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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued in the remark that prior arts do not discloses creating a simulated reception system in an information processing environment connected to outside of the communication system, the simulated reception system being a reception system that simulates an environment inside the communication device or a moving object equipped with the communication device.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. After carefully review the primary prior arts Kantor, Kantor discloses [0059] The Remote Security Service 125 provides security services to some or all packets originating from the vehicle (outside device); 0059 The Remote Security Service 125 is depicted as a physical server/cloud server. [0064] Packet flow from the vehicle to outside the vehicle is, for example, as follows: a Vehicle, i.e. outside device , Component 140 transmits a packet on the Intravehicular Network 110. The packet arrives at the Network Interface to Intravehicular Network 240 component of the Vehicular Border Security System 120, i.e. simulated reception system, The Classifier Module 260 component of the Vehicular Border Security System 120 then executes, [0073] The Content Security Module 360 performs security functionality on received packet, such as, for example, inspecting packets from the vehicle for signs of a security compromise (eg, by communicating with servers known to be associated with malware), inspecting packets destined to the vehicle for exploitation of known weaknesses of protocol stacks or for excessive packet traffic which could be indicative of a denial-of-service attack, or the like. An exemplary process to FIG. 7. [0076] The Classifier Module 260 performs, for example, a sequence of classification and security policy determinations and policy execution operations on each received packet. Wherein the classifier module is creating the simulation reception system of the outside received packet from the vehicle, i.e. outside of the communication system. The classifier module is also simulated the inside of the application recites in the vehicle as we can see it in the par 0076 discloses “ determining whether the networked application being invoked from within the vehicle should be permitted/blocked/logged and performing the blocking/logging, determining whether the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) being requested over Hypertext Transfer Protocol from within the vehicle should be permitted/blocked/logged and performing the blocking/logging, determining whether the packet or packet flow should be treated by the Remote Security Service 125 and tunneling the packet to the Remote Security Service 125”. This classifier module is also providing the determination of the packet should be blocked or tunneling from the vehicle to the Remote Security Service 125, i.e. a simulated reception system of the classifier module that provide the guiding attack of the outside vehicle device.
Thus, it can be seen from the above explanation that the Kantor discloses creating a simulated reception system in an information processing environment connected to outside of the communication system, the simulated reception system being a reception system that simulates an environment inside the communication device or a moving object equipped with the communication device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kantor et al US 2016/0366156.
As per claim 1. Kantor discloses a communication system configured to provide a communication network to a communication device, the communication system comprising: a memory storing an instruction; and a processor (0061 0061] The Central Processing Unit (CPU) 210 is formed of one or more processors, including physical or virtual microprocessors, for performing the Vehicular Border Security System 120 functions and operations including, for example controlling the memory 220, storage 230, Network Interface to Intravehicular Network 240 and Network Interface to Transmitter/Receiver 250, Classifier Module 260, and Secure Encapsulation/Decapsulation module 270, Application Policy Repository 280, and Security Policy Repository 290 along with the processes shown in FIGS. 4, 5, and 6. The processors are, for example, conventional processors, such as those used in servers, computers, and other computerized devices. For example, the processors may include x86 Processors from AMD) configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to:(0082 the computer system of the Remote Security Service 125 i.e. a control device for security processing)
receive, from an organization outside the communication system, threat information regarding a threat to the communication device that uses the communication network (0007 receiving a packet from a vehicle component; tunneling the received packet, i.e. threat information, to a terrestrial-based security service, i.e. a reception process, from the vehicle component, i.e. the communication device, The Terrestrial Transmitter/Receiver 130 exemplarily conveys vehicle-originated packets to the Internet or a Private Network 135. A subset of these packets is eventually destined for the Remote Security Service 125. Terrestrial Transmitter/Receiver 130 is located in the vehicle or within range of the vehicle that establishes a connection to external networks. Vehicle-originated packets: These are digital data units sent from the vehicle. This data could include anything from engine diagnostics and GPS coordinates to security alerts or user requests. Conveys... to the Internet or a Private Network 135 might be a dedicated, secure network operated by the vehicle manufacturer or a service provider for specific vehicle-related communications. The packets is eventually destined for the Remote Security Service 125, i.e. a reception process of receiving or a specific portion of the data is specifically addressed to the Remote Security Service 125. Remote Security Service 125: This is a server or system located externally (remotely from the vehicle) that processes data relevant to security functions. This service likely monitors for security breaches, vehicle theft attempts, unauthorized access. Forwarding all vehicle data packets to various destinations, including a specialized remote service responsible for vehicle security management), and
provide protection the communication device based on the received threat information (0007 analyzing whether the tunneled packet is suspected to be part of a cyber-attack; and based on the analysis that the tunneled packet is suspected to be part of a cyber-attack, taking, i.e. a protection process, at least one action to protect at least one of the vehicle components. And 0012 taking at least one action to protect at least one of the vehicle components. And 0082 Remote Security Service 125 for security processing, i.e. a protection process, performing Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) on the packet and comparing the results with records stored in the Security Policy Repository 290. And 0092 If the policy does not permit the packet, then at block 625 the packet is dropped and the text describes a Remote Security Service 125 that performs Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) on packets.
Wherein providing the protection comprises: creating a simulated reception system in an information processing environment connected to outside of the communication system, the simulated reception system being a reception system that simulates an environment inside the communication device or a moving object equipped with the communication device, and guiding an attack from inside or outside of the communication network provided by the communication system to the simulated reception system( Kantor discloses [0059] The Remote Security Service 125 provides security services to some or all packets originating from the vehicle (outside device); 0059 The Remote Security Service 125 is depicted as a physical server/cloud server. [0064] Packet flow from the vehicle to outside the vehicle is, for example, as follows: a Vehicle, i.e. outside device , Component 140 transmits a packet on the Intravehicular Network 110. The packet arrives at the Network Interface to Intravehicular Network 240 component of the Vehicular Border Security System 120, i.e. simulated reception system, The Classifier Module 260 component of the Vehicular Border Security System 120 then executes, [0073] The Content Security Module 360 performs security functionality on received packet, such as, for example, inspecting packets from the vehicle for signs of a security compromise (eg, by communicating with servers known to be associated with malware), inspecting packets destined to the vehicle for exploitation of known weaknesses of protocol stacks or for excessive packet traffic which could be indicative of a denial-of-service attack, or the like. An exemplary process to FIG. 7. [0076] The Classifier Module 260 performs, for example, a sequence of classification and security policy determinations and policy execution operations on each received packet. Wherein the classifier module is creating the simulation reception system of the outside received packet from the vehicle, i.e. outside of the communication system. The classifier module is also simulated the inside of the application recites in the vehicle as we can see it in the par 0076 discloses “ determining whether the networked application being invoked from within the vehicle should be permitted/blocked/logged and performing the blocking/logging, determining whether the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) being requested over Hypertext Transfer Protocol from within the vehicle should be permitted/blocked/logged and performing the blocking/logging, determining whether the packet or packet flow should be treated by the Remote Security Service 125 and tunneling the packet to the Remote Security Service 125”. This classifier module is also providing the determination of the packet should be blocked or tunneling from the vehicle to the Remote Security Service 125, i.e. a simulated reception system of the classifier module that provide the guiding attack of the outside vehicle device. Thus, it can be seen from the above explanation that the Kantor discloses creating a simulated reception system in an information processing environment connected to outside of the communication system, the simulated reception system being a reception system that simulates an environment inside the communication device or a moving object equipped with the communication device).
As per claim 2. Kantor discloses the communication system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to uniformly provide protection for each communication device connected to the communication system (0082 a computer system of the remote security service 125, i.e. a control device, for controlling access to network services within a linked vehicle and fig.1, the remote security server 125 reviews the packet exchanging between the vehicle and communication peer and 0009 inspecting data in the packet for exploitation of a vulnerability in a protocol implementation; inspecting the packet to determine whether it includes a bit pattern that is characteristic of cyber-attack packets).
As per claim 3. Kantor discloses 3. (Currently Amended) The communication system according to claim 1, wherein: the threat information includes information identifying a specific communication device targeted for an attack of the threat; and the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to provide protection for the specific communication device(0073 inspecting packets destined to the vehicle, i.e. a specific communication device targeted, for exploitation of known weaknesses of protocol stacks or for excessive packet traffic which could be indicative of a denial-of-service attack (0082 Remote Security Service 125 for security processing 0076 determining whether the packet or packet flow should be treated by the Remote Security Service 125 and tunneling the packet to the Remote Security Service 125 to protect the vehicle components).
As per claim 15, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 1.
As per claim 16, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 1.
As per claim 17, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kantor et al US 2016/0366156 in Li US 2023/02222850.
As per claim 4. Kantor does not disclose the communication system according to claim 3, wherein: the specific communication device is mounted on a vehicle; and the information identifying the specific communication device includes information identifying the vehicle.
However, Li discloses wherein: the specific communication device is mounted on a vehicle (0106 the vehicle-mounted device, i.e. the specific communication device, may establish a connection to the network device in a 5G wireless communication manner ); and the information identifying the specific communication device includes information identifying the vehicle( 0106 the vehicle-mounted device may establish a connection to the network device in a 5G wireless communication manner, and send third information, where the third information may be used to indicate second identification information, and the second identification information is associated with the vehicle-mounted device or uniquely identifies the vehicle-mounted device. the above discussion can be seen as a vehicle-mounted device to communicate and identify itself within a 5G network. A vehicle-mounted device is capable of establishing a connection to a network device (e.g., a base station or road-side unit) using 5G wireless communication technology. The vehicle-mounted device sends "third information" over this connection. This "third information" serves to convey "second identification information." The "second identification information" is either associated with the specific vehicle-mounted device or acts as a unique identifier for it. This process likely relates to mechanisms for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication, network access control, authentication, or managing connected car services in a 5G environment).
Kantor and Li are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring network device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kantor to incorporate the teachings of Lifshitz and provide monitoring the vehicle mounted-device.
Doing so would authentication of the vehicle mounded-device. thereby increasing significant benefits in safety, security, and performance by ensuring that all components and communication are genuine and untampered.
Kantor and Lifshitz are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring network device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kantor to incorporate the teachings of Lifshitz and provide monitoring the control plane of the communication.
Doing so would monitor the control plane traffic may enable improved and effective detection, thereby increasing mitigation of such cyber-attacks (0160 ).
As per claim 18, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-10,13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kantor et al US 2016/0366156 in view of Lifshitz et al US 2019/0380037.
As per claim 5. Kantor does not disclose the communication system according to claim 1, wherein: the communication network includes a 5G core network; and the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to directly receive the threat information regarding the threat using a Network Exposure Function provided in the 5G core network.
However, Lifshitz discloses the communication network includes a 5G core network (0147 detection and/or isolation and/or prevention and/or mitigation of a “signaling storm” or a “signal storm” or a “signals storm”, or other types of cyber-attacks and/or distributed attacks that are performed over Control Plane (CP) and/or User Plane (UP), particularly of such signaling storms or cyber-attacks that are generated by IoT devices, and particularly of such signaling storm or cyber-attacks in mobile networks.); and the control device (fig.2, controller 20 includes the threat analyzer 212, 0043 (a) Periodically collected by the Data Collector 211 (e.g., via Cl interface); and/or (b) Periodically analyzed by the Analyzer 212 (e.g., via Cd interface); and/or (c) Candidate IoT devices that exhibit malicious or defective or abnormal behavior are reported to a Policy component 213 (e.g., via Ac interface), and are placed into a quarantine, subject to configurable or pre-defined policy that is enforced by a Policy Enforcer component 222 (e.g., via En interface))
is configured to receive the threat information regarding the threat using a Network Exposure Function provided in the 5G core network ( 0160 analyze the data about control messages that pass through that pass through the Control Plane (CP) alone; wherein the Network Exposure Function (NEF) is a specific network function that exists within the control plane of the 5G core network, but rather, some implementations may effectively detect and isolate a signaling storm by monitoring, tracking, and analyzing both the control messages that pass through the Control Plane and the control messages that pass through the User Plane. For example, the Applicants have realized that a signaling storm attack may penetrate or adversely influence the 5G network over the Control Plane, i.e. the threat information regarding the threat using a Network Exposure Function provided in the 5G, wherein the Network Exposure Function (NEF) is a specific network function that exists within the control plane of the 5G core network, a signaling storm attack may penetrate or adversely influence the 5G network over the User Plane, by generating messages that appear to meet the standard or regular flow over the Control Plane; as such cyber-attacks may be configured based on the identity of the target that the attacker wishes to attack, such as, the Control Plane, the User Plane (the Data Plane), both the CP and the UP, or a target victim entity that is located outside the network. Accordingly, realized the Applicants, monitoring of both CP and UP traffic may enable improved and effective detection and mitigation of such cyber-attacks.).
Kantor and Lifshitz are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring network device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kantor to incorporate the teachings of Lifshitz and provide monitoring the control plane of the communication.
Doing so would monitor the control plane traffic may enable improved and effective detection, thereby increasing mitigation of such cyber-attacks (0160 ).
As per claim 6. Kantor and Lifshitz discloses the communication system according to claim 1, Lifshitz discloses wherein: the communication network includes a 5G core network ( [0153] System 400 comprises 5G-capable device); and the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to provide to directly receive the threat information regarding the threat without via a Network Exposure Function provided in the 5G core network( fig.2, controller 20 includes the threat analyzer 212) is configured to directly receive the threat information regarding the threat without via a Network Exposure Function provided in the 5G core network ( 0160 analyze the data about control messages that pass through that pass through the Control Plane (CP) alone; wherein the Network Exposure Function (NEF) is a specific network function that exists within the control plane of the 5G core network, but rather, some implementations may effectively detect and isolate a signaling storm by monitoring, tracking, and analyzing both the control messages that pass through the Control Plane and the control messages that pass through the User Plane. For example, the Applicants have realized that a signaling storm attack may penetrate or adversely influence the 5G network over the Control Plane, i.e. the threat information regarding the threat using a Network Exposure Function provided in the 5G, wherein the Network Exposure Function (NEF) is a specific network function that exists within the control plane of the 5G core network, a signaling storm attack may penetrate or adversely influence the 5G network over the User Plane, by generating messages that appear to meet the standard or regular flow over the Control Plane; as such cyber-attacks may be configured based on the identity of the target that the attacker wishes to attack, such as, the Control Plane, the User Plane (the Data Plane), both the CP and the UP).
As per claim 7. Kantor and Lifshitz discloses the communication system according to claim 5, The communication system according to The communication system according to wherein the processor is configured to( fig.2, controller 20 includes the threat analyzer 212 ) execute the instruction stored in the memory to provide protection for the communication device in a User Plane Function through a Policy Control Function provided in the 5G core network( 0160 analyze the data about control messages that pass through that pass through the Control Plane (CP) alone; wherein the Network Exposure Function (NEF) is a specific network function that exists within the control plane of the 5G core network, and the control messages that pass through the Control Plane and the control messages that pass through the User Plane).
As per claim 8. Kantor and Lifshitz discloses the communication system according to claim 7, Lifshitz discloses wherein the processor (fig.2, controller 20 includes the threat analyzer 212 ) is configured to is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to when a format of the threat information is different from a format for which the processor is executable convert the format of the threat information to the format for which the processor is executable , or identify that the protection for the communication device is to provide in the user plane function to respond to the threat information, and provide the protection for the communication device responding to the threat information in the converted format or in the User Plane function ( 0032 TSE unit(s) may monitor one or more types of packets or data-streams; for example, data traffic, payload, headers, OA&M packets or messages, signaling and/or control messages, Internet Protocol (IP) packets, IPv4 packets, IPv6 packets, cellular packets, non-IP packets, packets having cellular-network internal format, Packet Data Protocol (PDP) format), convert the format of the threat information to the format for which the protection process is executable ( par 0032, data traffic is converted into the cellular network internal format and packet data protocol format and 0157 The UP Probe 432 is an active in-line traffic-monitoring and traffic-enforcement element or unit, which analyzes the traffic in the User plane, and selectively modifies and/or selectively discards packets in the User plane according to policy rules or directives that are set by the Protector Unit 431 and 0160 monitoring of both CP and UP traffic may enable improved and effective detection and mitigation of such cyber-attacks).
As per claim 9. Kantor and Lifshitz discloses the communication system according to claim 1, Lifshitz discloses wherein the processor is configured to ( fig.2, controller 20 includes the threat analyzer 212) execute the instruction stored in the memory to provide the protection for the communication device via a router connected to the communication network or a security device connected to the communication network. (0153 Internet-connected devices or IP-connected devices or 5G-capable devices and 0156 The Protector Unit 431 may receive data from the UP Probe 432 and/or from the CP Probe 433. The Protector Unit 431 may provide traffic-discarding rules or traffic-modification rules, to the UP Probe 432 and/or to the CP Probe 433, and those Probes then enforce or implement such rules on the traffic).
As per claim 10. Kantor and Lifshitz discloses the communication system according to claim 9, Lifshitz discloses
wherein the processor (fig.2, controller 20 includes the threat analyzer 212 )is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to when a format of the threat information is different from a format for which the processor is executable or identify that the protection for the communication device to be provided via the router or the security device to respond to the threat information; and provide the protection for the communication device responding to the threat information in the converted format or via the router or the security device (0032 TSE unit(s) may monitor one or more types of packets or data-streams; for example, data traffic, payload, headers, OA&M packets or messages, signaling and/or control messages, Internet Protocol (IP) packets, IPv4 packets, IPv6 packets, cellular packets, non-IP packets, packets having cellular-network internal format, Packet Data Protocol (PDP) format ), convert the format of the threat information to the format for which the protection process is executable (par 0032, data traffic is converted into the cellular network internal format and packet data protocol format and 0157 The UP Probe 432 is an active in-line traffic-monitoring and traffic-enforcement element or unit, which analyzes the traffic in the User plane, and selectively modifies and/or selectively discards packets in the User plane according to policy rules or directives that are set by the Protector Unit 431 and 0160 monitoring of both CP and UP traffic may enable improved and effective detection and mitigation of such cyber-attacks ).
As per claim 13. Kantor and Lifshitz discloses the communication system according to claim 1, Lifshitz discloses wherein: the communication network includes a 5G core network (0153 Internet-connected devices or IP-connected devices or 5G-capable devices); and the processor is provided in the 5G core network (fig.2, controller 20 includes the threat analyzer 212).
As per claim 14. Kantor and Lifshitz discloses the communication system according to claim 1, Lifshitz discloses wherein: the communication network includes a 5G core network (0153 Internet-connected devices or IP-connected devices or 5G-capable devices); and the control device (fig.2, controller 20 includes the threat analyzer 212) is provided as an Application Function connected to the 5G core network(0160 the Applicants have realized that a signaling storm attack may penetrate or adversely influence the 5G network over the Control Plane, i.e. the threat information regarding the threat using a Network Exposure Function provided in the 5G, wherein the Network Exposure Function (NEF) is a specific network function that exists within the control plane of the 5G core network).
As per claim 19, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth under the claim 5.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kantor et al US 2016/0366156 in view of Li et al US 2011/0250916.
As per claim 11. Kantor discloses the communication system according to claim 1, further comprising fails to disclose a storage device configured to store contract data based on a contract between a user of the communication device and a business operator that manages the communication system, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to determine, based on the contract data, the communication device to which the protection process is applied out of a plurality of the communication devices.
However, Li discloses a a storage device configured to store contract data based on a contract between a user of the communication device and a business operator that manages the communication system ([0022] Communications system 100 further includes a control node 110 which is coupled to a database 120,,i.e. storage device and par 0027, FCC database, i.e. storage device, wherein Mailing addresses and contact information are often included to allow the public and the FCC to communicate ),
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to determine, based on the contract data, the communication device to which the protection process is applied out of a plurality of the communication devices.(0076 controls the storge of various sets of information received from various communications devices, e.g., wireless terminals, in the system 100. Thus, the control node receives information such as the location information, sensed available frequency bands, sensed interference etc., from the wireless terminal and stores and/or updates the information in the database, e.g., database 120 of FIG. 1 and 0113 The control device in at least some embodiments uses the information received from various devices, e.g., wireless terminals, and the information in the database to determine which band or bands a particular wireless terminal , i.e. determine the communication device, should use for communications, e.g., for peer to peer communications as part of a local peer to peer network).
Kantor and Li are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring network device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kantor to incorporate the teachings of Li and provide a determination about the wireless terminal.
Doing so would provide authenticated device, thereby increasing safety of the device in the communication.
Claim(s) 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kantor et al US 2016/0366156 and Tuvell et al US 2008/0196104.
As per claim 21, Kantor discloses the communication system according to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose wherein the environment inside the moving object is defined such that a honeypot executes an operating system, an application or other software installed on the communication device.
However, Tuvell discloses wherein the environment inside the moving object is defined such that a honeypot executes an operating system, an application or other software installed on the communication device ( 0077] Referring now to the network diagram depicted in FIG. 11, a malware sample collection system 1100 is shown for obtaining samples of executable code that are spreading within a mobile network 302 and sending those samples to a sample collection center 1112 for analysis. In particular, collection agents, or Honeypots, 1102 are distributed within a mobile network 302 at various network locations or sites to collect executable programs being monitored by a protocol handler, e.g., Bluetooth 1114a and WiFi 1114b, (each being a type of protocol handler 1114), using both mobile stations and key communication components in the network, e.g., a GGSN in a GSM network and a PDSN in a CDMA network. The system 1100 collects the samples containing executable code from distributed locations, thereby increasing the likelihood that a new malware sample is captured once it starts spreading.).
Kantor and Tuvell are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring network device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kantor to incorporate the teachings of Tuvell and provide collects the samples containing executable code from distributed locations. Doing so would provide protection for the network, thereby increasing the likelihood that a new malware sample is captured once it starts spreading.
As per claim 22, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABU S SHOLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7314. The examiner can normally be reached EST: 9am-5pm.
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, JORGE ORTIZ CRIADO can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/ABU S SHOLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights