Reply to Office Action of March 29, 2012
`
`-21-
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`Remarks
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Upon entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1-12, 14-30, 32-47, 49-65, and
`
`67-70 are pendingin the application, with claims 1, 14, 18, 22, 32, 36, 49, 53, 57, and 67
`
`being the independent claims. Claims 15-17 and 50-52 are sought to be amendedbythis
`
`Reply. These changes are believed to introduce no new matter, and their entry is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`Based on the above amendment and the following remarks, Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that
`
`the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and
`
`rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Supplemental Oath/Declaration
`
`The Examinerhas rejected claims 1-12, 14-30, 32-47, 49-65 and 67-70 under 35
`
`U.S.C § 251 as allegedly being based upon a defective reissue declaration. Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that this rejection be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter
`
`is indicated, at which time a supplemental declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.175(b)(1) will
`
`be submitted covering all errors corrected in reissue prosecution.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`The Examiner has objected to claims 15-17 and 50-53 for allegedly lacking
`
`sufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the method”in line 1 of each respective claim.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`Remarks
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Upon entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1-12, 14-30, 32-47, 49-65, and
`
`67-70 are pendingin the application, with claims 1, 14, 18, 22, 32, 36, 49, 53, 57, and 67
`
`being the independent claims. Claims 15-17 and 50-52 are sought to be amendedbythis
`
`Reply. These changes are believed to introduce no new matter, and their entry is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`Based on the above amendment and the following remarks, Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that
`
`the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and
`
`rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Supplemental Oath/Declaration
`
`The Examinerhas rejected claims 1-12, 14-30, 32-47, 49-65 and 67-70 under 35
`
`U.S.C § 251 as allegedly being based upon a defective reissue declaration. Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that this rejection be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter
`
`is indicated, at which time a supplemental declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.175(b)(1) will
`
`be submitted covering all errors corrected in reissue prosecution.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`The Examiner has objected to claims 15-17 and 50-53 for allegedly lacking
`
`sufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the method”in line 1 of each respective claim.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of March 29, 2012
`
`-22-
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`Applicantnotesinitially that claim 53 is a separate independent claim directed to
`
`an article of manufacture, and does not recite the phrase “the method” anywhere.
`
`It is
`
`believed that the Examiner intended to object only to claims 15-17 and 50-52, and that
`
`the objection to claim 53 is in error. Applicant respectfully requests the reconsideration
`
`and withdrawal of the objection of claim 53.
`
`Regarding claims 15-17 and 50-52, each of these claimsrecites “the method” by
`
`way of reference to the “computer-implemented method” of claims 14 and 49,
`
`respectively. There is no ambiguity in this recitation, and the “computer-implemented
`
`method” of the independent claims provides clear antecedent basis for the subsequent
`
`recitation of “the method” in the dependent claims. Nevertheless, solely to advance
`
`prosecution andclarify the claims without further limiting their scope, Applicant seeksto
`
`amend claims 15-17 and 50-52 to recite “the computer-implemented method,” consistent
`
`with claims 14 and 49. Applicant therefore respectfully requests the reconsideration and
`
`withdrawal of the objection to claims 15-17 and 50-52.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims1-8, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22-26, 32. 33, 36-43, 49,50, 53, 54, 57-61, 67, and
`68
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 1-8, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22-26, 32, 33, 36-43, 49,
`
`50, 53, 54, 57-61, 67, and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)' as allegedly being obvious over
`
`' The Examiner notes on page 3 of the Office Action that the claimsare rejected
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Given that the rejection is made by combination of two
`references under a heading for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is believed that the
`rejection was intended to be made under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Applicant responds
`accordingly.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of March 29, 2012
`
`-23-
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,424,429 to Takahashi et al. (“Takahashi”) in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`§,031,532 to Gourdol et al. (Gourdol’)}. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
`
`Claim 1 recites, fufer alia, “determining a security level of each of the secured
`
`items” and “superimposing for each secured item a security icon corresponding to the
`
`security level of that item over a default icon.” The combination of Takahashi and
`
`Gourdol does not
`
`teach or suggest at
`
`least
`
`this feature of claim 1, and similar
`
`distinguishing features found in independent claims 14, 18, 22, 32, 36, 49, 53, 57, and
`
`67.
`
`In rejecting claim 1,
`
`the Examiner relies solely on Takahashi as allegedly
`
`teaching the aforementioned claim featuresstating: “determining a security level of each
`
`of the secured items and graphically displaying the secured times, e.g. element 71.”
`
`(Office Action, p. 4; Takahashi FIG. 38 and col. 31, line 22 — col. 32, line 67). The
`
`Examiner does not elite to Gourdol as allegedly supplying the missing teaching or
`
`suggestion, rather relying on Gourdol only for disclosure of applying a “lock security
`
`level” superimposed on a background icon.
`
`(Office Action, p. 4). Neither is there any
`
`teaching or suggestion in Gourdol for at least this above-noted distinguishing feature.
`
`Gourdol
`
`therefore lacks any teaching or suggestion of superimposing specifically a
`
`“security icon corresponding to a security level of that item,” as it only provides a single
`
`“lock” icon corresponding to a single security level.
`
`The above-cited portions of Takahashi are directed to providing a “‘Security’
`
`button for implementing a security instruction for allowing accumulation of document
`
`data to be processed and also insuring security for the document data.”
`
`(Takahashi,
`
`31:26-28). Takahashi separately provides a “‘Code’ button for inputting a coding
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of March 29, 2012
`
`- 24-
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`instruction.” (Takahashi, 31:28-29). The contents of these buttons do not correspond to
`
`the claimed “security icon corresponding to the security level of that item,” nor are the
`
`security instruction and coding instruction considered a “security level” in the context of
`
`the claims.
`
`In particular,
`
`in Takahashi both buttons are present for a single document.
`
`(Takahashi, FIG. 38.) This means that “Code” and “Security”are not security levels, but
`
`simply implement
`
`separate instructions,
`
`as clearly described in the Takahashi
`
`specification cited above. Consistent with this interpretation, Takahashi notes that “input
`
`of the password is prompted when the ‘Security’ button er ‘Code’ button is pressed.”
`
`(Takahashi, 31:43-44). Even if these buttons were somehow interpreted as security
`
`levels, the buttons themselves are separate and provide separate functionality, and would
`
`therefore not be describing a same “security level,” as claimed.
`
`As a result of Gourdol not curing the deficiencies of Takahashi, the combination
`
`of Takahashi and Gourdolfails to teach or suggest at least “determining a security level
`
`of each of the secured items” and “superimposing for each secured item a security icon
`
`correspondingto the security level of that item over a default icon,” as recited in claim
`
`1, and similar distinguishing features in independent claims 14, 18, 22, 32, 36, 49, 53,
`
`57, and 67. Therejection of the various dependent claimsis likewise in error.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the reconsideration and withdrawal
`
`of the rejection of claims 1-8, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22-26, 32, 33, 36-43, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57-61,
`
`67, and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REI0
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of March 29, 2012
`
`- 25 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`
`Claims 9-12, 16-17, 20-21, 27-30, 34-35; 44-47, 51-52, 55-56, 62-65, and 69-70
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 9-12, 16-17, 20-21, 27-30, 34-35, 44-47, 51-
`
`52, 55-56, 62-65, and 69-70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being obvious over
`
`Takahashi in view of Gourdol, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,638,501 to Gough et
`
`al. (“Gough”). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
`
`As discussed above, the combination of Takahashi and Gourdolfails to teach or
`
`suggest at
`
`least “determining a security level of each of the secured items” and
`
`“superimposing for each secured item a security icon corresponding to the security level
`
`of that item over a default icon,” as recited in claim 1, and similar distinguishing features
`
`in independentclaims 14, 18, 22, 32, 36, 49, 53, 57, and 67. Goughis not used by the
`
`Examiner to supply, nor does Gough supply the missing teaching or suggestion, and
`
`therefore the foregoing claims are not
`
`rendered obvious by the combination of
`
`Takahashi, Gourdol, and Gough. Claims 9-12, 16-17, 20-21, 27-30, 34-35, 44-47, 51-52,
`
`55-56, 62-65, and 69-70 each depend from one of the foregcing independentclaims, and
`
`are likewise not rendered obvious by the combination of Takahashi, Gourdol, and Gough
`
`for at least the same reasons, and further in view of their own respective features.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the reconsideration and withdrawal
`
`of the rejection of claims 9-12, 16-17, 20-21, 27-30, 34-35, 44-47, 51-52, 55-56, 62-65,
`
`and 69-70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`* The Examiner makes these rejections in two separate parts beginning,
`respectively, at pages 12 and 14 of the Office Action. The rejections are addressed
`together.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REI0
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of March 29, 2012
`
`- 26 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed,
`
`accommodated, or rendered moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the
`
`Examinerreconsider all presently outstanding objections and rejections and that they be
`
`withdrawn. Applicant believes that a full and complete reply has been made to the
`
`outstanding Office Action and, as such,
`
`the present application is in condition for
`
`allowance.
`
`If the Examiner believes, for any reason, that personal communication will
`
`expedite prosecution of this application,
`
`the Examiner is invited to telephone the
`
`undersigned at the number provided.
`
`Prompt and favorable consideration of this Amendment and Reply is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, Gol DSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C,
`
`
`Salvador M. Bezos
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 60,889
`
`oe
`Date: <= *
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`1505364_1.DOCX
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of March 29, 2012
`
`-27-
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`Appendix ~ Claim Amendments Relative to Prior Reply
`
`The following claim listing is provided for the purpose offacilitating review of
`
`the claim amendments. This claim listing ihustrates the status of the claims as amended
`
`by this Reply, and includes only those claims being amendedbythis reply.
`
`15.
`
`(Currently Amended) The computer-imslemented method as recited in
`
`claim 14, wherein said generating a superimposed icon comprises:
`
`determining a security icon for the at least one secured item based,at least
`
`in part, on the determined security level; and
`
`superimposing the security icon over a default icon, wherein the default
`
`icon is configured to represent a non-secured item from which the at least one secured
`
`item was derived.
`
`16.
`
`(Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method as recited in
`
`claim 15, wherein the security icon includes a visual object and a transparent
`
`background.
`
`17.
`
`(Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method as recited in
`
`claim 16, wherein said superimposing comprises overlaying the visual object onto the
`
`default icon such that at least a portion of the default iconis visible.
`
`50.
`
`(Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method as recited in
`
`claim 49, wherein said generating a superimposed icon comprises:
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of March 29, 2012
`
`- 28 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`determining a security icon for the secured item based, at least in part, on the
`
`determined security level; and
`
`superimposing the security icon over a default icon, wherein the default icon is
`
`configured to represent a non-secured item of a samefile type as the secured item.
`
`51.
`
`(Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method as recited in
`
`claim 50, wherein the security icon includes a visual object and a transparent
`
`background.
`
`52.
`
`(Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method as recited in
`
`claim 51, wherein said superimposing comprises overlaying the visual object onto the
`
`default icon such that the default icon is at least partially visible.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REI0
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
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
