DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 6 recite “included in processing included in processing” in lines 19-20, 14-15, respectively. This appears to be a repeated phrase. The Examiner suggests deleting the repeated portion of the phrase.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – Examiner Notes
The Examiner notes:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II).
With respect to claim 8, it recites the following conditions and corresponding contingent steps:
With respect to claim 8, since the claim does not require the condition of “execute processing of the service in the protected area usable computer”, the contingent step “executing normal area using processing…” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
With respect to claim 8, since the claim does not require the condition of “make a request for processing of the service to the general computer”, the contingent step “executing a step of, …, executing corresponding protected area using processing…” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1
“a protected area using processing unit configured to execute…”
“a normal area using processing unit configured to execute… to make…”
“a service reception unit configured to receive…”
“a cooperation processing unit configured to make…”
“a cooperation unit configured to receive… to make…”
A) Generic placeholder/Non-structural term: “unit”
B) Functional language: “execute”, “make”, “receive” and Linking phrase: “configured to”
C) Not modified by sufficient structure: “protected area using processing”, “normal area using processing”, “service reception”, “cooperation processing”, “cooperation”
Claim 6
“a protected area using processing unit configured to execute…”
“a normal area using processing unit configured to execute… to make…”
“a service reception unit configured to receive…”
“a cooperation processing unit configured to make… to make…”
A) Generic placeholder/Non-structural term: “unit”
B) Functional language: “execute”, “make”, “receive” and Linking phrase: “configured to”
C) Not modified by sufficient structure: “protected area using processing”, “normal area using processing”, “service reception”, “cooperation processing”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 6, they recite claim limitations “protected area using processing unit”, “normal area using processing unit”, “service reception unit”, “cooperation processing unit” and “cooperation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding “protected area using processing unit”, page 47, lines 4-7 discloses “a protected area using processing unit 113 that executes protected area using processing processed in the protected area 121” but disclose no definite structure of the unit.
Regarding “normal area using processing unit”, page 47, lines 7-9 discloses “a normal area using processing unit 114 that executes normal area using processing processed in the normal area 122” but disclose no definite structure of the unit.
Regarding “service reception unit”, page 47, lines 9-11 disclose “a service reception unit (protected area using service reception unit 111) that receives a request for a service” but disclose no definite structure of the unit.
Regarding “cooperation processing unit”, page 47 lines 11-15 disclose “a cooperation processing unit (see cooperation processing unit 112, with-general computer cooperation unit 115) that makes a request for processing of the service to the normal area using processing unit 114 or the general computer 200” but disclose no definite structure of the unit.
Regarding “cooperation unit”, page 47, lines 16-20 disclose “The general computer 200 includes a cooperation unit (see with-protected area usable computer cooperation unit 211, cooperation processing unit 212, normal area using processing unit 213) that receives a request for processing of the service” but disclose no definite structure of the unit.
In addition, in cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under a similar rationale. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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 1-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims recite executing processing on normal areas or protected areas of storage memory, comprising: “protect data in use…”, “execute protected area using processing…”, “execute normal area using processing…”, “receive a request for a service”, “make a request for processing of the service…”, “receive a request for processing of the service, execute normal area using processing… return a processing result…”, “make a request for the protected area using processing unit… execute the protected area using processing…”, “execute the protected area using processing…”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of executing processing on normal areas or protected areas of storage memory, comprising: “protect data in use…”, “execute protected area using processing…”, “execute normal area using processing…”, “receive a request for a service”, “make a request for processing of the service…”, “receive a request for processing of the service, execute normal area using processing… return a processing result…”, “make a request for the protected area using processing unit… execute the protected area using processing…”, “execute the protected area using processing…”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In addition, the step of transmitting corresponding session identification information, and transmit a processing result constitutes extra solution activity because (1) these techniques are well known, (2) this is insignificant extra solution activity and (3) is mere data gathering or outputting. This is a post-solution step that is not integrated into the claim as a whole.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Examiner notes that claim features of: “protect data in use…”, “execute protected area using processing…”, “execute normal area using processing…”, “receive a request for a service”, “make a request for processing of the service…”, “receive a request for processing of the service, execute normal area using processing… return a processing result…”, “make a request for the protected area using processing unit… execute the protected area using processing…”, “execute the protected area using processing…” does not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead, the claim features of executing processing on normal areas or protected areas of storage memory merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g., computer, memory, server) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g., protect, execute, receive, make, return) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed request, result are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings:
“Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has also explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Rather, the claims are merely directed towards the abstract idea of executing processing on normal areas or protected areas of storage memory, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra, and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process does no more than require a generic computer to perform a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at a high level of generality.
For example, execute protected area using processing, execute normal area using processing, make a request, calculate a normal area use amount, respond to an inquiry, inquire about and acquire unused storage area capacity, return identification information of the general computer, make an inquiry, receive a request, transmit session identification information, transmit a processing result which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Similarly, protect data in use, store a processing result is merely storing, updating and retrieving information in memory, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Further note that the abstract idea of executing processing on normal areas or protected areas of storage memory to which the claimed invention is directed has a prior art basis outside of a computing/technological environment, e.g., an office clerk receives a records request for either protected data or public data, and retrieves records based on the records request from either a protected data storage or public data storage facility.
The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrick et al. (USP App Pub 2014/0317372; hereinafter Herrick) in view of Jagmag et al. (US Pat No 9,076,001; hereinafter Jagmag).
Regarding claim 1, A cooperation processing system (Herrick: paragraph [0026], “transcoder 200”) comprising a protected area usable computer (Herrick: paragraph [0026], “Transcoder 200 includes memory controller 202, memory 208” i.e., memory controller 202 is coupled to memory 208 and therefore performs computations together) and a general computer (Herrick: paragraph [0026], “memory client[] … 216”),
wherein the protected area usable computer (Herrick: paragraph [0026], “Transcoder 200 includes memory controller 202, memory 208”) includes:
a storage memory (Herrick: FIG. 2, memory 208) that includes a protected area configured to protect data in use (Herrick: paragraph [0031], “decoded data that requires security may only be stored in secure memory 204”) and a normal area (Herrick: paragraph [0031], “decoded data not requiring security may be written into unsecure memory 206”) different from a corresponding protected area (Herrick: paragraph [0026], “memory 208 includes secure memory 204 and unsecure memory 206”);
a…unit (Herrick: FIG. 2, Memory Controller 202) configured to execute protected area using processing processed in the protected area (Herrick: paragraph [0030], “By way of illustration, the start and end address range may fall within the address space of secure memory 204. As such, memory controller 202 treats the memory request as a request to access secure memory 204”);
a …unit (Herrick: FIG. 2, Memory Controller 202) configured to execute normal area using processing processed in the normal area (Herrick: paragraph [0030], “if the address range in the memory request falls within the address space of unsecure memory 206, memory controller 202 treats the memory request as a request to access unsecure memory 206”);
a service reception unit (Herrick: FIG. 2, Memory Controller 202) configured to receive a request for a service (Herrick: paragraph [0030], “Memory controller 202 may be configured to receive requests from memory clients 210, 212, 214 and 216 to read from memory 208 and/or write to memory 208”); and
a cooperation processing unit (Herrick: FIG. 2, Memory Controller 202) configured to make a request for processing of the service to the normal area using processing unit (Herrick: paragraph [0030], “Memory controller 202 may look at the address space of a memory transaction (e.g., read/write access request) to determine if the received request refers to secure memory 204 or unsecure memory 206 … if the address range in the memory request falls within the address space of unsecure memory 206, memory controller 202 treats the memory request as a request to access unsecure memory 206”) or the general computer,
wherein the general computer (Herrick: paragraph [0026], “memory client[] … 216”) includes
a cooperation unit (Herrick: paragraph [0026], “memory client[] … 216”; FIG. 2, process flow starting from incoming memory flow into memory client 214 -> tag 218 -> memory client 216 with request/response to memory controller 202 to access unsecure memory 206 -> compressed stream outflow) configured to receive a request for processing of the service (Herrick: paragraph [0037], “the requesting memory client may create the tag based on data received directly from a neighboring (or upstream) memory client”), execute normal area using processing in processing included in processing of a corresponding service (Herrick: paragraph [0033], “Alternatively, the data read may come from unsecure memory 206. In some aspects, the tag can be used by the requesting memory client to determine if the data read came from secure memory 204 or unsecure memory 206” i.e., tagged data may be tagged as unsecured; paragraph [0030], “Memory controller 202 may be configured to receive requests from memory clients…216 to read from memory 208 and/or write to memory 208. Memory controller 202 may look at the address space of a memory transaction (e.g., read/write access request) to determine if the received request refers to secure memory 204 or unsecure memory 206 … if the address range in the memory request falls within the address space of unsecure memory 206, memory controller 202 treats the memory request as a request to access unsecure memory 206”), and return a processing result (Herrick: paragraph [0053], “Memory client 216 may use other techniques, including encryption, to secure the output compressed stream”; paragraph [0029], “the output compressed stream may be fed to a media device (not shown) for storage and/or display”),
…
the cooperation unit (Herrick: paragraph [0026], “memory client[] … 216”) is configured to make a request to the cooperation processing unit (Herrick: paragraph [0038], “memory controller 202 is configured to control read/write access to secure memory 204 based on the memory requests”; FIG. 2, memory client 216 makes a request to memory controller 202) and cause the…unit to execute the protected area using processing in a case where the protected area using processing is included in processing included in processing of the service (Herrick: paragraph [0038], “the tag can specify that the data should be protected (or be stored in secure memory). If the tag specifies that the data must be placed into secure memory 204, then the data will not be written into unsecure memory 206”; paragraph [0035], “If data to be written into secure memory 204 is tagged to be secured, memory clients 212, 214 and 216 notify memory controller 202 that the written data is secured. As such, memory controller 202 may verify that all written data marked as "secure," for example, is stored into the correct address space associated with secure memory 204”).
Herrick does not teach … protected area using processing unit… normal area using processing unit… service reception unit… the normal area using processing unit is configured to make a request for the protected area using processing unit and cause the protected area using processing unit to execute the protected area using processing in a case where the protected area using processing is included in processing included in processing of the service, and … protected area using processing unit…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jagmag does teach … protected area using processing unit (Jagmag: Figure 2, Secure Processor 140)… normal area using processing unit (Jagmag: Figure 2, Unsecure Processor 130)…
the normal area using processing unit is configured to make a request (Jagmag: col 5, lines 28-31, “at 410, receiving content to be written to a write-only memory from an unsecure processor. The method includes, at 420, writing the content to the write-only memory” i.e., the steps 410-420 cause subsequent steps 430-440 to execute) for the protected area using processing unit and cause the protected area using processing unit to execute the protected area using processing (Jagmag: col 5, lines 37-39, “the secure processor stores content resulting from the security-related operation in the write-only memory”) in a case where the protected area using processing is included in processing included in processing of the service (Jagmag: col 5, lines 31-34, “The method includes, at 430, processing the content by performing a security-related operation with a secure processor. The method includes, at 440 storing processed content in the write-only memory”), and
… protected area using processing unit (Jagmag: Figure 2, Secure Processor 140)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the partitioned memory system of Herrick to incorporate the teachings of Jagmag to use 1) dedicated unsecure and secure processors for each of the unsecure and secure memory areas, and 2) direct processing from the unsecure processor to the secure processor. The motivation for doing so is 1) to have separated processors for different uses (Jagmag: col 1, lines 23-27, “The secure processors are configured to run software only from approved sources (e.g., bearing a signature of an approved source), while the unsecure processors (e.g., application processors) are configured to run software regardless of the software's source”) and 2) to allow the system to perform security related operations on the secured processor (Jagmag: claim 7, “the secure processor is configured to perform a security-related operation on data written to the first memory”).
Re. claims 6, 8, they recite analogous limitations as claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrick in view of Jagmag in further view of Morabad et al. (USP App Pub 2022/0004333; hereinafter Morabad).
Regarding claim 2, Herrick and Jagmag teach the cooperation processing system according to wherein the cooperation processing unit is configured to…
Herrick and Jagmag do not teach …calculate a normal area use amount that is capacity of a normal area necessary for processing of the service, make a request for the normal area using processing to the normal area using processing unit in a case where unused storage area capacity of a normal area included in the storage memory is equal to or more than the normal area use amount, and make a request for the normal area using processing to the general computer in a case where unused storage area capacity of a normal area included in the storage memory is less than the normal area use amount.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Morabad does teach …
calculate a normal area use amount that is capacity of a normal area necessary for processing of the service (Morabad: paragraph [0056], “a size of data corresponding to the write request” i.e., the size of the write request is determined),
make a request for the normal area using processing to the normal area using processing unit (Morabad: paragraph [0066], “In the case where a temporary space is not allocated and an available space of the A namespace NS A is sufficient, the storage device 120 may receive a write request, in which a namespace ID of the A namespace NS A is included, from the host 110. In response to the write request in which the namespace ID of the A namespace NS A is included, the storage device 120 may store data corresponding to the write request in the A namespace NS A”; FIG. 4A, namespace A may be within one of the plurality of namespaces within first storage device 220)
in a case where unused storage area capacity of a normal area included in the storage memory is equal to or more than the normal area use amount (Morabad: paragraph [0058], “When it is determined that the available space of the A namespace NS A of the storage device 120 is not insufficient (e.g., is sufficient)”), and
make a request for the normal area using processing (Morabad: paragraph [0068], “In the case where a temporary space is allocated and an available space of the A namespace NS A is insufficient, the storage device 120 may store data corresponding to a write request in the temporary space of the B namespace NS B”) to the general computer (Morabad: paragraph [0042], “second storage device 240”; FIG. 4A, distinct device 240 includes a plurality of namespaces. Namespace B may be one of the plurality of namespaces in device 240)
in a case where unused storage area capacity of a normal area included in the storage memory is less than the normal area use amount (Morabad: paragraph [0058], “When it is determined that the available space of the A namespace NS A of the storage device 120 is insufficient, in operation S120, the storage device 120 may identify a free B namespace NS B”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the portioned memory system of Herrick and Jagmag to incorporate the teachings of Morabad to direct write operations to external storage units when local storage units reach storage capacity. The motivation for doing so is to “secure the reliability and continuity of data corresponding to a write request” (Morabad: paragraph [0026]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrick in view of Jagmag in further view of Morabad in further view of Feldman (USP App Pub 2012/0210092).
Regarding claim 3, Herrick and Jagmag teach the cooperation processing system according to claim 1 further comprising …
Herrick and Jagmag do not teach …a cluster management server, wherein a cooperation unit included in the general computer is configured to respond to an inquiry about unused storage area capacity with unused storage area capacity of a storage memory included in a corresponding general computer, the cluster management server includes a cluster management unit configured to inquire about and acquire unused storage area capacity of the general computer, and, in response to an inquiry including a normal area use amount that is capacity of a normal area necessary for processing of the service, return identification information of the general computer including unused storage area capacity equal to or more than a corresponding normal area use amount, and a cooperation processing unit included in the protected area usable computer is configured to calculate the normal area use amount, make a request for the normal area using processing to the normal area using processing unit in a case where unused storage area capacity of a normal area included in a storage memory included in the protected area usable computer is equal to or more than the normal area use amount, make an inquiry including the normal area use amount to the cluster management server, acquires the identification information, and make a request for the normal area using processing to a general computer corresponding to corresponding identification information in a case where unused storage area capacity of a normal area included in storage memory included in the protected area usable computer is less than the normal area use amount.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Morabad does teach …
a cluster management server (Morabad: FIG. 1, Storage Device 120),
…
the cluster management server (Morabad: FIG. 1, Storage Device 120)
includes a cluster management unit configured to inquire about and acquire unused storage area capacity of the general computer (Morabad: paragraph [0083], “the first storage device 120a may select a namespace having the lowest usage rate from among the plurality of namespaces NS2 to NS4”; paragraph [0058], “the storage device 120 may identify a free B namespace NS B”; FIG. 4A, distinct device 240 includes a plurality of namespaces. Namespace B may be one of the plurality of namespaces in device 240), and,
in response to an inquiry including a normal area use amount that is capacity of a normal area necessary for processing of the service (Morabad: paragraph [0056], “a size of data corresponding to the write request” i.e., the size of a received write request is determined), return identification information of the general computer including unused storage area capacity equal to or more than a corresponding normal area use amount (Morabad: paragraph [0068], “In the case where a temporary space is allocated and an available space of the A namespace NS A is insufficient, the storage device 120 may store data corresponding to a write request in the temporary space of the B namespace NS B” i.e., namespace NS B includes sufficient available space and corresponds to the general host; paragraph [0068], “the host 110 may transmit a write request including a namespace ID of the B namespace NS B to the storage device 120” i.e., since NS B was identified, namespace ID of the B namespace is possessed by the host), and
a cooperation processing unit included in the protected area usable computer (Morabad: paragraph [0030], “The storage controller 130 may be configured to process various requests from the host 110”; paragraph [0021], “The storage controller 130 may communicate with the plurality of nonvolatile memory devices NVM through a plurality of channels”) is configured to
calculate the normal area use amount (Morabad: paragraph [0056], “the storage device 120 may determine whether an available space of the A namespace NS A is insufficient” i.e., an available space is calculated and determined),
make a request for the normal area using processing to the normal area using processing unit (Morabad: paragraph [0066], “In the case where a temporary space is not allocated and an available space of the A namespace NS A is sufficient, the storage device 120 may receive a write request, in which a namespace ID of the A namespace NS A is included, from the host 110. In response to the write request in which the namespace ID of the A namespace NS A is included, the storage device 120 may store data corresponding to the write request in the A namespace NS A”; FIG. 4A, namespace A may be within one of the plurality of namespaces within first storage device 220)
in a case where unused storage area capacity of a normal area included in a storage memory included in the protected area usable computer is equal to or more than the normal area use amount (Morabad: paragraph [0058], “When it is determined that the available space of the A namespace NS A of the storage device 120 is not insufficient (e.g., is sufficient)”),
make an inquiry including the normal area use amount to the cluster management server (Morabad: paragraph [0056], “in the case where the storage device 120 receives a write request for the A namespace NS A”), acquires the identification information (Morabad: paragraph [0068], “the host 110 may transmit a write request including a namespace ID of the B namespace NS B to the storage device 120” i.e., since NS B was identified, namespace ID of the B namespace is possessed by the host), and
make a request for the normal area using processing (Morabad: paragraph [0068], “In the case where a temporary space is allocated and an available space of the A namespace NS A is insufficient, the storage device 120 may store data corresponding to a write request in the temporary space of the B namespace NS B”) to a general computer corresponding to corresponding identification information (Morabad: paragraph [0042], “second storage device 240”; FIG. 4A, distinct device 240 includes a plurality of namespaces. Namespace B may be one of the plurality of namespaces in device 240)
in a case where unused storage area capacity of a normal area included in storage memory included in the protected area usable computer is less than the normal area use amount (Morabad: paragraph [0058], “When it is determined that the available space of the A namespace NS A of the storage device 120 is insufficient, in operation S120, the storage device 120 may identify a free B namespace NS B”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the portioned memory system of Herrick and Jagmag to incorporate the teachings of Morabad to direct write operations to external storage units when local storage units reach storage capacity. The motivation for doing so is to “secure the reliability and continuity of data corresponding to a write request” (Morabad: paragraph [0026]).
Herrick, Jagmag and Morabad do not teach …wherein a cooperation unit included in the general computer is configured to respond to an inquiry about unused storage area capacity with unused storage area capacity of a storage memory included in a corresponding general computer,
However, in the same field of endeavor, Feldman does teach …wherein a cooperation unit included in the general computer (Feldman: paragraph [0015], “the storage device 105 is provided with a storage controller”) is configured to
respond to an inquiry about unused storage area capacity (Feldman: paragraph [0029], “A requesting operation 402 sends a request from a host device to a storage device about the available storage space on the storage device”) with unused storage area capacity of a storage memory included in a corresponding general computer (Feldman: paragraph [0030], “In response to the requesting operation 402, a sending operation 404 sends information about the storage space available on the storage device to the host device”),…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the identification of available storage space in Herrick, Jagmag and Morabad to incorporate the teachings of Feldman to send a request for available storage space and receive a response. The motivation for doing so is to communicate the largest available region of space (Feldman: paragraph [0019], “the storage device 105 may communicate that the largest block of data region available is 10 GB”).
Regarding claim 4, Herrick and Jagmag teach the cooperation processing system according to claim 1 further comprising a…
Herrick and Jagmag do not teach …cluster management server, wherein a cooperation unit included in the general computer is configured to respond to an inquiry about unused storage area capacity with unused storage area capacity of a storage memory included in a corresponding general computer, the cluster management server includes a cluster management unit configured to inquire about and acquire unused storage area capacity of the general computer, and, in response to a request for the normal area using processing including a normal area use amount that is capacity of a normal area necessary for processing of the service, make a request for corresponding normal area using processing to a general computer including unused storage area capacity equal to or more than a corresponding normal area use amount, and a cooperation processing unit included in the protected area usable computer configured to calculate the normal area use amount, make a request for the normal area using processing to the normal area using processing unit in a case where unused storage area capacity of a normal area included in a storage memory included in the protected area usable computer is equal to or more than the normal area use amount, and make a request for the normal area using processing including the normal area use amount to the cluster management server in a case where unused storage area capacity of a normal area included in a storage memory included in the protected area usable computer is less than the normal area use amount.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Morabad does teach …
cluster management server (Morabad: FIG. 1, Storage Device 120),
…
the cluster management server (Morabad: FIG. 1, Storage Device 120)
includes a cluster management unit configured to inquire about and acquire unused storage area capacity of the general computer (Morabad: paragraph [0083], “the first storage device 120a may select a namespace having the lowest usage rate from among the plurality of namespaces NS2 to NS4”; paragraph [0058], “the storage device 120 may identify a free B namespace NS B”; FIG. 4A, distinct device 240 includes a plurality of namespaces. Namespace B may be one of the plurality of namespaces in device 240), and,
in response to a request for the normal area using processing including a normal area use amount that is capacity of a normal area necessary for processing of the service (Morabad: paragraph [0056], “a size of data corresponding to the write request” i.e., the size of a received write request is determined), make a request for corresponding normal area using processing to a general computer (Morabad: paragraph [0066], “In the case where a temporary space is not allocated and an available space of the A namespace NS A is sufficient, the storage device 120 may receive a write request, in which a namespace ID of the A namespace NS A is included, from the host 110. In response to the write request in which the namespace ID of the A namespace NS A is included, the storage device 120 may store data corresponding to the write request in the A namespace NS A”; FIG. 4A, namespace A may be within one of the plurality of namespaces within first storage device 220) including unused storage area capacity equal to or more than a corresponding normal area use amount (Morabad: paragraph [0058], “When it is determined that the available space of the A namespace NS A of the storage device 120 is not insufficient (e.g., is sufficient)”), and
a cooperation processing unit included in the protected area usable computer (Morabad: paragraph [0030], “The storage controller 130 may be configured to process various requests from the host 110”; paragraph [0021], “The storage controller 130 may communicate with the plurality of nonvolatile memory devices NVM through a plurality of channels”) configured to
calculate the normal area use amount (Morabad: paragraph [0056], “the storage device 120 may determine whether an available space of the A namespace NS A is insufficient” i.e., an available space is calculated and determined),
make a request for the normal area using processing to the normal area using processing unit (Morabad: paragraph [0066], “In the case where a temporary space is not allocated and an available space of the A namespace NS A is sufficient, the storage device 120 may receive a write request, in which a namespace ID of the A namespace NS A is included, from the host 110. In response to the write request in which the namespace ID of the A namespace NS A is included, the storage device 120 may store data corresponding to the write request in the A namespace NS A”; FIG. 4A, namespace A may be within one of the plurality of namespaces within first storage device 220)
in a case where unused storage area capacity of a normal area included in a storage memory included in the protected area usable computer is equal to or more than the normal area use amount (Morabad: paragraph [0058], “When it is determined that the available space of the A namespace NS A of the storage device 120 is not insufficient (e.g., is sufficient)”), and
make a request for the normal area using processing including the normal area use amount (Morabad: paragraph [0068], “In the case where a temporary space is allocated and an available space of the A namespace NS A is insufficient, the storage device 120 may store data corresponding to a write request in the temporary space of the B namespace NS B”) to the cluster management server (Morabad: FIG. 1, Storage Device 120)
in a case where unused storage area capacity of a normal area included in a storage memory included in the protected area usable computer is less than the normal area use amount (Morabad: paragraph [0058], “When it is determined that the available space of the A namespace NS A of the storage device 120 is insufficient, in operation S120, the storage device 120 may identify a free B namespace NS B”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the portioned memory system of Herrick and Jagmag to incorporate the teachings of Morabad to direct write operations to external storage units when local storage units reach storage capacity. The motivation for doing so is to “secure the reliability and continuity of data corresponding to a write request” (Morabad: paragraph [0026]).
Herrick, Jagmag and Morabad do not teach …wherein a cooperation unit included in the general computer is configured to respond to an inquiry about unused storage area capacity with unused storage area capacity of a storage memory included in a corresponding general computer,
However, in the same field of endeavor, Feldman does teach …wherein a cooperation unit included in the general computer (Feldman: paragraph [0015], “the storage device 105 is provided with a storage controller”) is configured to
respond to an inquiry about unused storage area capacity (Feldman: paragraph [0029], “A requesting operation 402 sends a request from a host device to a storage device about the available storage space on the storage device”) with unused storage area capacity of a storage memory included in a corresponding general computer (Feldman: paragraph [0030], “In response to the requesting operation 402, a sending operation 404 sends information about the storage space available on the storage device to the host device”),…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the identification of available storage space in Herrick, Jagmag and Morabad to incorporate the teachings of Feldman to send a request for available storage space and receive a response. The motivation for doing so is to communicate the largest available region of space (Feldman: paragraph [0019], “the storage device 105 may communicate that the largest block of data region available is 10 GB”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrick in view of Jagmag in further view of Droux et al. (USP App Pub 2018/0083849; hereinafter Droux).
Regarding claim 5, Herrick and Jagmag teach the cooperation processing system according to claim 1, wherein the cooperation processing unit is configured to,
upon receiving a request for processing of the service from the service reception unit (Herrick: paragraph [0030], “Memory controller 202 may be configured to receive requests from memory clients 210, 212, 214 and 216 to read from memory 208 and/or write to memory 208”), …
Herrick and Jagmag do not teach …generate session identification information, instruct the service reception unit to transmit corresponding session identification information to a request source of the service, and make a request for processing of the service to the normal area using processing unit or the general computer, and store a processing result of corresponding processing in association with corresponding session identification information, the service reception unit is configured to receive a request for a processing result including the session identification information, and the cooperation processing unit is configured to, upon receiving a request for processing of a corresponding request from the service reception unit, instruct the service reception unit to transmit a processing result corresponding to the session identification information to a request source of the service.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Droux does teach …generate session identification information (Droux: paragraph [0028], “A session identifier (134) is an identifier of a session”), instruct the service reception unit to transmit corresponding session identification information to a request source of the service (Droux: paragraph [0059], “a user node may send a request to list open sessions and delete one or more sessions. The tracing server node responds to the user at least with the user defined identifier for the open session. The tracing server node may also respond with an automated session identifier” i.e., session identifier is sent to user), and
make a request for processing of the service (Droux: paragraph [0017], “Types of messages include … a request to read data from or write data to a storage device”) to the normal area using processing unit or the general computer (Droux: paragraph [0054], “the tracing server node initiates tracing on the providers using the arguments in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention”), and store (Droux: paragraph [0067], “computing system (900) may include one or more computer processors (902), non-persistent storage (904) (e.g., volatile memory…)”) a processing result of corresponding processing in association with corresponding session identification information (Droux: paragraph [0056], “the event reports are received from the compute nodes for the tracing session. In other words, messages are received from the compute nodes”; paragraph [0028], “When events are generated by a compute node, the event reports include the session identifier for which the events were generated”),
the service reception unit (Droux: paragraph [0029], “the tracing manager (130) includes functionality to … receive and combine event reports”) is configured to receive a request (Droux: paragraph [0056], “the event reports are received from the compute nodes for the tracing session”) for a processing result including the session identification information (Droux: paragraph [0057], “the event reports are combined into tracing information … the tracing server node may use the session identifier to associate the event reports with each other”), and
the cooperation processing unit (Droux: paragraph [0050], “FIG. 6 shows a flowchart for tracing using a tracing server node”) is configured to, upon receiving a request for processing of a corresponding request from the service reception unit (Droux: paragraph [0058], “the tracing information may be transmitted in response to a subsequent request of the user node”), instruct the service reception unit (Droux: FIG. 6, step 617 causes step 619 to execute) to transmit a processing result corresponding to the session identification information to a request source of the service (Droux: paragraph [0058], “the tracing information is transmitted to the user node”; paragraph [0057], “the event reports are combined into tracing information … the tracing server node may use the session identifier to associate the event reports with each other”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the memory system of Herrick and Jagmag to incorporate the teachings of Droux to activate a tracing session for events of read/write data in storage. The motivation for doing so is to record information about the execution of the system for the user to analyze (Droux: paragraph [0002], “if a computer program fails in some way, the instruction executed at the time of failure, as well as instructions executed before and/or after that time of failure may be useful in preventing or lessening future occurrence of the failure. Tracing is a process of recording information about the execution of a running system”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SRIRAM whose telephone number is (703)756-1715. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM MST or PST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. 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.
/A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights