`“x
`‘\\f
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`11/680,452
`
`02/28/2007
`
`Chuck Jennings
`
`406855
`
`5285
`
`03/27/2017 —POLSINELLIPC m
`
`7590
`27148
`
`
`BLA <’ DOUGLAS B
`900 WEST 48TH PLACE
`SUITE 900
`KANSAS CITY, MO 64112-1895
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2442
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/27/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`uspt @polsinelli.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 11/680,452 JENNINGS ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`DOUGLAS BLAIR its“ 2442
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 1/5/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)|:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 6-35 and 41-128 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)|:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| Claim(s) 6-35 and 41- 128 is/are rejected.
`
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`* If any)claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`
`
`()
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`
`
`hit z/thvvvtlsnto. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`iindex.‘s orsend an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)|:l objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170321
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre—AIA first to invent provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2017 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`Eyal streams media content segments from each resource that is referenced by the URL’s
`
`that are part of the playlist. Eyal may teach that a playlist is sent to the user, which the examiner
`
`agrees is not streaming, but Eyal also teaches streaming each media content segment referenced
`
`in the playlist from the resource referenced by the resource at the URL identified in the playlist.
`
`This interpretation reads on the breadth of the claims. The claims send “an indication of the
`
`media content segment” to the communication device and then the communication device
`
`communicates with a resource to obtain the stream. Eyal is doing exactly what the applicant is
`
`claiming. Each URL in the playlist is the claimed indication. The URL is information
`
`instructing the communication device how to communicate with each of the plurality of
`
`resources (server at URL) to cause the media content segment to be streamed. Notice that the
`
`claims do not stipulate whether each “indication of media content” is sent individually or as part
`
`of a playlist. The indications could be part of a playlist according to the breadth of the
`
`applicant’s claims.
`
`As to the newly amended limitations, the Examiner has considered these limitations and
`
`found them not to be patentable over the combination of Eyal and Hedge. Newly revised
`
`rejections are provided with new citations.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claims 107 and 108 are objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`they refer to
`
`the “system” of claim 6 instead of the “method”. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre—AIA 35 USC. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not
`be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Claims 6, 17-19, 22, 24-27, 41, 52-55, 59-62, 79-88, 93-102, 107-116, and 122-124
`
`is/are rejected under pre—AIA 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US. Patent Number
`
`6,389,467 to Eyal in view of US. Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0007418 by
`
`Hedge.
`
`As to claim 6, Eyal teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a management system Via
`
`a communication network and from a communication device, a request associated with a user of
`
`the communication device to have media content streamed to the communication device, the
`
`requested media content comprising a plurality of media content segments (col. 19, line 48-col.
`
`20, line 14), and the management system comprising a combination of hardware and software
`
`(Figure 4, search request 203 and col. 19, lines 30-35 and 41-44); and for each one of the
`
`plurality of media content segments, (i) determining, by the management system, a plurality of
`
`resources (Figure 19, the media sites are resources) available to facilitate streaming the media
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`content segment to the communication device (col. 14, lines 50-60 describes a process of
`
`determining Whether the media sites corresponding to the URL are “available to facilitate
`
`streaming”); and (ii) transmitting, from the management system to the communication device,
`
`an indication of the media content segment segment (col. 19, lines 38-40) and information
`
`instructing the communication device identifying how to communicate with each of the plurality
`
`of resources to cause the media content segment to be streamed to the communication device
`
`(col. 20, lines 39-45) in accordance with at least one rule associated with the requested media
`
`content to control how the plurality of media content segments are to be streamed to the
`
`communication device (col. 15, lines 37-65) and an attribute of the communication device (col.
`
`19, lines 41-44 and col. 20, lines 23-29, the parameter); however Eyal does not explicitly teach
`
`that the media content segment is to be streamed to the communication device in accordance
`
`with at least one rule associated with a capability of the communication device.
`
`Hedge teaches a method for streaming media content segments to a communication
`
`device in accordance with at least one rule associated with a capability of the communication
`
`device (paragraphs 63-66 and Figure 6).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`to combine the teachings of Eyal regarding distributing content segments to client devices with
`
`the teachings of Hedge regarding streaming according to a rule associated with a capability of a
`
`client device because doing so allows for a better client experience (see teachings of Hedge) and
`
`Eyal already tracks the capabilities of the user device (see col. 13, line 46—col. 14, line 9) so
`
`implementing the teachings of Hedge in the system of Eyal will not require substantial
`
`modification of Eyal in order to be viable.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`As to claim 41, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 6.
`
`As to claims 107 and 109, col. 19, lines 30—54.
`
`As to claims 108 and 110, col. 11, lines 31—37.
`
`As to claim 79, Eyal teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a management system
`
`via a communication network and from a communication device, a request associated with a user
`
`of the communication device to have media content streamed to the communication device, the
`
`requested media content comprising a plurality of media content segments (col. 19, line 48-col.
`
`20, line 14) and the management system comprising a combination of hardware and software
`
`(Figure 4, search request 203 and col. 19, lines 30-35 and 41-44); for each one of the plurality
`
`of media content segments, (i) determining, by the management system, a plurality of resources
`
`(Figure 19, the media sites are resources) other than the management system available to
`
`facilitate streaming of the media content segment to the communication device (col. 14, lines 50-
`
`60 describes a process of determining Whether the media sites corresponding to the URL
`
`are “available to facilitate streaming”); and (ii) transmitting, from the management system to
`
`the communication device, an identification the media content segment (col. 19, lines 38-40) and
`
`information instructing the communication device how to communicate with each of the plurality
`
`of resources to cause the media content segments to be streamed to the communication device
`
`(col. 20, lines 39-45); in accordance with at least one rule associated with the requested media
`
`content to control how the plurality of media content segments are to be streamed to the
`
`communication device (col. 15, lines 37-65) and an attribute of the communication device (col.
`
`19, lines 41-44 and col. 20, lines 23-29, the parameter); however Eyal does not explicitly teach
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`that the media content segment is to be streamed to the communication deVice in accordance
`
`with at least one rule associated with a capability of the communication deVice.
`
`Hedge teaches a method for streaming media content segments to a communication
`
`deVice in accordance with at least one rule associated with a capability of the communication
`
`device (paragraphs 63-66 and Figure 6).
`
`It would have been obVious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`to combine the teachings of Eyal regarding distributing content segments to client deVices with
`
`the teachings of Hedge regarding streaming according to a rule associated with a capability of a
`
`client deVice because doing so allows for a better client experience (see teachings of Hedge) and
`
`Eyal already tracks the capabilities of the user deVice (see col. 13, line 46—col. 14, line 9) so
`
`implementing the teachings of Hedge in the system of Eyal will not require substantial
`
`modification of Eyal in order to be Viable.
`
`As to claim 93, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 79.
`
`As to claims 17 and 52, see col. 26, lines 19—32.
`
`As to claims 18 and 53, see col. 19, lines 30—54.
`
`As to claims 19 and 54, see Figure 19.
`
`As to claims 22, 57, 86 and 100, see col. 9, lines 5—12, the multiple sites described by
`
`Eyal would qualify as a routing processor. The applicant does not explicitly limit the definition
`
`of a routing processor.
`
`As to claims 24 and 59, see col. 19, lines 30—54.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`As to claims 25, 26, 60, and 61, see col. 12, lines 64—67.
`
`As to claims 27 and 62, see col. 19, lines 30—54.
`
`As to claims 80, 81, 94, and 95, see col. 13, lines 1—8.
`
`As to claims 82 and 96, media player clearly receives a format that it can use to retrieve
`
`the media.
`
`As to claims 83 and 97, see col. 19, lines 30—54.
`
`As to claims 84 and 98, see col. 19, lines 30—54.
`
`As to claims 85 and 99, see col. 19, lines 30—54.
`
`As to claims 87, 88, 101, and 102, see Figure 11 and corresponding text.
`
`As to claims 111 and 113, see col. 19, lines 30—54.
`
`As to claims 112 and 114, see col. 11, lines 31—37.
`
`As to claims 115—117 and 122—124, see col. 13, lines 1—8.
`
`Claims 7—14, 16, 42—49, 51, 118—121, and 125—128 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) as being unpatentable over US. Patent Number 6,389,467 to Eyal in View of US. Patent
`
`Application Publication Number 2002/0007418 by Hedge in further View of US. Patent Number
`
`5,758,257 to Herz et al.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`As to claims 7 and 42, the Eyal—Hedge combination teaches the subject matter of claims
`
`79 and 93 however the Eyal—Hedge combination does not explicitly teach the use of a viewer
`
`profile to generate the identification for the plurality of portions of the media.
`
`Herz teaches a method and system for delivering media to a user comprising using a
`
`viewer profile to generate identification of a plurality of portions of media (Figures 1 and 2).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal—Hedge combination regarding providing media to
`
`a requester with the teachings of Herz regarding using a viewer profile to select media because
`
`using a viewer profile would enhance the selection based on search results used by Eyal without
`
`modifying the inventive concept of Eyal.
`
`As to claim 8, the Eyal—Hedge combination teaches the subject matter of claims 79;
`
`however the Eyal—Hedge combination does not explicitly teach selecting other media based upon
`
`a viewer profile.
`
`Herz teaches a method of selecting other media to be included in a presentation
`
`comprising selecting, based on upon a viewer profile, other media, wherein the other media is
`
`not requested by the user of the communication device to be streamed to the communication
`
`device and transmitting the other media to the communication device (col. 47, line 2l—col. 48,
`
`line 22).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal—Hedge combination regarding providing media to
`
`a requester with the teachings of Herz regarding adding other media to a presentation because
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`doing so can generate revenue through advertising for the media provider. Eyal does suggest the
`
`insertion of commercials (see col. 13, lines 1—8).
`
`As to claim 43, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 8.
`
`As to claims 9, 10, 44, and 45, see col. 47, line 2l—col. 48, line 22 of Herz.
`
`As to claims 11 and 46, see col. 48, lines 5—22 of Herz.
`
`As to claim 47, the Eyal—Hedge combination teaches the subject matter of claims 93;
`
`however the Eyal—Hedge combination does not explicitly teach the selection of a media clip
`
`based on collected data associated with the user of a communication device.
`
`Herz teaches a method of selecting other media to be included in a presentation
`
`comprising collecting data and selecting a media clip based on the selected data (col. 39, line 20—
`
`col. 40, line 10).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal—Hedge combination regarding providing media to
`
`a requester with the teachings of Herz regarding collecting data associated With a user for
`
`selecting media because using collected data can enhance the relevance of media for a particular
`
`user.
`
`Herz.
`
`As to claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 47.
`
`As to claims 13 and 48, see col. 38, lines 18—41 and col. 39, line 20—col. 40, line 10 of
`
`As to claims 14 and 49, see col. 47, line 2l—col. 48, line 22 of Herz.
`
`As to claims 16 and 51, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 7 and 42.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`As to claims 118—121 and 125—128, the Eyal—Hedge combination teaches the subject
`
`matter of claims 115 and 122 including inserting advertisements into segments (Eyal, col. 13,
`
`lines 1—8) however the Eyal—Hedge combination does not explicitly teach how the advertisements
`
`are chosen.
`
`Herz teaches the manners of selecting advertisements based on audience, profiles,
`
`demographics and rules (col. 29, lines 31—51).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`to combine the teachings of the Eyal—Hedge combination regarding selecting commercials with
`
`the teachings of Herz regarding selecting commercials based on audience, profiles,
`
`demographics and rules because doing so allows for particularly relevant commercials.
`
`Claims 15 and 50 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over US. Patent Number 6,389,467 to Eyal in view of US. Patent Application Publication
`
`Number 2002/0007418 by Hedge in further view of US. Patent Number 5,933,811 to Angles et
`
`al.
`
`As to claims 15 and 50, the Eyal—Hedge combination teaches the subject matter of claims
`
`79 and 93 however the Eyal—Hedge combination does not explicitly teach the selection of other
`
`media to be included with a request based on revenue.
`
`Angles teaches a method and system for delivering media to a user comprising using a
`
`viewer profile to generate identification of a plurality of portions of media (col. 4, lines 17—26).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal—Hedge combination regarding providing media to
`
`a requester with the teachings of Angles regarding selecting other media base done revenue
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`because Eyal discusses commercials can be inserted into a playlist (see col. 13, lines 1—8) and
`
`Angles shows that revenue can be used to persuade a content provider to insert advertising.
`
`Claims 20, 21, 55, and 56 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over US. Patent Number 6,389,467 to Eyal in view of US. Patent Application
`
`Publication Number 2002/0007418 by Hedge in further view of US. Patent Number 6,654,807
`
`to Farber et al.
`
`As to claims 20 and 55, the Eyal—Hedge combination teaches the subject matter of claims
`
`19 and 93 but the Eyal—Hedge combination does not explicitly teach selecting a different
`
`resource if a resource is not available.
`
`Farber teaches a method of distributing data comprising selecting a different resource to
`
`facilitate streaming a portion of media if a resource is not able to stream the portion of media and
`
`transmitting an identification of a different resource to a communication device (See Figures 5
`
`and 6).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal—Hedge combination regarding providing media to
`
`a requester with the teachings of Farber regarding selecting another resource when a first
`
`resource is unavailable because such a selection allows for a more efficient distribution of data
`
`(see background of Farber).
`
`As to claims 21 and 56, see Figures 5 and 6 of Farber.
`
`Claims 23, 28—35, 58, 63—78, 89—92 and 103—106 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) as being unpatentable over US. Patent Number 6,389,467 to Eyal in view of US. Patent
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Application Publication Number 2002/0007418 by Hedge in further view of US. Patent Number
`
`6,385,596 to Wiser.
`
`As to claims 23 and 58, the Eyal—Hedge combination teaches the subject matter of claims
`
`22 and 57; however the Eyal—Hedge combination does not explicitly teach the generation of
`
`reservations comprising reservation IDs.
`
`Wiser teaches a method comprising generating a reservation associated with streaming a
`
`portion of media to a communication device with the reservation comprising a reservation ID
`
`(see Figure 9).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal—Hedge combination regarding providing media to
`
`a requester with the teachings of Wiser regarding reservations because reservations allow for a
`
`media providing to obtain compensation for media provided to a user (see background of Wiser).
`
`As to claims 28—35 and 63—70, the Eyal—Hedge combination teaches the subject matter of
`
`claims 79 and 93; however the Eyal—Hedge combination does not teach the claimed authorization
`
`techniques.
`
`Wiser teaches the claimed techniques for authorizing the use of media (see Figure 9 and
`
`corresponding text).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal—Hedge combination regarding providing media to
`
`a requester with the teachings of Wiser regarding the authorized use of media because
`
`authorizing the use of media allows for compensation to be provided to a media producer (see
`
`background of Wiser).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`As to claims 71—78, the Eyal—Hedge combination teaches the subject matter of claims 79
`
`and 93 however the Eyal—Hedge combination does not explicitly teach the claimed settlement
`
`methods.
`
`Wiser teaches the claimed settlement methods (see col. 15—col. 20).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal—Hedge combination regarding providing media to
`
`a requester with the teachings of Wiser regarding settlement techniques because financial
`
`settlement provides a benefit for content providers to provide media over a network (see
`
`background of Wiser).
`
`As to claims 89—92 and 103—106, the Eyal—Hedge combination teaches the subject matter
`
`of claims 24, 27, 53, and 62 however the Eyal—Hedge combination does not explicitly teach
`
`embedding authentication information and reservation information in each URL.
`
`Wiser teaches a method of providing video via a URL including retrieving authentication
`
`and reservation information (col. 18, lines 9—55).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal—Hedge combination regarding providing media to
`
`a requester with the teachings of Wiser regarding including authentication and reservation
`
`information in a URL because such information allows a server to determine whether a request
`
`for information is valid.
`
`Conclusion
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this
`
`Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
`
`Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed Within TWO
`
`MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after
`
`the end of the THREE—MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period
`
`Will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this
`
`final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS BLAIR Whose telephone number is (571)272—3893.
`
`The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:30pm.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Glen Burgess can be reached on (571) 272—3949. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization Where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571—273—8300.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see http://pair—direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
`
`system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866—217—9197 (toll—free). If you would
`
`like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
`
`information system, call 800—786—9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571—272—1000.
`
`/DOUGLAS BLAIR/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2442
`
`