Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This communication is responsive to an amendmentfiled 8/31/10.
`
`Claims 1-12, 14-30, 32-47, 49-65 and 67-70 are pending in this application; and,
`
`claims 1, 14, 18, 22, 32, 36, 49, 53, 57 and 67 are independentclaims. Claims 1-12,
`
`14-30 and 32-35 have been amended; claims 13, 31, 48 and 66 have been cancelled;
`
`and, claims 36-47, 49-65 and 67-70 have been newly added. This action is made non-
`
`Final.
`
`Oath/Declaration
`
`3.
`
`In accordance with 37 CFR 1.175(b)(1), a supplemental reissue oath/declaration
`
`under 37 CFR 1.175(b)(1) must be received before this reissue application can be
`
`allowed.
`
`Claims 1-12, 14-30, 32-47, 49-65 and 67-70 are rejected as being based upon a
`
`defective reissue declaration under 35 USC 251. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the
`
`defect is set forth above. Receipt of an appropriate supplemental oath/declaration
`
`under 37 CFR 1.175(b)(1) will overcome this rejection under 35 USC 251. An example
`
`of acceptable language to be usedin the supplemental oath/declaration is as follows:
`
`“Every error in the patent which was corrected in the present reissue application, and is
`
`not covered by a prior oath/declaration submitted in this application, arose without any
`
`deceptive intention on the part of the applicant.”
`
`
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This communication is responsive to an amendmentfiled 8/31/10.
`
`Claims 1-12, 14-30, 32-47, 49-65 and 67-70 are pending in this application; and,
`
`claims 1, 14, 18, 22, 32, 36, 49, 53, 57 and 67 are independentclaims. Claims 1-12,
`
`14-30 and 32-35 have been amended; claims 13, 31, 48 and 66 have been cancelled;
`
`and, claims 36-47, 49-65 and 67-70 have been newly added. This action is made non-
`
`Final.
`
`Oath/Declaration
`
`3.
`
`In accordance with 37 CFR 1.175(b)(1), a supplemental reissue oath/declaration
`
`under 37 CFR 1.175(b)(1) must be received before this reissue application can be
`
`allowed.
`
`Claims 1-12, 14-30, 32-47, 49-65 and 67-70 are rejected as being based upon a
`
`defective reissue declaration under 35 USC 251. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the
`
`defect is set forth above. Receipt of an appropriate supplemental oath/declaration
`
`under 37 CFR 1.175(b)(1) will overcome this rejection under 35 USC 251. An example
`
`of acceptable language to be usedin the supplemental oath/declaration is as follows:
`
`“Every error in the patent which was corrected in the present reissue application, and is
`
`not covered by a prior oath/declaration submitted in this application, arose without any
`
`deceptive intention on the part of the applicant.”
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 3
`
`Specification
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1, 50 and 57 recite the term "derived". The specification is objected to as
`
`failing to provide proper antecedentbasis for the claimed subject matter. See 37
`
`CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(0). Correction of the following is required:
`
`antecedentbasis for the term "infer" in the specification.
`
`Rejections - 35 USC § 251, Recapture
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1-12, 14-30, 32-47, 49-65 and 67-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as
`
`being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrenderedin the
`
`application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Pannu v. Storz
`
`Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries,
`
`Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131
`
`F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d
`
`1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspectis presentin
`
`the reissue which was notpresentin the application for patent. The record of the
`
`application for the patent showsthat the broadening aspect(in the reissue) relates to
`
`claim subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the
`
`application. Accordingly, the narrow scope ofthe claims in the patent was not an error
`
`within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter
`
`surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured bythe filing of the
`
`present reissue application.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 4
`
`The omitted/broadenedclaim limitations lacking in the reissue which provide the
`
`"broadening aspect" to the claim(s) are as follows: the narrowed claim scope “a
`
`program on a computer” as was agreedbythe attorneyin the original application and
`
`presented/argued to obviate a rejection/objection in the Examiner's Amendment of
`
`3/24/05.
`
`Moreover, by removing the limitation “without losing an original indication of the
`
`default icon” from the patented claims, and notincluding this limitation in the new
`
`reissue claims raises the issue of recapture.
`
`In the Notice of Allowance mailed on
`
`March 24, 2005 in patent application file no. 10/124,179, on page 3 thereof, the reasons
`
`for allowance makeit clear that the limitation “superimposing an appropriate icon
`
`corresponding to the security level over the default icon without losing original
`
`indications of the default icon’ is what distinguished the claims from the priorart of
`
`record. By removing this limitation, the applicant is improperly attempting to broaden
`
`the claims by recapturing surrendered subject matter, prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 251
`
`under reissue practice.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`6.
`
`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 improvementthereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
`conditions and requirements ofthistitle.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-12, 14-17, 36-47 and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due toa
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 lack of means deficiency. the claimed invention is directed to non-
`
`statutory subject matter. The application should be further amendedto include that a
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 5
`
`program is on a computer as was agreed bythe attorneyin the original application and
`
`included in an Examiner’s Amendment.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`8.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections setforth 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 of thistitle, 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 obviousat 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.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1-8, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22-26, 32, 33, 36-43, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57-61, 67 and 68
`
`are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Naccache (US
`
`7,340,599 B2) in view of Salahshour et al. (“Salahshour”, US 5,577,125).
`
`As per claim 1, Naccache teaches a methodfor graphically representing secured
`
`items comprising determining a security level of each of the secured items and for
`
`graphically displaying the secured items, placing for each secured item a security icon
`
`corresponding to the security level of that item in place of a default icon wherein the
`
`default icon represents a corresponding non-secured item from which the respective
`
`secured item wasderived (col. 2, line 44 —col. 3, line 8; displaying selected icon and
`
`assigning a characteristic for indicating that the operation in progressis or is not secure,
`
`i.e., in place of a red default icon, a different color security icon representing secured
`
`transaction/item indicates the security state of the operation, e.g., green). Naccache
`
`doesnotexplicitly disclose placing or superimposing a security icon over a default icon.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 6
`
`Salahshour teaches superimposing for each secured item a security icon corresponding
`
`to the security level of that item over a default icon (fig. 2; col. 3, lines 21-29; key icon
`
`image(s) overlay/superimpose default folder icon). In view of KSR, 127 S. Ct. 1727 at 1742,
`
`82 USPG2d at 1397 (2007), it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of the
`
`invention to incorporate Salahshour’s teaching with the teaching of Naccache giventhat
`
`such techniquesof placing an image over something else are often used so that both
`
`things appear simultaneously.
`
`As perclaim 2, the modified Naccache teaches the method of claim 1 and further
`
`teachesintercepting items whenthe items are retrieved from a storage device and
`
`determining whetheranyof the intercepted items are secured (Naccache: col. 2, line 44
`
`— col. 3, line 8; col. 3, lines 36-61; e.g., browser window contains security information for
`
`the transaction in progress upon userrequest to pay for a purchase in a monetary
`
`transaction; Salahshour: fig. 2; col. 3, lines 21-29).
`
`As perclaim 3, the modified Naccache teaches the method of claim 2 and further
`
`teaches said determining a security level comprises activating a client module in
`
`response to a determination that at least one of the items is secured (Naccache: col. 2,
`
`line 44 — col. 3, line 8; col. 3, lines 36-61; e.g., a browser program such as Internet
`
`Explorer in a Microsoft Windows environment maybeinstalled and activated by a user
`
`to display contents/items).
`
`As perclaim 4, the modified Naccache teaches the method of claim 3 and further
`
`teaches the client module is configured to operate in an operating system supporting
`
`the program (Naccache: col. 2, line 44 — col. 3, line 8; col. 3, lines 36-61; Naccache’s
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 7
`
`invention teaches a client module/component executed in conjunction with a browser
`
`program, for example, Internet Explorer in a Microsoft Windows environmentthat is
`
`installed and activated by a userto display contents/items; Salahshour: col. 2, lines 13-
`
`41).
`
`As perclaim 5, the modified Naccache teaches the method of claim 4 and further
`
`teachesthat the operating system comprises a graphic windowsoperating system and
`
`the program comprisesa utility configured to display contents of the storage device
`
`(Naccache: figs. 1-3; col. 2, line 44 — col. 3; col. 3, lines 36-61; Salahshour: figs. 2-3;
`
`col. 2, lines 13-41).
`
`As per claim 6, the modified Naccache teaches the method of claim 3 and further
`
`teaches determining security information associated with the at least one secured item
`
`wherein the security information includes information regarding the security level of the
`
`at least one secured item (Naccache: col. 2, line 44 —col. 3, line 8; col. 3, lines 36-61;
`
`Salahshour: figs. 2-3; col. 2, lines 13-41).
`
`As per claim 7, the modified Naccache teaches the method of claim 6 and further
`
`teaches the security level includes at least one level of security (Naccache: col. 2, line
`
`44 —col. 3; Salahshour: fig. 2; col. 3, lines 21-29; secured versus non-secured).
`
`As perclaim 8, the modified Naccache teaches the method of claim 1 and further
`
`teaches that the default icon is associated with an executable program (Naccache: col.
`
`2, line 44 — col. 3, line 8; col. 3, lines 36-61; e.g., a browser program such as Internet
`
`Explorer in a Microsoft Windows environment maybeinstalled and activated by a user
`
`to display contents/items; Salahshour: figs. 2 and 4; col. 5, lines 23-34 and 52-62;
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 8
`
`following a request to open an encrypted object such as selectable icon 274 and user
`
`supplies the encryption key, the step proceeds to step 385 to open and decrypt the
`
`object; moreover, the definition of a selectable icon is an interface element graphically
`
`representing a function or system resourcethat is accessed whenthe graphical
`
`representation is selected by user interaction).
`
`Claims 14, 32 and 67 are individually similar in scope to claim 3 and are
`
`therefore rejected under similar rationale.
`
`As per claim 15, the modified Salahshour teaches a method for graphically
`
`indicating secured items in a program for displaying contents in a selected place
`
`wherein there is an appropriate icon for the at least one of the secured items when the
`
`at least one of the secured items is not secured and wherein said generating a
`
`superimposed icon comprises choosing an appropriate icon for the at least one of the
`
`secured items and superimposing the appropriate icon over the default icon associated
`
`with without losing original indications of the default icon (Salahshour: fig. 2; col. 3, lines
`
`21-29).
`
`Claims 18 and 19 in combination is similar in scope to claim 1 and are therefore
`
`rejected under similar rationale.
`
`Claims 22, 36 and 57 areindividually similar in scope to claim 1 and are
`
`therefore rejected under similar rationale.
`
`Claims 23, 37 and 58 are individually similar in scope to claim 2 and are
`
`therefore rejected undersimilar rationale.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 9
`
`Claims 24, 38 and 59 areindividually similar in scope to claim 3 and are
`
`therefore rejected under similar rationale.
`
`Claims 25, 41 and 60 areindividually similar in scope to claim 6 and are
`
`therefore rejected under similar rationale.
`
`Claims 26, 43 and 61 are individually similar in scope to claim 8 and are
`
`therefore rejected under similar rationale.
`
`Claims 33 and 68 are similar in scope to claim 15 and are therefore rejected
`
`under similar rationale.
`
`Claim 39 is similar in scope to claim 4 and is therefore rejected undersimilar
`
`rationale.
`
`Claim 40 is similar in scope to claim 5 andis therefore rejected under similar
`
`rationale.
`
`Claim 42 is similar in scope to claim 7 and is therefore rejected under similar
`
`rationale.
`
`Claims 49 and 50, in combination, are similar in scope to claim 3 and are
`
`therefore rejected under similar rationale.
`
`Claims 53 and 54 in combination is similar in scope to claim 1 and are therefore
`
`rejected under similar rationale.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 9-12, 20, 21, 27-30, 44-47, 55, 56 and 62-65 are rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Naccache (US 7,340,599 B2) in view of
`
`Salahshour et al. (“Salahshour’, US 5,577,125), and further in view of Gough etal.
`
`("Gough”, US 5,638,501).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 10
`
`As per claim 9, although the modified Naccache teaches a methodfor graphically
`
`indicating secured items in a program for displaying contents in a selected place
`
`wherein the security icon includes a visual object (Salahshour: fig. 2; col. 3, lines 21-29;
`
`key overlay and transparent background; in other words, each of the icons 212 and 214
`
`are encrypted and is visually indicated to the user by the encryption key overlay and,
`
`thereby, indicates the nature of a securedfile), the modified Naccache does not
`
`explicitly disclose an icon that includes a visual object and a transparent background.
`
`Gough teachesan iconthat includes a visual object and a clear/transparent background
`
`(fig. 4; col. 6, lines 50-56; claims 1, 9 and 14). In view of KSR, 127 S. Ct. 1727 at 1742, 82
`
`USPG2d at 1397 (2007), it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of the
`
`invention to incorporate Gough's teaching with the teaching of the modified Naccache
`
`so that users can see more of a visual object and portions of a base image directly
`
`beneath the visual object given that one may obscure the other.
`
`As per claim 10, the modified Naccache teaches the method of claim 9 and
`
`further teaches said superimposing an appropriate icon corresponding to the security
`
`level over the default icon comprises overlaying the visual object onto the default icon of
`
`the default icon such that at least a portion of the default icon is visible (Salahshour: fig.
`
`2; col. 3, lines 21-29; superimposing comprising key overlaid on a default icon without
`
`obscuring the rest of the default icon, e.g., 212, 214; Gough: col. 6, lines 50-56; claims
`
`1, 9 and 14; translucent image allows icons 52, 54 and 56 to be seen through the
`
`translucent image).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 11
`
`As per claim 11, the modified Naccache teaches the method of claim 9 and
`
`further teaches said superimposing comprises generating a superimposedicon
`
`including the default icon with the visual object superimposed thereon such that at least
`
`a portion of the default iconis visible (Salahshour: col. 3, lines 21-29; superimposing
`
`comprising key overlaid on a default icon without obscuring the rest of the default icon
`
`as displayed by 212 and 214 in fig. 2; Gough: col. 6, lines 50-56; claims 1, 9 and 14;
`
`translucent image allows icons 52, 54 and 56 to be seen through the translucent
`
`image).
`
`As per claim 12, the modified Naccache teaches the method of claim 10 and
`
`further teaches the default icon is associated with an executable program (Naccache:
`
`col. 2, line 44 —col. 3, line 8; col. 3, lines 36-61; e.g., a browser program such as
`
`Internet Explorer in a Microsoft Windows environment maybeinstalled and activated by
`
`a user to display contents/items; Salahshour: figs. 2 and 4; col. 5, lines 23-34 and 52-
`
`62; upon selection of the secured items or the superimposed icon or upon a requestto
`
`open the secured items or the superimposedicon such as 214, the associated program
`
`is opened/accesseq).
`
`As per claims 20 and 55, although the modified Naccache teaches a computer
`
`for graphically indicating secured item(s) in a program for displaying contents in a
`
`selected place wherein the appropriate icon includes a visual object (Salahshour: fig. 2;
`
`col. 3, lines 21-29; key overlay and transparent background; in other words, each of the
`
`icons 212 and 214 are encrypted and is visually indicated to the user by the encryption
`
`key overlay and, thereby, indicates the nature of a securedfile), the modified Naccache
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 12
`
`does notexplicitly disclose an icon that includes a visual object and a transparent
`
`background. Gough teachesanicon that includes a visual object and a
`
`clear/transparent background(fig. 4; col. 6, lines 50-56; claims 1, 9 and 14). In view of
`
`KSR, 127 S. Ct. 1727 at 1742, 82 USPG2d at 1397 (2007), it would have been obvious to an
`
`artisan at the time of the invention to incorporate Gough’s teaching with the teaching of
`
`the modified Naccache so that users can see moreof a visual object and portions of a
`
`base image directly beneath the visual object given that one may obscure the other.
`
`As per claims 21 and 56, the modified Naccache teaches a computerfor
`
`graphically indicating secured item(s) in a program for displaying contents in a selected
`
`place wherein said superimposing an appropriate icon corresponding to the security
`
`level over the default icon comprises overlaying the visual object onto the default icon
`
`without obscuring the rest of the default icon (Salahshour: fig. 2; col. 3, lines 21-29;
`
`superimposing comprising key overlaid on a default icon without obscuring the rest of
`
`the default icon, e.g., 212, 214).
`
`Claims 27, 44 and 62 are individually similar in scope to claim 9 and are
`
`therefore rejected under similar rationale.
`
`Claims 28, 45 and 63 are individually similar in scope to claim 10 and are
`
`therefore rejected under similar rationale.
`
`Claims 29, 46 and 64 areindividually similar in scope to claim 11 and are
`
`therefore rejected under similar rationale.
`
`Claims 30, 47 and 65 areindividually similar in scope to claim 12 and are
`
`therefore rejected under similar rationale.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 13
`
`11.
`
`Claims 16, 17, 34, 35, 51, 52, 69 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Naccache (US 7,340,599 B2) in view of Salahshour etal.
`
`(“Salahshour’, US 5,577,125), and further in view of Gough etal. ("Gough”, US
`
`5,638,501).
`
`As per claim 16, although the modified Naccache teaches a methodfor
`
`graphically indicating secured items in a program for displaying contents in a selected
`
`place wherein the appropriate icon includes a visual object (Salahshour: fig. 2; col. 3,
`
`lines 21-29; key overlay and transparent background; in other words, eachof the icons
`
`212 and 214 are encrypted and is visually indicated to the user by the encryption key
`
`overlay and, thereby, indicates the nature of a securedfile), the modified Naccache
`
`does notexplicitly disclose an icon that includes a visual object and a transparent
`
`background. Gough teachesaniconthat includes a visual object and a
`
`clear/transparent background(fig. 4; col. 6, lines 50-56; claims 1, 9 and 14). In view of
`
`KSR, 127 S. Ct. 1727 at 1742, 82 USPG2d at 1397 (2007), it would have been obvious to an
`
`artisan at the time of the invention to incorporate Gough’s teaching with the teaching of
`
`the modified Naccache so that users can see moreof a visual object and portions of a
`
`base image directly beneath the visual object given that one may obscurethe other.
`
`As per claim 17, the modified Naccache teaches a method for graphically
`
`indicating secured items in a program for displaying contents in a selected place
`
`wherein said superimposing the appropriate icon over the default icon comprises
`
`overlaying the visual object onto the default icon without obscuring the rest of the
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 14
`
`default icon (Salahshour: fig. 2; col. 3, lines 21-29; superimposing comprising key
`
`overlaid on a default icon without obscuring the rest of the default icon, e.g., 212, 214).
`
`Claim 34 is similar in scope to claim 16 andis therefore rejected undersimilar
`
`rationale.
`
`Claim 35 is similar in scope to claim 17 andis therefore rejected undersimilar
`
`rationale.
`
`As perclaims 51 and 69, although the modified Naccache teaches a method and
`
`a computer readable medium containing program code executable by a computing
`
`device for graphically indicating a secured item in a program for displaying contents in a
`
`selected place wherein the appropriate icon includes a visual object (Salahshour: fig. 2;
`
`col. 3, lines 21-29; key overlay and transparent background; in other words, each of the
`
`icons 212 and 214 are encrypted and is visually indicated to the user by the encryption
`
`key overlay and, thereby, indicates the nature of a securedfile), the modified Naccache
`
`does notexplicitly disclose an icon that includes a visual object and a transparent
`
`background. Gough teachesaniconthat includes a visual object and a
`
`clear/transparent background(fig. 4; col. 6, lines 50-56; claims 1, 9 and 14). In view of
`
`KSR, 127 S. Ct. 1727 at 1742, 82 USPG2d at 1397 (2007), it would have been obvious to an
`
`artisan at the time of the invention to incorporate Gough's teaching with the teaching of
`
`the modified Naccache so that users can see more ofa visual object and portions of a
`
`base image directly beneath the visual object given that one may obscure the other.
`
`As per claims 52 and 70, the modified Naccache teaches a method and a
`
`computer readable medium containing program code executable by a computing device
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 15
`
`for graphically indicating a secured item in a program for displaying contents in a
`
`selected place wherein said superimposing the appropriate icon over the default icon
`
`comprises overlaying the visual object onto the default icon without obscuring the rest of
`
`the default icon (Salahshour: fig. 2; col. 3, lines 21-29; superimposing comprising key
`
`overlaid on a default icon without obscuring the rest of the default icon, e.g., 212, 214).
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`12.
`
`Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 14, 18, 22, 32, 36, 49, 53, 57 and
`
`67 have been considered but are mootin view of the new ground(s)of rejection.
`
`13.|The prior art made of record and notrelied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`Conclusion
`
`applicant's disclosure.
`
`Rose (US 7,028,050 B1) teachesthatit is known that meta data can be provided
`
`for the data. Such meta data can include text e.g. a description of the content of the
`
`data file to which the meta data is associated. Such meta data is thus searchable using
`
`conventional key word searches or natural language searches, e.g. where the database
`
`contains text data to be searched, the query can be matchedto the dataitself, e.g. the
`
`title, the abstract or the whole text, or to meta data such as a document title, file name,
`
`abstract or caption whichis extraneous to the dataitself (col. 15, lines 53-61).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/889,685
`Art Unit: 2174
`
`Page 16
`
`Inquires
`
`14.—Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Examiner L6é Nguyen whose telephone numberis (571)
`
`272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 7:00 am to
`
`3:30 pm (EST).
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Dennis Chow,can be reached at (571) 272-7767.
`
`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 htip://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on accessto the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll-free).
`
`Ivn
`Patent Examiner
`May 20, 2011
`
`/DENNIS-DOON CHOW/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
We are unable to display this document.
HTTP Error 400: Found
