IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1005-16-01 USD
`Customer No 42698
`
`In re application of:
`Vladimir Drunkin
`10/872,289
`06-17-2004
`Natural Language For Programming
`A Specialized Computing System
`
`Serial No:
`Filed:
`For:
`
`AMENDMENT
`
`Mail Stop Amendments
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO BOX 1450
`Alexandria, VA22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Introductory Comments:
`
`Art Unit:
`Examiner:
`Conf. No.:
`
`2168
`ONI, OLUBUSOLA
`1890
`
`I hereby certifY that this correspondence is
`being deposited by way of ELECTRONIC
`FILING (or FACSIMILE to 571 273 8300)
`with the United Patent Office addressed to:
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`on:
`December 4 2007
`Date of Deposit
`F. Jason Far-hadian
`Name
`IFJ Far-hadian. Esq./
`Signature
`
`12-04-17
`Date
`
`This is in response to the Office Action mailed on 06/04/2007, in the above-captioned
`
`application. The time for response has been extended pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136 by the virtue of the
`
`accompanying payment. Claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 4-11
`
`and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102.
`
`This application is amended by the virtue of this response, pursuant to 3 7 CFR 1.111. Claims 4-6
`
`and 14-16 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. The consideration of the amended
`
`claims and the remarks provided below are respectfully requested.
`
`1
`
`Page 1 of 37
`
`

`

`Amendments to the Claims:
`
`1.
`
`(Currently Amended) A method for programming a mobile communication device
`
`based on a high-level code comprising operative language, the method comprising:
`
`receiving a high-level code comprising one or more keywords, wherein the high-level code is
`
`provided by a user of a mobile communication device to control the operation of the mobile
`
`communication device without having to select from menu items provided by an operating system
`
`running on the mobile communication device;
`
`parsing the high-level code for the keywords to recognize the operative language associated with
`
`controlling one or more operations of the mobile communication device;
`
`determining at least one operation associated with the operative language;
`
`determining whether high-level code comprises keywords defining one or more relationships and
`
`conditions corresponding to the operative language;··and
`
`producing an executable code that can be executed by a microcontroller of the mobile
`
`communication device to perform the respective operation associated with the operative language,,;
`
`wherein the high-level code comprises at least one sentence formatted in accordance with a first
`
`context,
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 37
`
`

`

`2-3
`
`(Previously cancelled)
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`(Cancel)
`
`(Cancel)
`
`(Cancel)
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 1, wherein said at least one sentence comprises one
`
`or more keywords.
`
`8.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 1, wherein the first context comprises a natural
`
`language context.
`
`9.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 1, wherein the high-level code is contained in a
`
`script.
`
`10.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 9, wherein the script is written by a user of the
`
`mobile communication device.
`
`11.
`
`(Currently amended) A system for programming a mobile communication device based
`
`on a high-level code comprising operative language, the system comprising:
`
`Mmeans for receiving a high-level code comprising one or more keywords, wherein the high(cid:173)
`
`level code is provided by a user of a mobile communication device to control the operation of the mobile
`
`communication device without having to select from menu items provided by an operating system
`
`running on the mobile communication device;
`
`means for parsing the high-level code for the keywords to recognize the operative language
`
`associated with controlling one or more operations of the mobile communication device;
`
`means for determining at least one operation associated with the operative language;
`
`means for determining whether high-level code comprises keywords defining one or more
`
`relationships and conditions corresponding to the operative language; and
`
`means for producing an executable code that can be executed by a microcontroller of the mobile
`
`communication device to perform the respective operation associated with the operative language,
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 37
`
`

`

`wherein the high-level code comprises at least one sentence formatted in accordance with a first
`
`context,
`
`12-13
`
`(Previously cancelled)
`
`14.
`
`(Cancel)
`
`15.
`
`(Cancel)
`
`16.
`
`(Cancel)
`
`17.
`
`(Original)
`
`The system of claim 11, wherein said at least one sentence comprises one
`
`or more keywords.
`
`18.
`
`(Original)
`
`The system of claim 11, wherein the first context is a natural language
`
`context.
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 37
`
`

`

`19.
`
`(Original)
`
`The system of claim 11, wherein the high-level code is contained in a
`
`script.
`
`20.
`
`(Original)
`
`The system of claim 19, wherein the script is written by a user of the
`
`mobile communication device.
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 37
`
`

`

`Remarks:
`
`§102 Rejection(s):
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated
`
`by Pazandak (US 7027975). It is respectfully noted that anticipation of claims using a drawing requires
`
`that "the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together" and "[t]he
`
`drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art." MPEP §2125. Furthermore, anticipation of a claim under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) requires that "each and
`
`every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
`
`art reference," that "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ...
`
`claim" and "[t]he elements must be arranged as required by the claim." M.P.E.P. §2131.
`
`Pazandak discloses a system and method for a light-weight guided natural language interface
`
`(NLI) client. The disclosed system and method support parser farms on servers, available currently and in
`
`real time to a plurality of users, over disperse and geographically disparate networks. Pazandak teaches a
`
`system and method directed to inputting to a thin client a query; communicating to an interface
`
`intermediary; communicating to an interface descriptor data source; generating an interface descriptor;
`
`communicating the interface descriptor to the interface intermediary; communicating the interface
`
`descriptor to a parser farm; and requesting the appropriate parser corresponding to the interface
`
`descriptor"
`
`However, Pazandak fails to disclose a method for programming a mobile communication device
`
`based on a high-level code comprising operative language, wherein the high-level code is being processed
`
`by a natural language compiler comprised of one or more modules executed on one or more varying
`
`computing systems, depending on the level of complexity and the implementation of the high-level code.
`
`More particularly, Pazandak fails to teach a method comprised of the following steps: determining the
`
`level of complexity and the implementation of the high-level code and designing an application software
`
`to process the high-level code; wherein application software is executed on a distributed environment
`
`comprising the mobile communication device and a network server connected to the mobile
`
`communication device, and the application software performs the parsing and determining steps
`
`depending on implementation; wherein when the high-level code comprises a complex structure the
`
`parsing and determining steps are performed by application software executed on a network server
`
`connected to the mobile communication device and when the high-level code comprises a less complex
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 37
`
`

`

`structure the parsing and determining steps are performed by application software executed on the mobile
`
`communication device, and wherein a first part of the high-level code is processed by the application
`
`software executed on the mobile communication device and a second part of the high-level code is
`
`processed by application software executed on a network server connected to the mobile communication
`
`device. The Examiner is requested to point out such teaching with more specificity or withdraw the § 102
`
`grounds ofrejection.
`
`Pazandak suggests a method in which a user interface provides suggestion for user input by way
`
`of providing, for example, a drop-down menu that suggests the next command that is to be entered by a
`
`user (See Figs. 15 and 16). As such, Pazandak teaches away from the recited element noted above in
`
`claim 1 which recites that the user inputs a high-level code so that the user does not "have to select from
`
`menu items."
`
`Since Pazandak both teaches away from at least one claimed element and also fails to disclose
`
`each ofthe recited elements in amended claim 1, a rejection under §102(e) would be improper.
`
`Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that claim 1 should be in condition for allowance. Claims 7-1 0
`
`depend on claim 1 and should be in condition for allowance by the virtue of their dependence on an
`
`allowable base claim. Claim 11 substantially incorporates the elements of claim 1, therefore claim 11 and
`
`claims 17-20 depending from claim 11 should also be in condition for allowance.
`
`No amendment made was related to the statutory requirements of patentability unless expressly
`
`stated herein; and no amendment made was for the purpose of narrowing the scope of any claim, unless
`
`Applicants have expressly argued herein that such amendment was made to distinguish over a particular
`
`reference or combination of references.
`
`If for any reason the Examiner finds the application other than in condition for allowance, the
`
`Examiner is requested to call the undersigned attorney at the Los Angeles, California, telephone number
`
`(213) 623 2221 to discuss the steps necessary for placing the application in condition for allowance.
`
`Date: December 4, 2007
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IF. JASON FAR-RADIAN/
`
`By: ____________________________ ___
`F. Jason Far-hadian, Esq.
`Registration No. 42,523
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 37
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNIT D STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Ortice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria. Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CON FIRMA TJON NO.
`
`10/872,289
`
`06/1712004
`
`Vladimir Drukin
`
`1005-16-01 USP
`
`1890
`
`06/04/2007
`7590
`42698
`F ARSHAD JASON F ARHADIAN
`CENTURY IP LAW GROUP
`P.O. BOX 7333
`NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-7333
`
`EXAMINER
`
`OMOSEWO, OLUBUSOLA
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2168
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`06/04/2007
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Page 8 of 37
`
`

`

`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`10/872,289
`
`Examiner
`
`DRUKIN, VLADIMIR
`
`Art Unit
`
`2168
`OLUBUSOLA ONJ
`-- The MAILING DATE 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 1 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event. however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) 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).
`
`Status
`
`1 ){8] Responsive to communication( s) filed on 16 March 2007.
`2a){8] This action is FINAL.
`2b)0 This action is non-final.
`3)0 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 Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4)[81 Claim(s) 1 4-1114-20 is/are pending in the application.
`4a} Of the above claim{s) __ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`5)0 Claim(s) __ is/are allowed.
`6)[81 Claim(s) 1 4-11 and 14-20 is/are rejected.
`7)0 Claim(s) __ is/are objected to.
`8)0 Claim(s) __ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`10)0 The drawing(s) filed on __ is/are: a)O accepted or b)O 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).
`11 )0 The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PT0-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a}-(d} or (f).
`a)O All b)O Some* c)O None of:
`1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. __ .
`3.0 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)
`1) 0 Notice of References Cited (PT0-892)
`2) 0 Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PT0-948)
`3) 0 Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date __ .
`
`4) 0 Interview Summary (PT0-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. __ .
`5) 0 Notice of Informal Patent Application
`6) 0 Other: __ .
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20070523
`
`Page 9 of 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/872,289
`Art Unit: 2168
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1. This action is responsive to communications: Application filed on 02/1 0/2004.
`
`2. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 2-3 and 12-13 have been cancelled.
`
`Claim Rejections- 35 USC§ 102
`
`3.
`
`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:
`
`(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section
`
`122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for
`
`patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United
`
`States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international
`
`application filed under the treaty defined in section 351 (a) shall have the effects for
`
`purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the
`
`international application designated the United States and was published under Article
`
`21 (2) of such treaty in the English language.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1, 4-11. and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Pazandak et al. (Patent No. U.S. 7027975)
`
`Page 10 of 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/872,289
`Art Unit: 2168
`
`Page 3
`
`For claim 1, Pazandak teaches "receiving a high-level code comprising one or more
`
`keywords, wherein the high-level code is provided by a user of a mobile communication
`
`device to control the operation of the mobile communication device without having to
`
`select from menu items provided by an operating system running on the mobile
`
`communication device ([Col. 38, lines 24-45 and fig. 1 &2]) parsing the high-level code
`
`for keywords to recognize the operative language associated with controlling one or
`
`more operations of the mobile communication device ([Col. 6, lines 24-38,Col. 38, lines
`
`40-45 and fig. 2,]); determining at least one operation associated with the operative
`
`language (Col.38, lines 40-45); determining whether high-level code comprises
`
`keywords defining one or more relationships and conditions corresponding to the
`
`operative language ([Col. 38, lines 40-45]); and producing' an executable code that can
`
`be executed by a microcontroller of the mobile communication device to perform the
`
`respective operation associated with the operative language ([Col. 38, lines 40-45]),
`
`wherein the high-level code comprises at least one sentence formatted in accordance
`
`with a first context(Col. 38, lines 40-45)
`
`wherein application software executed on the mobile communication device performs
`
`the parsing and determining steps, when the high-level code comprises a first level of
`
`complexity( Col. 22, lines 50-65, Col. 38, lines 24-45)
`
`Wherein application software executed on a network server connected to the mobile
`
`communication device performs the parsing and determining steps, when the high-level
`
`code comprises a second level of complexity (Col. 6, lines 22-Col. 7,1ines 3, Col. 38,
`
`lines 24-38 and fig. 2)
`
`Page 11 of 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/872,289
`Art Unit: 2168
`
`Page 4
`
`For claim 4, Pazandak teaches "wherein application software executed on a distributed
`
`environment, comprising the mobile communication device and a network server
`
`connected to the mobile communication device, performs the parsing and determining
`
`steps"(Col. 5, lines 1-40, Col. 6, lines 24-38}
`
`For claim 5, Pazandak teaches "transmitting the high-level code to the network server to
`
`produce the executable code after the network server performs the parsing and
`
`determining steps" (Col. 38, lines 24-45)
`
`For claim 6, Pazandak teaches "transmitting the executable code to the mobile
`
`communication device to be executed by the microcontroller of the mobile
`
`communication device" (Col. 38, lines 24-45)
`
`For claim 7, Pazandak teaches "wherein said at least one sentence comprises one or
`
`more keywords" ([Col. 38, lines 24-45] wherein Pazandak's teachings include sentences
`
`comprising keywords, thus teachings are synonymous)
`
`For claim 8, Pazandak teaches "wherein the first context comprises a natural language
`
`context"(Col. 38, lines 24-45, Col. 17, lines 64-Col. 18, lines 13,)
`
`For claim 9, Pazandak teaches "wherein the high-level code is contained in a script"
`
`Page 12 of 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 1 0/872,289
`Art Unit: 2168
`
`(Col. 32, lines 37-47, Col. 7, lines 41-58)
`
`Page 5
`
`For claim 10, Pazandak teaches "wherein the script is written by a user of the mobile
`
`communication device"(Col. 7, lines 26-40,Col. 38, lines 24-45)
`
`For claim 11, Pazandak teaches "means for receiving a high-level code comprising one
`
`or more keywords, wherein the high-level code is provided by a user of a mobile
`
`communication device to control the operation of the mobile communication device
`
`without having to select from menu items provided by an operating system running on
`
`the mobile communication device ([Col. 38, lines 24-45 and fig. 2]) means for parsing
`
`the high-level code for keywords to recognize the operative language associated with
`
`controlling one or more operations of mobile communication device ([Col. 6, lines 24-
`
`38,Col. 38, lines 40-45 and fig. 2]); means for determining at least one operation
`
`associated with the operative language(Col.38, lines 40-45); means for determining
`
`whether high-level code comprises keywords defining one or more relationships and
`
`conditions corresponding to the operative language([Col. 38, lines 40-45]); and means
`
`for producing an executable code that can be executed by a microcontroller of the
`
`mobile communication device to perform the respective operation associated with the
`
`operative language([Col. 38, lines 40-45]) wherein the high-level code comprises at
`
`least one sentence formatted in accordance with a first context"( Col. 38, lines 40-45)
`
`Page 13 of 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/872,289
`Art Unit: 2168
`
`Page 6
`
`wherein application software executed on the mobile communication device performs
`
`the parsing and determining steps, when the high-level code comprises a first level of
`
`complexity(Col. 22, lines 50-65, Col. 38, lines 24-45)
`
`Wherein application software executed on a network server connected to the 'mobile
`
`communication device performs the parsing and determining steps, when the high-level
`
`code comprises a second level of complexity (Col. 6, lines 22-Col. ?,lines 3, Col. 38,
`
`lines 24-38 and fig. 2)
`
`For claim 14, Pazandak teaches "wherein application software executed on a distributed
`
`environment, comprising the mobile communication device and a network server
`
`connected to the mobile communication device, performs the parsing and determining
`
`steps" (Col. 5, lines 1-25, Col. 6, lines 24-38, Col. 9, lines 23-Col. 10, lines 1 0)
`
`For claim 15, Pazandak teaches "means for transmitting the high-level code to the
`
`network server to produce the executable code after the network server performs the
`
`parsing and determining steps"(Col. 38, lines 24-45)
`
`For claim 16, Pazandak teaches "means for transmitting the executable code to the
`
`mobile communication device to be executed by the microcontroller of the mobile
`
`communication device"(Col. 38,·1ines 24-45)
`
`For claim 17, Pazandak teaches "wherein said at least one sentence comprises one or
`
`Page 14 of 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/872,289
`Art Unit: 2168
`
`Page 7
`
`more keywords" (Col. 38, lines 24-45] wherein Pazandak's teachings include sentences
`
`comprising keywords~ thus teachings are synonymous)
`
`For claim 18, Pazandak teaches "wherein the first context is a natural language context"
`
`(Col. 38, lines 24-45, Col. 17, lines 64-Col. 18, lines 13)
`
`For claim 19, Pazandak teaches "wherein the high-level code is contained in a script"
`
`(Col. 32, lines 37-47, Col. 7, lines 41-58)
`
`For claim 20, Pazandak teaches "wherein the script is written by a user of the mobile
`
`communication device"(Col. 7, lines 26-40,Col. 38, lines 24-45)
`
`Response to Argument
`.
`Applicant's argument filed March 16, 2007 has been fully considered but they are
`
`5.
`
`not persuasive. The examiner respectfully traverses applicant's arguments.
`
`\
`
`As per claim 1, applicant argued that Pazandak does not teach "receiving a high-level
`
`code comprising one or more keywords, wherein the high-level code is provided by a
`
`user of a mobile communication device to control the operation of the mobile
`
`communication device without having to select from menu items provided by an
`
`operating system running on the mobile communication device". Applicant also argued
`
`that Pazandak's only includes a user interface that provides suggestions for a user
`
`Page 15 of 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/872,289
`Art Unit: 2168
`
`Page 8
`
`input; a drop down menu that suggest the next command that is to be entered by the
`
`user. On the contrary Pazandak's teachings at fig. 1 &2 include a client device, which
`
`could be any communication device. Likewise at Col. 38, lines 24-45 and fig. 2,
`
`Pazandak also teaches receiving an input such as "route-the-message-to-bill-for-
`
`revisions" or "alert me-when-he-sends-that-message-to-the-boss" which comprises of
`
`keywords such the Route, and clearly indicates Pazandak's teachings also includes an
`
`input from a user which does not require selecting form menu items as argued by
`
`applicant.
`
`Applicant also argued that Pazandak does not teach "parsing the high-level code for
`
`keywords to recognize the operative language associated with controlling one or more
`
`operations of the mobile communication device". On the contrary at Col. 38, lines 40-45
`
`and fig. 2, Pazandak teaches receiving an input from the user such as "route-the-
`
`message-to-bill-for-revisions" or "alert me-when-he-sends-that-message-to-the-boss"
`
`which comprises of keywords such the Route or alert, however, at Col. 6, lines 24-38
`
`and fig. 2, wherein Pazandak's teachings includes a user input such as (route-the- .
`
`message-to-bill-for-revisions or alert me-when-he-sends-that-message-to-the-boss)
`
`made via a client device is been parsed. Parsing the users input for the keyword such
`
`as "route" will indicate that a route operation is to be performed or parsing the users
`
`input for the keyword such as "alert" will indicate that an alert operation is to be
`
`performed by the client device when a particular condition, namely "when-he-sends-
`
`that-message-to-the-boss" is satisfied.
`
`Page 16 of 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 1 0/872,289
`Art Unit: 2168
`
`Page 9
`
`Applicant also argued that Pazandak does not teach "determining at least one operation
`
`associated with the operative language". On the contrary Col.38, lines 40-45 of
`
`Pazandak's teachings include "route-the-message-to-bill-for-revisions", however, the
`
`keyword "route", would indicate that a route operation is to be performed, thus teachings
`
`are synonymous.
`
`Applicant also argued that Pazandak does not teach "determining whether high-level
`
`code comprises keywords defining one or more relationships and conditions
`
`corresponding to the operative language". On the contrary at Col. 38, lines 40-45 of
`
`Pazandak's teachings include the determination of the relationship and condition that
`
`are to be taken into account for the operation to be performed, i.e., "alert me" operation
`
`is for example to be performed when a particular condition, namely "when-he-sends-
`
`that-message-to the boss" is satisfied. Therefore teachings are synonymous.
`
`Applicant also argued that Pazandak does not teach "producing an executable code
`
`that can be executed by a microcontroller of the mobile communication device to
`
`perform the respective operation associated with the operative language". On the
`
`contrary according to Pazandak's teachings at Col. 38, lines 40-45 the client device will
`
`operate to monitor all messages sent to different people to determine if the message is
`
`sent to the boss, then send an alert, as specified in paragraph 0039 of applicant's
`
`specification, thus teachings are synonymous.
`
`Page 17 of 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/872,289
`Art Unit: 2168
`
`Page 10
`
`Applicant argued that Pazandak does not teach "wherein the high-level code comprises
`
`at least one sentence formatted in accordance with a first context". On the contrary
`
`Pazar:1dak teaches at Col. 38, lines 40-45, includes a natural language, which includes a
`
`sentence such as "alert me when-he-sends-that-message-to the boss". The operative
`
`language in the sentence is "alert", while the condition is "when-he-sends-that-
`
`message-to the boss".
`
`Applicant also argued that Pazandak's teachings does not include "wherein application
`
`software executed on the mobile communication device performs the parsing and
`
`determining steps, when the high-level code comprises a first level of complexity".
`
`On the contrary, Pazandak teaches a parse could be installed on the client device,
`
`which provides faster response times (Col. 22, lines 50-65) and as such at Col. 38, lines
`
`24-45 of Pazandak's teaches the input such as "route-the-message-to-bill-for-revisions",
`
`Parsing the users input for the keyword such as "route" will indicate that a route
`
`operation is to be performed or parsing the users input for the keyword such as "alert"
`
`will indicate that an alert operation is to be performed by the client device. however,
`
`route as used by the user is the operative language for performing the function, namely
`
`routing the message by the client device to Bill for revision.
`
`"Wherein application software executed on a network server connected to the mobile
`
`communication device performs the parsing and determining steps, when the high-level
`
`code comprises a second level of complexity". At Col. 6, lines 22-Col. ?,lines 3, Col. 38,
`
`Page 18 of 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/872,289
`Art Unit: 2168'
`
`Page 11
`
`lines 24-38 and fig. 2, wherein Pazandak's teachings of a user input made via the client
`
`device is sent to the server, for parsing of the users input.
`
`Page 19 of 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/872,289
`Art Unit: 2168
`
`Conclusion
`
`Page 12
`
`6.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
`
`extensiqn fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) wilt 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 mailing date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to OLUBUSOLA ONI whose telephone number is 571-272-
`
`2738. The examiner can normally be reached on 1 0.00-6.30PM.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, TIM VO can be reached on 571-272-3642. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Page 20 of 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/872,289
`Art Unit: 2168
`
`Page 13
`
`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). lf 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.
`
`OLUBUSOLA ONI
`Examiner
`Art Unit 2168
`
`TIMVO
`SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER
`TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2100
`
`Page 21 of 37
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1005-16-01 USD
`Customer No 42698
`
`In re application of:
`Vladimir Drunkin
`10/872,289
`06-17-2004
`
`Serial No:
`Filed:
`For:
`
`AMENDMENT
`
`Mail Stop Amendments
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO BOX 1450
`Alexandria, VA22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Introductory Comments:
`
`Art Unit:
`Examiner:
`Conf. No.:
`
`2168
`ONI, OLUBUSOLA
`1890
`
`I hereby certifY that this correspondence is
`being deposited by way of ELECTRONIC
`FILING (or FACSIMILE to 571 273 8300)
`with the United Patent Office addressed to:
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`on:
`March 16 2007
`Date of Deposit
`F. Jason Far-hadian
`Name
`IFJ Far-hadian. Esq./
`Signature
`
`03-16-17
`Date
`
`This is in response to the Office Action mailed on 09/22/2006, in the above-captioned
`
`application. The time for response has been extended pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136 by the virtue of the
`
`accompanying payment. Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-20 are rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §102.
`
`This application is amended by the virtue of this response, pursuant to 3 7 CFR 1.111. The
`
`consideration of the amended claims and the remarks provided below are respectfully requested.
`
`1
`
`Page 22 of 37
`
`

`

`In the Specification:
`
`Please replace par. [0041] with the following:
`
`[0041] Application software 1122 may be implemented_,_ stalled installed or executed on a
`
`device or a system other than mobile device 120. For example, application software 1122 or its
`
`components may be implemented, installed, and executed either in a singular or in a distributed
`
`environment. That is, certain components of the application software may be installed and
`
`executed on mobile device 120, while other components may be execute