CTNF 19/260,389 CTNF 76898 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Status Claims 1-23 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement 06-49-08 AIA The information disclosure statement filed 7/4/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-23 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. Claim 1 recites “when it would otherwise be performed.” The word “it” is indefinite. Claim 12 recites similar language. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-23 are rejected for being dependent from a rejected base claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herz (US 9,122,643) a processor; a communications module coupled to the processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed, configure the processor to: Herz col 3 line 55 – col 4 line 2 receive a condition for deviating from a schedule for a transfer; and Herz col 14 lines 29-37, In some embodiments, the need for a backup is affected by the type of backup event trigger detected. In one embodiment, if potential imminent hard drive malfunction or failure is detected, the need for a backup is given the highest level of urgency. In another embodiment, a time-scheduled backup is given a much lower level of urgency. One consideration in establishing levels of urgency for different backup event triggers is how likely the data on system 112 is to be lost, if a backup process is not initiated immediately. Interpretation: transfer = backup when the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer has occurred while the transfer remains pending, cause the transfer to be performed at a time that is different than the time when it would otherwise be performed. Herz col 14 lines 37-43 95) In some embodiments, the need for a backup is affected by the length of the time since the last successful backup. In one such embodiment, where a time-scheduled backup has been delayed multiple times, each successive backup urgency test will give greater urgency to the need for a backup, until a backup is accomplished . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herz . Herz discloses wherein the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer is received via a transfer management interface, and wherein the computing system is further configured to, prior to receiving the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer, provide the transfer management interface to a client device. Herz col 5 lines (45-55), With reference now to FIG. 3, a flowchart 300 of the operation of system monitoring software 250 is depicted, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In step 310, system monitoring software 250 performs data preservation preparations tasks. In step 320, system monitoring software 250 monitors the client system, system 112, for a backup event trigger. If a backup event trigger is detected, in step 330 system monitoring software 250 initiates the backup process . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Kristensen (US 9,183,369) . Herz discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the transfer management interface is provided in response to determining that a request to transfer requests a transfer in non-native units. However, Kristensen discloses: Kristensen col 4 lines 34-38, In general, the embodiments described herein enable a portable user account, wherein a user stores account state and data on a removable storage medium and then can initiate a session with the stored user account on computers to which it is not native. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Herz for the purpose of enabling a user to securely transport user data associated with the user's account from one computer to another . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Izenberg (US 8,588,242) . Herz discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer defines one or more of a low threshold and a high threshold. However, Izenberg discloses: claim, 4 wherein said scheduling processing of the packet further comprises: in response to incrementing the plurality of counters, comparing, for each of the plurality of queues, the corresponding counter with the corresponding threshold value; and for a queue of the plurality of queues, if the corresponding counter is at least as high as the corresponding threshold value, scheduling processing of a head packet of the queue. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Izenberg for the purpose of providing a method for scheduling processing of packets received from a network, see abstract . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Izenberg in view of Aslanis (US 6,359,933) . Herz in view of Izenberg discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the low threshold and the high threshold represent an input output multiplier. However, Aslanis discloses claim 10, a frame synchronizer with a low threshold, a high threshold, and a derotation multiplier; wherein when output from said correlator is less than said low threshold (1) said frame synchronizer successively applies said derotation multiplier to said imbedded synchronizing frames prior to said correlator and (2) when the largest of outputs of said correlator exceeds said high threshold, said frame synchronizer adjusts frame boundaries corresponding to said largest of outputs of said correlator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz in view of Izenberg to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Aslanis for the purpose of frame synchronization in a multi-carrier system, see title . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Dhaliwal (US 10,614,479) . Herz discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the instructions further configure the processor to: obtaining the schedule for the transfer by automatically extracting a time parameter from an electronic representation of a transfer request electronic message. However, Dhaliwal discloses: Dhaliwal col 12 line 64 – col 13 line 17, FIG. 6 illustrates operations that security system 30 implements to verify the attendance, as shown at block 554 . For example, the predetermined conditions that the security system 30 checks for include a timing of the attendance message, as shown at block 610 . As described herein, the incentive to the user 25 may be based on the time elapsed since the transmission of the alarm message and limited to the user 25 that attended to the alarm event within the expiration time. Accordingly, the security system 30 checks that the user apparatus 20 sent the attendance message within the expiration time and calculates the incentive for the corresponding the user 25 accordingly. Thus, the security system 30 extracts a time of transmission of the attendance message and compares that with the time of transmission of the alarm message. In another example, the security system 30 compares the time of transmission of the attendance message with the time of occurrence of the alarm event. Of course, in another example, the security system 30 may use another timestamp associated with the attendance message to determine that the user 25 attended to the alarm message within the expiration time and calculation of the incentive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Dhaliwal for the purpose of attendance verification, see title . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Dhaliwal in view of Coffey (US 10,701,016) . Herz in view of Dhaliwal discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the transfer request electronic message is a structured electronic message. However, Coffey discloses: Coffey col 5 lines 15-22, In embodiments of the present invention, the program code identifies and processes both structured and unstructured data, in an email message, to provide a multi-factor cognitive analytics to aid in the definition of the validity range or period, and, ultimately, the expiration date, of the message. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz in view of Dhaliwal to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Coffey for the purpose of monitoring a mailbox in an electronic mail system to identify a message destined for the mailbox, see abstract . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Dhaliwal in view of Curbow (US 2004/0243677) . Herz in view of Dhaliwal discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the transfer request electronic message is an unstructured electronic message and wherein extracting the time parameter includes automatically scanning the transfer request electronic message to identify one or more dates in the transfer request electronic message and selecting one of those dates. However, Curbow discloses: Curbow claim 18, A system for automatically scheduling a calendar event by reference to electronic communication, comprising: a computer network comprising a plurality of work centers; electronic communication between said work centers in said computer network; an electronic calendar application and database associated with a user in said network; an electronic mail application comprising electronic messages; a means for automatically scanning an electronic message selected by said user; and a means for automatically entering an event in said electronic calendar based on said electronic message, wherein the date and time of said event are based on information in said electronic message. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz in view of Dhaliwal to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Curbow for the purpose of scheduling an event based on a user-selected electronic message, see abstract. Examiner Note: See Coffey above for unstructured message . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Small (US 2019/0080618) Herz discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose receive an input output modifier from a tracking system; and evaluate the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer based on the input output modifier. However, Small discloses: Small [0070] Referring to FIGS. 1-7, embodiments of the present disclosure provide systems and methods that allow large amounts of data to be quickly and efficiently analyzed by a computing device. For example, numerous aircraft may be scheduled to arrive at and/or depart from an airport. As such, large amounts of data are being tracked and analyzed. The vast amounts of data are efficiently organized and/or analyzed by the flight schedule disruption awareness system 100 , as described above. The flight schedule disruption awareness system 100 analyzes the data in a relatively short time in order to quickly and efficiently output and/or display various delays for the various aircraft that are scheduled to arrive at and/or depart from one or more airports. For example, the flight schedule disruption awareness system 100 analyzes current flight data, flight schedule update inputs 105 and outputs delay for the various aircraft in real time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Small for the purpose of providing a flight schedule disruption awareness system to provide situational awareness of flight disruptions that affect a flight schedule for one or more flights, see abstract . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Small Herz in view of Small discloses wherein the input output modifier is received via an application programming interface associated with the tracking system. Small FIG. 2 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Joheb (US 2021/0234917) . Herz discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose associate the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer with an account, and wherein initiating the transfer includes providing, to an electronic device associated with the account, a notification, the notification including a selectable option to proceed with the transfer. However, Joheb discloses: Joheb [0097] Referring briefly to FIG. 10, an example upload interface 1002 is illustrated. The upload interface 1002 may be displayed at the remote device in a web browser after an address associated with the upload interface 1002 is input into the web browser; for example, using the address bar. The upload interface includes a selectable option for uploading a bulk transfer file. For example, a file locator selectable option 1004 may be displayed and used for identifying a pointer to a local file. The pointer may include, for example, a path name and file name of the bulk transfer file. The upload interface 1002 also includes a begin upload selectable option 1006 which may be activated in order to trigger the sending of the bulk transfer file from the remote device 100 to the transfer processing system or another computer system(s) performing the method 700 . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Joheb for the purpose of a notification of a possible transfer failure may be provided in real-time or at least near real-time during upload of a bulk transfer file, see [0019] . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herz (US 9,122,643) receiving a condition for deviating from a schedule for a transfer; and Herz col 14 lines 29-37, In some embodiments, the need for a backup is affected by the type of backup event trigger detected. In one embodiment, if potential imminent hard drive malfunction or failure is detected, the need for a backup is given the highest level of urgency. In another embodiment, a time-scheduled backup is given a much lower level of urgency. One consideration in establishing levels of urgency for different backup event triggers is how likely the data on system 112 is to be lost, if a backup process is not initiated immediately. Interpretation: transfer = backup when the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer has occurred while the transfer remains pending, causing the transfer to be performed at a time that is different than the time when it would otherwise be performed. Herz col 14 lines 37-43 95) In some embodiments, the need for a backup is affected by the length of the time since the last successful backup. In one such embodiment, where a time- scheduled backup has been delayed multiple times, each successive backup urgency test will give greater urgency to the need for a backup, until a backup is accomplished . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herz . Herz discloses wherein the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer is received via a transfer management interface, and wherein the computing system is further configured to, prior to receiving the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer, provide the transfer management interface to a client device. Herz col 5 lines (45-55), With reference now to FIG. 3, a flowchart 300 of the operation of system monitoring software 250 is depicted, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In step 310, system monitoring software 250 performs data preservation preparations tasks. In step 320, system monitoring software 250 monitors the client system, system 112, for a backup event trigger. If a backup event trigger is detected, in step 330 system monitoring software 250 initiates the backup process . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Kristensen (US 9,183,369) . Herz discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the transfer management interface is provided in response to determining that a request to transfer requests a transfer in non-native units. However, Kristensen discloses: Kristensen col 4 lines 34-38, In general, the embodiments described herein enable a portable user account, wherein a user stores account state and data on a removable storage medium and then can initiate a session with the stored user account on computers to which it is not native. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Herz for the purpose of enabling a user to securely transport user data associated with the user's account from one computer to another . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Izenberg (US 8,588,242) . Herz discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer defines one or more of a low threshold and a high threshold. However, Izenberg discloses: claim, 4 wherein said scheduling processing of the packet further comprises: in response to incrementing the plurality of counters, comparing, for each of the plurality of queues, the corresponding counter with the corresponding threshold value; and for a queue of the plurality of queues, if the corresponding counter is at least as high as the corresponding threshold value, scheduling processing of a head packet of the queue. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Izenberg for the purpose of providing a method for scheduling processing of packets received from a network, see abstract . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Izenberg in view of Aslanis (US 6,359,933) . Herz in view of Izenberg discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the low threshold and the high threshold represent an input output multiplier. However, Aslanis discloses claim 10, a frame synchronizer with a low threshold, a high threshold, and a derotation multiplier; wherein when output from said correlator is less than said low threshold (1) said frame synchronizer successively applies said derotation multiplier to said imbedded synchronizing frames prior to said correlator and (2) when the largest of outputs of said correlator exceeds said high threshold, said frame synchronizer adjusts frame boundaries corresponding to said largest of outputs of said correlator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz in view of Izenberg to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Aslanis for the purpose of frame synchronization in a multi-carrier system, see title . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Dhaliwal (US 10,614,479) . Herz discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the instructions further configure the processor to: obtaining the schedule for the transfer by automatically extracting a time parameter from an electronic representation of a transfer request electronic message. However, Dhaliwal discloses: Dhaliwal col 12 line 64 – col 13 line 17, FIG. 6 illustrates operations that security system 30 implements to verify the attendance, as shown at block 554 . For example, the predetermined conditions that the security system 30 checks for include a timing of the attendance message, as shown at block 610 . As described herein, the incentive to the user 25 may be based on the time elapsed since the transmission of the alarm message and limited to the user 25 that attended to the alarm event within the expiration time. Accordingly, the security system 30 checks that the user apparatus 20 sent the attendance message within the expiration time and calculates the incentive for the corresponding the user 25 accordingly. Thus, the security system 30 extracts a time of transmission of the attendance message and compares that with the time of transmission of the alarm message. In another example, the security system 30 compares the time of transmission of the attendance message with the time of occurrence of the alarm event. Of course, in another example, the security system 30 may use another timestamp associated with the attendance message to determine that the user 25 attended to the alarm message within the expiration time and calculation of the incentive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Dhaliwal for the purpose of attendance verification, see title . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Dhaliwal in view of Coffey (US 10,701,016) . Herz in view of Dhaliwal discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the transfer request electronic message is a structured electronic message. However, Coffey discloses: Coffey col 5 lines 15-22, In embodiments of the present invention, the program code identifies and processes both structured and unstructured data, in an email message, to provide a multi- factor cognitive analytics to aid in the definition of the validity range or period, and, ultimately, the expiration date, of the message. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz in view of Dhaliwal to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Coffey for the purpose of monitoring a mailbox in an electronic mail system to identify a message destined for the mailbox, see abstract . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Dhaliwal in view of Curbow (US 2004/0243677) . Herz in view of Dhaliwal discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the transfer request electronic message is an unstructured electronic message and wherein extracting the time parameter includes automatically scanning the transfer request electronic message to identify one or more dates in the transfer request electronic message and selecting one of those dates. However, Curbow discloses: Curbow claim 18, A system for automatically scheduling a calendar event by reference to electronic communication, comprising: a computer network comprising a plurality of work centers; electronic communication between said work centers in said computer network; an electronic calendar application and database associated with a user in said network; an electronic mail application comprising electronic messages; a means for automatically scanning an electronic message selected by said user; and a means for automatically entering an event in said electronic calendar based on said electronic message, wherein the date and time of said event are based on information in said electronic message. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz in view of Dhaliwal to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Curbow for the purpose of scheduling an event based on a user-selected electronic message, see abstract. Examiner Note: See Coffey above for unstructured message . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Small (US 2019/0080618) Herz discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose receive an input output modifier from a tracking system; and evaluate the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer based on the input output modifier. However, Small discloses: Small [0070] Referring to FIGS. 1-7, embodiments of the present disclosure provide systems and methods that allow large amounts of data to be quickly and efficiently analyzed by a computing device. For example, numerous aircraft may be scheduled to arrive at and/or depart from an airport. As such, large amounts of data are being tracked and analyzed. The vast amounts of data are efficiently organized and/or analyzed by the flight schedule disruption awareness system 100 , as described above. The flight schedule disruption awareness system 100 analyzes the data in a relatively short time in order to quickly and efficiently output and/or display various delays for the various aircraft that are scheduled to arrive at and/or depart from one or more airports. For example, the flight schedule disruption awareness system 100 analyzes current flight data, flight schedule update inputs 105 and outputs delay for the various aircraft in real time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Small for the purpose of providing a flight schedule disruption awareness system to provide situational awareness of flight disruptions that affect a flight schedule for one or more flights, see abstract . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Small Herz in view of Small discloses wherein the input output modifier is received via an application programming interface associated with the tracking system. Small FIG. 2 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Joheb (US 2021/0234917) . Herz discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose associate the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer with an account, and wherein initiating the transfer includes providing, to an electronic device associated with the account, a notification, the notification including a selectable option to proceed with the transfer. However, Joheb discloses: Joheb [0097] Referring briefly to FIG. 10, an example upload interface 1002 is illustrated. The upload interface 1002 may be displayed at the remote device in a web browser after an address associated with the upload interface 1002 is input into the web browser; for example, using the address bar. The upload interface includes a selectable option for uploading a bulk transfer file. For example, a file locator selectable option 1004 may be displayed and used for identifying a pointer to a local file. The pointer may include, for example, a path name and file name of the bulk transfer file. The upload interface 1002 also includes a begin upload selectable option 1006 which may be activated in order to trigger the sending of the bulk transfer file from the remote device 100 to the transfer processing system or another computer system(s) performing the method 700 . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herz to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Joheb for the purpose of a notification of a possible transfer failure may be provided in real-time or at least near real-time during upload of a bulk transfer file, see [0019] . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herz (US 9,122,643) receive a condition for deviating from a schedule for a transfer; and Herz col 14 lines 29-37, In some embodiments, the need for a backup is affected by the type of backup event trigger detected. In one embodiment, if potential imminent hard drive malfunction or failure is detected, the need for a backup is given the highest level of urgency. In another embodiment, a time-scheduled backup is given a much lower level of urgency. One consideration in establishing levels of urgency for different backup event triggers is how likely the data on system 112 is to be lost, if a backup process is not initiated immediately. Interpretation: transfer = backup when the condition for deviating from the schedule for the transfer has occurred while the transfer remains pending, causing the transfer to be performed at a time that is different than the time when it would otherwise be performed. Herz col 14 lines 37-43 95) In some embodiments, the need for a backup is affected by the length of the time since the last successful backup. In one such embodiment, where a time-scheduled backup has been delayed multiple times, each successive backup urgency test will give greater urgency to the need for a backup, until a backup is accomplished. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETIENNE PIERRE LEROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-4022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571 272 4080. 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. /ETIENNE P LEROUX/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2161 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETIENNE PIERRE LEROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-4022. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571 272 4080. 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. Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 2 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 3 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 4 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 5 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 6 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 7 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 8 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 9 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 10 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 11 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 12 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 13 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 14 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 15 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 16 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 17 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 18 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 19 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/260,389 Page 20 Art Unit: 2161
Prosecution Insights