DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19 and 20 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to.
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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed on 06/23/2025 is a continuation of 18/326,947, filed on 05/31/2023. Thus, the earliest effective filing date is 05/31/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/07/20267 and 07/17/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,367,250. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in U.S. Patent No. 12,367,250 include the limitations of Instant Application as shown below:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,367,250
1. A computer system comprising a processor and a memory storing program instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform operations, the operations comprising:
identifying a first redaction candidate comprising a document first portion that is a first member of a sensitive information category;
identifying a second redaction candidate comprising a document second portion that is a second member of the sensitive information category,
wherein the first document portion and the second document portions are portions of an electronic document;
applying a rule to the first redaction candidate and the second redaction candidate, the rule specifying that members of the sensitive information category are to be redacted unless they include an entity identifier, the entity identifier comprising a string of text, the rule being applied by first identifying a list of redaction candidates corresponding to the sensitive information category, and secondly filtering from the list of redaction candidates, ones that include the entity identifier;
removing the first redaction candidate from the electronic document to generate a redacted document, the removing being based on the first redaction candidate being a member of the sensitive information category and not including the string of text; and
retaining the second redaction candidate in the redacted document based on the second redaction candidate being a member of the sensitive information category and including the string of text.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining an electronic document and an entity identifier associated with the electronic document;
identifying, in the electronic document, a group of redaction candidates, each redaction candidate of the group of redaction candidates comprising a document portion associated with one of a plurality of sensitive information categories,
a first redaction candidate of the group of redaction candidates being associated with a particular sensitive information category of the plurality of sensitive information categories and matches the entity identifier itself and a second redaction candidate of the group of redaction candidates being associated with the particular sensitive information category and does not match the entity identifier itself;
filtering, from the group of redaction candidates, ones of the redaction candidates that match the entity identifier itself,
resulting in a group of filtered redaction candidates that excludes at least the first redaction candidate based on the first redaction candidate matching the entity identifier itself; removing only the group of filtered redaction candidates from the electronic document, resulting in a redacted document comprising the first redaction candidate and not the second redaction candidate; and outputting the redacted document comprising the first redaction candidate; wherein: the method is performed by a proxy server; the obtaining of the electronic document comprises: receiving, from a client device, a download request associated with the entity identifier; in response to the receiving of the download request, transmitting a proxied download request from the proxy server to an upstream server; and receiving from the upstream server at the proxy server the electronic document in response to the proxied download request; and the method further comprises transmitting the redacted document from the proxy server to the client device.
2. The computer system of claim 1, the operations further comprising receiving a document search request comprising the entity identifier, wherein the electronic document is obtained from computer-readable storage via a document search based on the entity identifier.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a document search request comprising the entity identifier, wherein the electronic document is obtained from computer-readable storage via a document search based on the entity identifier.
3. The computer system of claim 1, wherein:the operations are performed by a proxy server;the proxy server
receives, from a client device, a download request associated with the entity identifier;in response to the receiving of the download request, the proxy server transmits a proxied download request from the proxy server to an upstream server;in response to the proxied download request, the proxy server receives the electronic document from the upstream server; andthe operations further comprise transmitting the redacted document from the proxy server to the client device.
Included in claim 1 above:
receiving, from a client device, a download request associated with the entity identifier; in response to the receiving of the download request, transmitting a proxied download request from the proxy server to an upstream server; and receiving from the upstream server at the proxy server the electronic document in response to the proxied download request; and the method further comprises transmitting the redacted document from the proxy server to the client device.
4. The computer system of claim 3, wherein the entity identifier comprises a user identifier associated with the client device.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the entity identifier comprises a user identifier associated with the client device.
5. The computer system of claim 3, wherein the download request is received from a web browser executed on the client device.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed by a web proxy server and the download request is received from a web browser executed on the client device.
19. A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processing apparatus to perform operations comprising:
identifying a first redaction candidate comprising a document first portion that is a first member of a sensitive information category;
identifying a second redaction candidate comprising a document second portion that is a second member of the sensitive information category, wherein the first document portion and the second document portions are portions of an electronic document;
applying a rule to the first redaction candidate and the second redaction candidate, the rule specifying that members of the sensitive information category are to be redacted unless they includes an entity identifier, the entity identifier comprising a string of text;
removing the first redaction candidate from the electronic document to generate a redacted document, the removing being based on the first redaction candidate being a member of the sensitive information category and not including the string of text; andretaining the second redaction candidate in the redacted document based on the second redaction candidate being a member of the sensitive information category and including the string of text.
16. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store computer-readable instructions, the computer-readable instructions configured, upon execution on at least one processor, to cause the at least one processor to implement operations comprising: receiving a message from a client device; determining an entity identifier associated with the message; obtaining an electronic document associated with the message; and
identifying, in the electronic document, a group of redaction candidates, each redaction candidate of the group of redaction candidates comprising a document portion associated with one of a plurality of sensitive information categories, a first redaction candidate of the group of redaction candidates being associated with a particular sensitive information category of the plurality of sensitive information categories and matches the entity identifier itself and a second redaction candidate of the group of redaction candidates being associated with the particular sensitive information category and does not match the entity identifier itself;
filtering, from the group of redaction candidates, ones of the redaction candidates that match the entity identifier itself,
resulting in a group of filtered redaction candidates that excludes at least the first redaction candidate based on the first redaction candidate matching the entity identifier itself; and removing only the group of filtered redaction candidates from the electronic document, resulting in a redacted document comprising the first redaction candidate and not the second redaction candidate;
wherein: the method is performed by a proxy server; the obtaining of the electronic document comprises: receiving, from a client device, a download request associated with the entity identifier; in response to the receiving of the download request, transmitting a proxied download request from the proxy server to an upstream server; and receiving from the upstream server at the proxy server the electronic document in response to the proxied download request; and the method further comprises transmitting the redacted document from the proxy server to the client device.
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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims can be considered a non-statutory signal per se. Claims 19 and 20 recite a “computer-readable storage medium,” which is not described in such a way to exclude non-statutory signals per se. The specification of the Instant Application at [0088] includes “computer storage media,” “computer readable media,” and “communication media.” The specification expressly prohibits “computer storage media” from being interpreted as a signal but does not describe “computer-readable storage media,” which is recited herein. Thus, “a computer-readable storage medium” can include signals per se and claims 19 and 20 are rejected. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to include “non-transitory” to overcome this rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Balzer et al. (“Balzer”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0377901.
As per claim 1, Balzer discloses a computer system comprising a processor ([0027]) and a memory storing program instructions ([0027]) that, when executed by the processor, perform operations, the operations comprising:
identifying a first redaction candidate comprising a document first portion that is a first member of a sensitive information category ([0061] wherein a PII selector identifies a first candidate such as the name of a first individual (See [0063] wherein other clients are the first member of a sensitive information category));
identifying a second redaction candidate comprising a document second portion that is a second member of the sensitive information category([0061] wherein a PII selector identifies a second candidate such as the name of a second individual (See [0063] wherein the requesting client is the second member of a sensitive information category)), wherein the first document portion and the second document portions are portions of an electronic document ([0061] wherein a single electronic document is described containing portions with PII);
applying a rule to the first redaction candidate and the second redaction candidate, the rule specifying that members of the sensitive information category are to be redacted unless they include an entity identifier ([0063] wherein a rule is that PII candidates are redacted unless they include the entity identifier of the client requesting the document), the entity identifier comprising a string of text ([0063] wherein an entity identifier is the client identifier, wherein the identifier is tied to the login and can be name as described in [00211]), the rule being applied by first identifying a list of redaction candidates corresponding to the sensitive information category, and secondly filtering from the list of redaction candidates, ones that include the entity identifier ([0063] wherein a certain entity identifier belonging to the client is used to remove and filter out candidates for redaction and remain visible to the client);
removing the first redaction candidate from the electronic document to generate a redacted document, the removing being based on the first redaction candidate being a member of the sensitive information category and not including the string of text ([0062]-[0063] wherein the first redaction candidate, the name of another client, is redacted from the document, wherein redaction can be removing the name by covering it with a black box as described in [0062]); and retaining the second redaction candidate in the redacted document based on the second redaction candidate being a member of the sensitive information category and including the string of text ([0063] wherein the client’s own name can remain in the document).
As per claim 2, Balzer discloses the computer system of claim 1, the operations further comprising receiving a document search request comprising the entity identifier, wherein the electronic document is obtained from computer-readable storage via a document search based on the entity identifier ([0063] wherein a document search uses a client identifier to return documents).
As per claim 10, Balzer discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: outputting, via a graphical user interface, an indication of a group of filtered redaction candidates including the second redaction candidate and not including the first redaction candidate; and receiving input, via the graphical user interface, to modify the group of filtered redaction candidates ([0059] wherein requesting access authorization would be receiving input to modify the group of filtered redaction candidates.)
As per claim 11, Balzer discloses the computer system of claim 10, wherein the outputting of the indication of the group of filtered redaction candidates comprises displaying the electronic document via the graphical user interface, wherein the indication of the group of filtered redaction candidates comprises a visual marker marking filtered redaction candidates within the group of filtered redaction candidates within the electronic document ([0059] wherein redaction candidates include redacted portions and [Fig. 9b] wherein redaction includes a visual marker, a black box, that marks the redaction candidates).
As per claim 12, Balzer discloses the computer system of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise outputting, in association with the indication of the second redaction candidate, an indication of the sensitive information category ([0052] wherein each candidate for redaction is output, where the sensitivity category being provided as the set of matches).
As per claim 13, Balzer discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein: the entity identifier is a person identifier or a person group identifier ([0063]-[0021] wherein the entity identifier is a person identifier used to identify the user) ; and the sensitive information category is a predefined personal information category ([0021] wherein the sensitive information is the personally identifiable information (PII), listed here) .
As per claim 14, Balzer discloses a method for redacting an electronic document, the method comprising:
identifying a first redaction candidate comprising a document first portion that is a first member of a sensitive information category ([0061] wherein a PII selector identifies a first candidate such as the name of a first individual (See [0063] wherein other clients are the first member of a sensitive information category));
identifying a second redaction candidate comprising a document second portion that is a second member of the sensitive information category ([0061] wherein a PII selector identifies a second candidate such as the name of a second individual (See [0063] wherein the requesting client is the second member of a sensitive information category)), wherein the first document portion and the second document portions are portions of the electronic document ([0061] wherein a single electronic document is described containing portions with PII);
applying a rule to the first redaction candidate and the second redaction candidate, the rule specifying that members of the sensitive information category are to be redacted unless they include an entity identifier ([0063] wherein a rule is that PII candidates are redacted unless they include the entity identifier of the client requesting the document), the entity identifier comprising a string of text ([0063] wherein an entity identifier is the client identifier, wherein the identifier is tied to the login and can be name as described in [00211]);
removing the first redaction candidate from the electronic document to generate a redacted document, the removing based on the first redaction candidate being a member of the sensitive information category and not including the string of text ([0062]-[0063] wherein the first redaction candidate, the name of another client, is redacted from the document, wherein redaction can be removing the name by covering it with a black box as described in [0062]); and retaining the second redaction candidate in the redacted document based on the second redaction candidate being a member of the sensitive information category and including the string of text ([0063] wherein the client’s own name can remain in the document).
As per claim 15, Balzer discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising receiving a document search request comprising the entity identifier, wherein the electronic document is obtained from computer- readable storage via a document search based on the entity identifier ([0063] wherein a document search uses a client identifier to return documents).
As per claim 19, claim 19 is a computer program that performs the method of claim 14 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 20, Balzer discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the operations further comprise: outputting, via a graphical user interface, an indication of a group of filtered redaction candidates including the second redaction candidate and not including the first redaction candidate ([0062]-[0063] wherein the first redaction candidate, the name of another client, is redacted from the document, wherein redaction can be removing the name by covering it with a black box as described in []0062]), wherein the indication of the group of filtered redaction candidates comprises a visual marker marking filtered redaction candidates within the group of filtered redaction candidates within the electronic document ([0059] wherein redaction candidates include redacted portions and [Fig. 9b] wherein redaction includes a visual marker, a black box, that marks the redaction candidates); and receiving input, via the graphical user interface, to modify the group of filtered redaction candidates ([0059] wherein requesting access authorization would be receiving input to modify the group of filtered redaction candidates.)
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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balzer in view of Raman et al. (“Raman”), United States Patent No. 8, 826,443
As per claim 3, Belzer discloses the computer system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein: the operations are performed by a proxy server; the proxy server receives, from a client device, a download request associated with the entity identifier; in response to the receiving of the download request, the proxy server transmits a proxied download request from the proxy server to an upstream server; in response to the proxied download request, the proxy server receives the electronic document from the upstream server; and the operations further comprise transmitting the redacted document from the proxy server to the client device. However, Raman teaches wherein: the operations are performed by a proxy server; the proxy server receives, from a client device, a download request associated with the entity identifier ([Col 15, lines 28-32] wherein a proxy server receives a download request (a web request in the prior art) that violates a violation, wherein a violation can contain an entity identifier, such as name or social security number as described in [Col 7, lines 39-61]); in response to the receiving of the download request, the proxy server transmits a proxied download request from the proxy server to an upstream server ([Col 15, lines 43-44] wherein the proxy server sends a proxied download request from the web server in response to the web request); in response to the proxied download request, the proxy server receives the electronic document from the upstream server ([Col 9, lines 50-57]-[Col 10, lines 1-31] wherein the website sends the response to the modified request to the proxy for reinspection); and the operations further comprise transmitting the redacted document from the proxy server to the client device ([Col 16, lines 21-35] wherein a redacted document is described that will be provided to the client device).
Both Balzer and Raman recite redacting documents using identifiers. One could use the proxy as in Raman with the requests in Balzer to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of redacting documents based on an identifier matching a string as in Balzer with the redaction being performed using a proxy as in Raman to be able to intercept any type of outgoing sensitive information breach that leaves the client computer.
As per claim 4, note the rejection of claim 3 where Balzer and Raman are combined. The combination teaches the computer system of claim 3. Balzer further discloses wherein the entity identifier comprises a user identifier associated with the client device ([0063] wherein the entity identifier sent with the request is user identifier associated with the client device after singing in).
As per claim 5, note the rejection of claim 3 where Balzer and Raman are combined. The combination teaches the computer system of claim 3. Raman further teaches wherein the download request is received from a web browser executed on the client device ([Col 6, lines 42-47] wherein web requests are described).
As per claim 6, Balzer discloses the computer system of claim 1, but does not disclose receiving, from a client device, a message comprising the electronic document, the message being associated with the entity identifier; and transmitting, to an upstream server, a proxied message comprising the redacted document. However, Raman teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from a client device, a message comprising the electronic document, the message being associated with the entity identifier ([Col 7, lines 62-67] -[Col 8, lines 1-30] wherein an email with an electronic document attachment is received); and transmitting, to an upstream server, a proxied message comprising the redacted document ([Col 7, lines 62-67] -[Col 8, lines 1-30] wherein one attachment is redacted).
Both Balzer and Raman recite redacting documents using identifiers. One could use the proxy as in Raman with the requests in Balzer to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of redacting documents based on an identifier matching a string as in Balzer with the redaction being performed using a proxy as in Raman to be able to intercept any type of outgoing sensitive information breach that leaves the client computer.
As per claim 7, note the rejection of claim 6 where Balzer and Raman are combined. The combination teaches the computer system of claim 6. Balzer further discloses wherein the entity identifier comprises a user identifier associated with the client device ([0063] wherein the entity identifier sent with the request is user identifier associated with the client device after singing in).
As per claim 8, note the rejection of claim 6 where Balzer and Raman are combined. The combination teaches the computer system of claim 6. Raman further teaches wherein the operations are performed by a web proxy server and the message is received from a web browser executed on the client device ([Col 7, lines 62-67] -[Col 8, lines 1-30] wherein a web-based email application is described).
As per claim 16, Balzer discloses the method of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the method is performed by a proxy server and further comprises: receiving, from a client device, a download request associated with the entity identifier; in response to the receiving of the download request, transmitting a proxied download request from the proxy server to an upstream server; in response to the proxied download request, receiving the electronic document from the upstream server; and transmitting the redacted document from the proxy server to the client device. However, Raman teaches wherein the method is performed by a proxy server ([Col 15, lines 28-32] wherein a proxy server is used) and further comprises:
receiving, from a client device, a download request associated with the entity identifier ([Col 15, lines 28-32] wherein a proxy server receives a download request (a web request in the prior art) that violates a violation, wherein a violation can contain an entity identifier, such as name or social security number as described in [Col 7, lines 39-61]);
in response to the receiving of the download request, transmitting a proxied download request from the proxy server to an upstream server ([Col 15, lines 43-44] wherein the proxy server sends a proxied download request from the web server in response to the web request);
in response to the proxied download request, receiving the electronic document from the upstream server ([Col 9, lines 50-57]-[Col 10, lines 1-31] wherein the website sends the response to the modified request to the proxy for reinspection); and transmitting the redacted document from the proxy server to the client device ([Col 16, lines 21-35] wherein a redacted document is described that will be provided to the client device).
Both Balzer and Raman recite redacting documents using identifiers. One could use the proxy as in Raman with the requests in Balzer to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of redacting documents based on an identifier matching a string as in Balzer with the redaction being performed using a proxy as in Raman to be able to intercept any type of outgoing sensitive information breach that leaves the client computer.
As per claim 17, Balzer discloses the method of claim 14, but does not disclose receiving, from a client device, a message comprising the electronic document, the entity identifier comprising a user identifier associated with the client device; and transmitting, to an upstream server, a proxied message comprising the redacted document. However, Raman teaches receiving, from a client device, a message comprising the electronic document, the entity identifier comprising a user identifier associated with the client device ([Col 7, lines 62-67] -[Col 8, lines 1-30] wherein an email with an electronic document attachment is received); and transmitting, to an upstream server, a proxied message comprising the redacted document ([Col 7, lines 62-67] -[Col 8, lines 1-30] wherein one attachment is redacted).
Both Balzer and Raman recite redacting documents using identifiers. One could use the proxy as in Raman with the requests in Balzer to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of redacting documents based on an identifier matching a string as in Balzer with the redaction being performed using a proxy as in Raman to be able to intercept any type of outgoing sensitive information breach that leaves the client computer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 includes the following limitations including, “…retrieving, at the web proxy server, web content associated with the resource identifier; generating, based on the web content, modified web content comprising proxy client code, wherein the proxy client code is added to the web content to generate the modified web content; and transmitting the modified web content to the client device, whereby the proxy client code is executed on the client device; and detecting, in the message comprising the electronic document, marker data inserted by the client proxy code executed on the client device, wherein the applying of the rule is performed in response to the detecting of the marker data” that are neither anticipated not obvious over the prior art on record. Thus, the claim is objected to. Claim 18 is the program product that performs the method of claim 9 and is objected to for the same rationale and reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights