first letter), and then store the index values at that grouping location. … The linked list may result from storing the previous and next network ID of actual index nodes and inserting new nodes in the list as new values are added (i.e., dynamically organizing values), Teitelbaum, (156) Col 34, lines 23-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Slember and Teitelbaum before him/her, to modify Slember with the teaching of Teitelbaum’s system for providing database functionality on a peer-to-peer network. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of providing each node on a peer-to-peer database may use a local database management system to store and retrieve data efficiently (Teitelbaum l, Abstract and Col 2, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 8. Slember teaches a storage node comprising: one or more processing resources; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the one or more processing resources, having stored therein instructions, which when executed by the one or more processing resources (a computer program product, comprises: computer-readable instructions stored on a non-transient non-volatile storage medium for configuring a server processor, Slember, Col 3, line 65 – Col 4, line 2. A computer program product that may include a non-volatile (non-transient) computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which may be used to program (configure) a computer (or other electronic devices) to perform the methods or functions, Slember, Col 5, lines 50-67. Functions that are performed by a computer operable to process and execute the code may be equivalently performed by an electronic circuit. … Such expressions are merely a convenient way of saying that execution of the instructions of the software by a computer or equivalent device causes the processor of the computer or the equivalent device to perform an action or to produce a result, Slember, Col 6, lines 16-40, Col 10, lines 32-50) cause the one or more processing resources to:
although claim 8 directed to a storage node, it is similar in scope to claim 1. The method steps of claim 1 substantially encompass the storage node recited in claim 8. Therefore; claim 8 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17. Slember teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodying a set of instructions, which when executed by one or more processing resources of a distributed storage system (a computer program product, comprises: computer-readable instructions stored on a non-transient non-volatile storage medium for configuring a server processor, Slember, Col 3, line 65 – Col 4, line 2. A computer program product that may include a non-volatile (non-transient) computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which may be used to program (configure) a computer (or other electronic devices) to perform the methods or functions, Slember, Col 5, lines 50-67. Functions that are performed by a computer operable to process and execute the code may be equivalently performed by an electronic circuit. … Such expressions are merely a convenient way of saying that execution of the instructions of the software by a computer or equivalent device causes the processor of the computer or the equivalent device to perform an action or to produce a result, Slember, Col 6, lines 16-40, Col 10, lines 32-50) cause the one or more processing resources to:
although claim 17 directed to a medium, it is similar in scope to claim 1. The method steps of claim 1 substantially encompass the medium recited in claim 17. Therefore; claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1 above.
Claims 2-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slember et al. (US Patent No. 11,468,087 B1, ‘Slember’, hereafter) in view of Teitelbaum et al. (US Patent Publication No. 8,571,882 B1, ‘Teitelbaum’, hereafter) in view of De Schrijver et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0165760 A1, ‘De Schrijver’, hereafter, provided by IDS) and further in view of Xing et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0068038 A1, ‘Xing’, hereafter, provided by IDS).
Regarding claim 2. Slember and Teitelbaum do not teach, further comprising:
generating a peer marker field for the record to store one peer marker of multiple different peer markers depending on a relationship between the bucket and the peer bucket; and
automatically adding a work item for the object to the lookup index of a chapter database based on the record being created in the bucket and a state of the peer marker for the peer bucket.
However, De Schrijver teaches
generating a peer marker field for the record to store one peer marker of multiple different peer markers depending on a relationship between the bucket and the peer bucket (replication queue, retry queue for pending replication requests as in De Schrijver [0076] the queue is the "secondary lookup index" and objects in the retry queue are "work items"); and
automatically adding a work item for the object to the lookup index of a chapter database based on the record being created in the bucket and a state of the peer marker for the peer bucket (replication queue, retry queue for pending replication requests as in De Schrijver [0076] the queue is the "secondary lookup index" and objects in the retry queue are "work items").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Slember, Teitelbaum and De Schrijver before him/her, to further modify Slember with the teaching of De Schrijver’s managing dependent delete operations among data stores. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of reliable and efficient implementations for managing deletion of dependent data objects as large-scale storage systems scale and create more dependent data objects that depend on increasingly large dependency sets (De Schrijver, Abstract and [0007]).
Slember, Teitelbaum and De Schrijver do not teach
creating a record for an object having an object name, the object being stored in a bucket of the distributed object storage database of the distributed storage system;
linking the bucket to a peer bucket based on a directive that describes a pending work item for the peer bucket;
However, Xing teaches
creating a record for an object having an object name, the object being stored in a bucket of the distributed object storage database of the distributed storage system (objects can be grouped in hierarchical levels buckets based on object names … During operation, client applications operating upon these buckets send requests to add new objects to buckets and access existing objects in buckets. As the cloud data management service receives such requests it updates the tables of the time-series database (i.e., in the distributed database services 118 of the management nodes of FIG. 1) to include time stamps and other tracking information associated with the requests, including but not limited to the objects and buckets associated with the requests and the object data included in the requests, Xing [0049-0050]);
linking the bucket to a peer bucket based on a directive that describes a pending work item for the peer bucket (several additional buckets that were created and/or supported by the cloud data management service in association with the /BAR bucket 200 and the /FOO bucket 210. These buckets include a snapshot 202 of the /BAR bucket 200 at a specific time X, a roll-back 204 that rolls back bucket 200 to another specific time Y, and a clone of bucket 210 to a third time Z, Xing [0050-0051]. Please also see [0016-0021]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Slember, Teitelbaum, De Schrijver and Xing before him/her, to further modify Slember with the teaching of Xing’s managing cloud-based storage using a time-series database. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of having techniques for providing flexible and extensible network storage systems for managing data stored in a cloud computing environment (Xing, Abstract and [0002]).
Regarding claim 3. Slember as modified teaches wherein the distributed object storage database is a flat namespace database with no directories and a collection of unique filenames, wherein the distributed object storage database continuously tracks changes of the objects that are stored in the distributed object storage database without using a separate transaction log database (Xing [0054-0055], [0058] and Fig. 3B. Please also [0006-0016]).
Regarding claim 4. Slember as modified teaches wherein each chapter database implements the lookup index that encapsulates a work list of work items for each chapter database (De Schrijver [0042], [0045], [0076]).
Regarding claim 5. Slember as modified teaches wherein individual entries added into the lookup index are sorted first by peer identity and then by object change time (De Schrijver [0042], [0045], [0076], [0085], [0164-0165]).
Regarding claim 6. Slember as modified teaches further comprising: automatically storing the record and adding an entry into an object lookup index to locate the object by object name (De Schrijver [0042], [0045], [0076]).
Regarding claim 7. Slember as modified teaches wherein the directive comprises a push new directive to push a new object from the bucket to the peer bucket, a push changes directive to push changes to an object from the bucket to the peer bucket, a delete remote directive, or an archival directive, wherein the bucket is configured to track its relationships with peer buckets, to determine when to push objects to peered buckets, and to determine data to be pulled from peer buckets in order to provide an independent storage policy on a granularity of a bucket (Xing [0006], [0016], [0054-0055], [0058]).
Regarding claims 9-13, the method steps of claims 2-6 substantially encompass the storage node recited in claims 9-13. Therefore, claims 9-13 are rejected for at least the same reason as claims 2-6 above.
Regarding claim 14. Slember as modified teaches wherein the one or more processing resources is configured to execute instructions to:
generate a peer marker field for the record to store one peer marker of multiple different peer markers depending on a relationship between the bucket and the peer bucket (replication manager is monitoring, i.e., marking, the processing of the barrier object in the replication, i.e., the bucket and the peer bucket when copying the objects to the replication store, De Schrijver [0070-0071]); and
expand the record of the object within the chapter database to include a list of peer markers with a peer marker for each configured peer bucket (Xing [0007-0010], [0014], [0048], [0055]).
Regarding claim 15. Slember as modified teaches wherein the peer marker comprises a negative state to indicate that a corresponding peer bucket does not know that the object exists, and does not have a copy of the object (Xing [0007-0010], [0014], [0048], [0055]).
Regarding claim 16. Slember as modified teaches wherein the peer marker comprises a positive state to indicate that the object has been pushed to the corresponding peer bucket, and that the peer bucket has acknowledged receipt of the object, wherein the peer marker comprises a metadata state to indicate that the object was previously in the positive state with respect to this peer, and the metadata has changed locally at the bucket since a time of the positive state (Xing [0007-0010], [0014], [0048], [0055]).
Regarding claim 18. Slember as modified teaches wherein the distributed object storage database is a flat namespace database with no directories and a collection of unique filenames (Xing [0054-0055], [0058] and Fig. 3B. Please also [0006-0016]), wherein each chapter database implements the lookup index that encapsulates a work list of work items for each chapter database (De Schrijver [0042], [0045], [0076]).
Regarding claim 19. Slember as modified teaches wherein individual entries added into the lookup index are sorted first by peer identity and then by object change time (De Schrijver [0042], [0045], [0076], [0085], [0164-0165]).
Regarding claim 20. Slember as modified teaches wherein each peer marker indicates a link identity and peer state to allow each chapter database to efficiently track the peer state of each object with respect to each peer (Xing [0050-0051]. Please also see [0016-0021]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome any objection and/or any rejection of the claims.
If the Applicant agreed to the allowable subject matter, Examiner respectfully request the Applicant to make the similar modification to the other independent claims.
Conclusion
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 HASANUL MOBIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1289. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM to 6:00PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASANUL MOBIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168