The following document was converted by BlindBargains.com and is believed to be reasonably accurate. Errors may exist due to OCR processing. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov IAPPLICATION NO. I FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR I ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. I CONFIRMATION NO. I 90/010,473 03/27/2009 6993707 47966/83454 7094 21901 7590 12/07/2009 EXAMINER SMITH HOPEN, PA 180 PINE AVENUE NORTH OLDSMAR, FL 34677 ART UNIT I PAPER NUMBER DATE MAILED: 12/07/2009 Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 WNW spte.gov DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER (THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS) Michael E. Weyer Barnes & Thomburg LLP 600 One Summit Square Fort Wayne, IN 46802 EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/010,473. PATENT NO. 6993707. ART UNIT 3992. Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)). Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)). PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04) Control No. 90/010,473 Examiner B. James Peikari Patent Under Reexamination 6993707 Art Unit 3992 Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination -- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -- a® Responsive to the communication(s) filed on 28 October 2009. b[E) This action is made FINAL. c^ A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner. A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire 2 month(s) from the mailing date of this letter. Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c). If the period for response specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a response within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days will be considered timely. Part I THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION: 1. ^ Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892. 3. ^ Interview Summary, PTO-474. 2. ^ Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08. 4. ^ Part II SUMMARY OF ACTION 1 a. (Ei Claims 11-7 are subject to reexamination. lb. ^ Claims are not subject to reexamination. 2. ^ Claims have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding. are patentable and/or confirmed. 3. ^ Claims 4. [E] Claims 1-7 are rejected. 5. ^ Claims are objected to. 6. ^ The drawings, filed on are acceptable. 7. ^ The proposed drawing correction, filed on has been (7a)^ approved (7b)^ disapproved. •8. ^ Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f). a)^ All b)^ Some* c)^ None of the certified copies have been received. 2^ not been received. 3^ been filed in Application No. 4^ been filed in reexamination Control No. 5^ been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No. * See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received. 9. ^ Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate 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. 10. ^ Other: cc: Requester (if third party requester) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-06) Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination Part of Paper No. 20091203 DETAILED ACTION Reexamination 1. This is an ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent Number 6,993,707 ('707 patent) requested by a third party requester. Claims 1-7 are subject to reexamination. No amendments have been presented during this reexamination proceeding. A request for reconsideration was filed by the patent owner on October 28, 2009. The references discussed herein are as follows: (1) U.S. Patent No. 6,085,161 to MacKenty ("MacKenty") (2) IBM Home Page Reader (HPR) Version 2.5 ( "the IBM Manual") (3) U.S. Patent No. 7,058,887 to Cragun ("Cragun"). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless — (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. 3. Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being clearly anticipated MacKenty. 4. With regard to claim 1, MacKenty teaches a method of marking the position of a string in a document (note that character data, or text, of a HTML document may be divided into distinct strings of data and represented by distinct nodes, as described in column 4, lines 38-52; note that the position of these strings of data may be marked by cursors, as described in column 5, lines 23-31) comprising the steps of: retrieving the document (note Figure 2, step 210, and column 3, lines 25-38, wherein a HTML document may be requested, obtained and provided by a browser utility), establishing a cursor location in the document associated with the beginning of the string (note column 5, lines 48-52), parsing the source HTML in the document (note column 4, lines 33-35, which describes how the received HTML document is parsed into nodes of a tree) for a positional value (note column 5, lines 24-28, which describes how a reference to a particular position, or node, is established within the parsed'HTML document tree) representative of the number of HTML tags prior to the cursor location (note column 4, lines 3846, which teaches that each node of the tree represents a HTML tag, even to the extent that the value of each tag is attached to its respective node; since the nodes in the tree structure represent the position of HTML tags within an HTML document, the read cursor is a positional value that indicates how many HTML tags/nodes are prior to the current position being read), identifying the URL of the document (note column 3, lines 36-40), and storing the positional value and the URL (note column 6, lines 47-56, which describe how MacKenty maintains a list of the most recently requested HTML trees, and their associated read cursors; note that by storing the HTML trees, the list must reference their URLs for use by the browser utility, as described in column 3, lines 36-40, and by storing the read cursors, the list is storing positional values in the trees, as described above with regard to column 4, lines 38-46, and column 5, lines 24-28) on a computer accessible medium (note that the list itself is a computer accessible medium, which may be stored on a computer accessible hardware medium as described in column 7, lines 24-26). 5. With regard to claim 2, MacKenty teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of: requesting the document associated with the URL (note column 3, lines 36-40), retrieving the positional value and URL from the computer accessible medium (note column 6, lines 52-55, which describes an example of when the most recently used list is accessed and the positional value is retrieved so that reading may begin from a previous position), parsing the source HTML in the document (note column 4, lines 33-35) until the quantity of tags parsed equals the positional value (in the MacKenty system, since the documents are parsed into nodes, each of which is represented by a tag, and since the nodes themselves indicate the respective positional value, the quantity of tags will always equal the positional value; note column 4, lines 38-52, and column 5, lines 23-31), and outputting (i.e., reading) the string at the cursor location (note column 6, lines 51-55). 6. With regard to claim 3, MacKenty teaches the method of claim 2 wherein the step of outputting the string is executed by an output means selected from the group consisting of a speech synthesizer, a Braille reader, a screen magnification application, and a pop-up display window (note column 4, lines 25-29, which teaches a speech synthesizer for outputting the character data, i.e. text, strings of the HTML documents). 7. With regard to claim 4, MacKenty teaches a method of marking the position of a string in a document (note that character data may be divided into distinct strings of data and represented by distinct nodes, as described in column 4, lines 38-52; note that the position of these strings of data may be marked by cursors, as described in column 5, lines 23-31) comprising the steps of: retrieving the document (note Figure 2, step 210, and column 3, lines 25-38, wherein an HTML document may be requested, obtained and provided by a browser utility), establishing a cursor location in the document associated with the beginning of the string (note column 5, lines 48-52), parsing the source HTML in the document (note column 4, lines 33-35, which describes how the received HTML document is parsed into nodes of a tree) for a positional value (note column 5, lines 24-28, which describes how a reference to a particular position, or node, is established within the parsed HTML document tree) representative of the number of HTML tags prior to the cursor location (note column 4, lines 38-46, which teaches that each node of the tree represents a HTML tag, even to the extent that the value of each tag is attached to its respective node; since the nodes in the tree structure represent the position of HTML tags within an HTML document, the read cursor is a positional value that indicates how many HTML tags/nodes are prior to the current position being read), identifying the URL of the document (note column 3, lines 36-40), storing the positional value and the URL (note column 6, lines 47-56, which describe how MacKenty maintains a list of the most recently requested HTML trees, and their associated read cursors; note that by storing the HTML trees, the list must reference their URLs for use by the browser utility, as described in column 3, lines 36-40, and by storing the read cursors, the list is storing positional values in the trees, as described above with regard to column 4, lines 38-46, and column 5, lines 24-28) on a computer accessible medium (note that the list itself is a computer accessible medium, which may be stored on a computer accessible hardware medium as described in column 7, lines 24-26); requesting the document associated with the URL (note column 3, lines 36-40), retrieving the positional value and URL from the computer accessible medium (note column 6, lines 52-55, which describes an example of when the most recently used list is accessed and the positional value is retrieved so that reading may begin from a previous position), parsing the source HTML in the document (note column 4, lines 33-35) until the quantity of tags parsed equals the positional value (in the MacKenty system, since the documents are parsed into nodes, each of which is represented by a tag, and since the nodes themselves indicate the respective positional value, the quantity of tags will always equal the positional value; note column 4, lines 38-52, and column 5, lines 23-31), and outputting (i.e., reading) the string (note column 6, lines 51-55) by an output means selected from the group consisting of a speech synthesizer, a Braille reader, a screen magnification application, and a pop-up display window (note column 4, lines 25-29, which teaches a speech synthesizer for outputting the character data, i.e. text, strings of the HTML documents). 8. With regard to claim 5, MacKenty teaches the method of claim 4 further comprising the step of outputting the string responsive to navigation to the associated URL (note column 3, lines 34-49, which describe that a browser utility will provide navigation to requested HTML documents by their associated URL; note also column 6, lines 56 et seq., which describes how the navigation may be implemented and a requested string is output, i.e., by restarting the reader, in response to navigating to a new location). 9. With regard to claim 7, MacKenty teaches a method of marking the position of a string (note that character data may be divided into distinct strings of data and represented by distinct nodes, as described in column 4, lines 38-52; note that the position of these strings of data may be marked by cursors, as described in column 5, lines 23-31) in a webpage (note that the text data may come from a HTML document obtained from the World Wide Web, as described in column 8, lines 60-63; note also column 4, lines 32-37) comprising the steps of: retrieving a webpage (note Figure 2, step 210, and column 3, lines 25-38, wherein an HTML document may be requested, obtained and provided by a web browser utility), establishing a cursor location in the webpage associated with the beginning of the dynamically changing string (note column 5, lines 48-52; note that the string changes dynamically as the cursor moves through the document, as described in column 6, lines 7-9), parsing the source HTML in the webpage (note column 4, lines 33-35, which describes how the received HTML document is parsed into nodes of a tree) for a positional value (note column 5, lines 24-28, which describes how a reference to a particular position, or node, is established within the parsed HTML document tree) representative of the number of HTML tags prior to the cursor location (note column 4, lines 38- 46, which teaches that each node of the tree represents a HTML tag, even to the extent that the value of each tag is attached to its respective node; since the nodes in the tree structure represent the position of HTML tags within an HTML document, the read cursor is a positional value that indicates how many HTML tags/nodes are prior to the current position being read), identifying the URL of the webpage (note column 3, lines 36-40, wherein the document comes from a webpage, as noted above), storing the positional value and the URL (note column 6, lines 47-56, which describe how MacKenty maintains a list of the most recently requested HTML trees, and their associated read cursors; note that by storing the HTML trees, the list must reference their URLs for use by the browser utility, as described in column 3, lines 36-40, and by storing the read cursors, the list is storing positional values in the trees, as described above with regard to column 4, lines 38-46, and column 5, lines 24-28) on a computer accessible medium (note that the list itself is a computer accessible medium, which may be stored on a computer accessible hardware medium as described in column 7, lines 24-26) retrieving the positional value and URL from the computer accessible medium (note column 6, lines 52-55, which describes an example of when the most recently used list is accessed and the positional value is retrieved so that reading may begin from a previous position), requesting the webpage associated with the URL (note column 3, lines 36-40, wherein the document comes from a webpage, as noted above), responsive to requesting the webpage associated with the URL, automatically parsing the source HTML in the webpage (note column 4, lines 33-35, wherein the document comes from a webpage, as noted above) until the quantity of tags parsed equals the positional value (in the MacKenty system, since the documents are parsed into nodes, each of which is represented by a tag, and since the nodes themselves indicate the respective positional value, the quantity of tags will always equal the positional value; note column 4, lines 38-52, and column 5, lines 23-31), and automatically outputting the string by an output means selected from the group consisting of a speech synthesizer, a Braille reader, a screen magnification application, and a pop-up display window (note column 4, lines 25-29, which teaches a speech synthesizer for outputting the character data, i.e. text, strings of the HTML documents). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 of this title, 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. 11. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacKenty in view of Cragun. 12. With regard to claim 6, MacKenty teaches the method of claim 4, as described above, and further teaches bypassing redundant header information (note column 8, lines 39-41). However, MacKenty fails to explicitly teach the step of storing a position for an entire domain whereby common headers that propagate across an entire domain are bypassed so that output begins at a location in the HTML that is distinct between web pages in the domain. However, Cragun discloses that common information across an entire domain (Cragun allows users to specify a set of settings for an entire domain or session that determines where the initial reading position of a web page will be; note Cragun, column 3, lines 39-42, which states "An initial reading position on the web page is then determined as specified by the set of settings. Using the set of settings, the web page is read from the initial reading position"), such as banner ads, can be bypassed so that the output begins at a position distinct between web pages in the domain (note Cragun, column 11, lines 14-19, which state "The dialog window 900 includes settings for specifying unwanted materials, such as the setting for ignoring banner ads and the setting 920 for not announcing certain URL's that are of no interest to the user"; note also the user customizable setting 910 in Figure 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the Cragun step of storing a position for an entire domain whereby common headers that propagate across an entire domain are bypassed so that output begins at a location in the HTML that is distinct between web pages in the domain in the MacKenty system, since (1) Cragun is directed to a technology compatible with that of MacKenty, namely a web screen reader and (2) and the incorporation of the Cragun technology noted above would allow the reader of MacKenty to skip over unnecessary and/or unwanted text such as banner ads. Response to Arguments 13. The remarks attached to the response filed October 28, 2009 have been carefully considered by the examiner, but are not deemed to overcome the previous rejections. These remarks hinge on two main arguments: (1) that MacKenty does not teach marking the position of a string in a document and (2) that MacKenty does not teach storing the positional value and the URL on a computer accessible medium. These arguments are addressed in detail below. 14. As for the argument that MacKenty does not teach marking the position of a string in a document: (1) On page 5 of the remarks attached to the amendment, patent owner states "The `document' in which a string is marked in the method claimed in the '707 patent is "the original HTML document". However, the following is noted: (a) None of the claims of the '707 patent include the language "the original HTML document". (b) The '707 patent does not define what is meant by "the original HTML document". In fact, based on the teachings of the '707 patent, it is clear that the original HTML document would have been located on a remote server at a location specified by the URL where the document was found. The claims do not teach sending instructions through the interne to place markers directly on the original HTML document. And, even if such were the case, there is no guarantee that the owner(s) of the website at which the original HTML document is found would permit such an intrusion. Instead, the system of the '707 patent downloads a copy of the HTML document, in the same manner that data is normally accessed from the internet. Note column 4, lines 15-17, of the '707 patent, which explicitly discloses, "providing text markers for a document obtained from an outside source, such as, for example, the Internet". (c) Perhaps the clearest evidence against patent owner's argument is found in column 4, lines 17-20, of the '707 patent, which discloses, "The Placemarkers are relative locations in a virtual document that corresponds to the original document.'? Thus, the text markers of the '707 patent are used not used in the original document, but rather in a corresponding virtual document created by the screen reader; note column 4, lines 3-7, of the `707 patent. (2) On page 5 of the remarks attached to the amendment, patent owner indicates that instead of marking strings in the original document, MacKenty defines "the current reading queue in a parsed tree data structure generated by the parser; there is no way to link that queue or those cursors to the original HTML document". However, the following is noted: (a) It is agreed that MacKenty discloses a parsed data tree structure. In fact, this feature makes MacKenty particularly relevant to the claims of the '707 patent, which require "parsing the source HTML in the document" (claims 1 and 4) and "parsing the source HTML in the webpage" (claim 7). (b) As for linking the queue or those cursors to the original HTML document, as indicated above, this is not a limitation of the claims of the '707 patent. (3) On page 5 of the remarks attached to the amendment, patent owner states, "If, for example, the original document is changed, MacKenty would have no way of handling that short of re-parsing the document. This is not described, of course, because it is not something that MacKenty is meant to address." However, the following is noted: (a) None of the claims of the '707 patent have a limitation on how changes to the original HTML document are handled. (b) Patent owner's remarks are silent as to how the system of the '707 patent would handle changes in the original document. Based on the above citations from the '707 patent, it is apparent that any changes in the original document would require at least a new or corrected virtual document to be created by the screen reader software of the invention, and possibly require re-parsing as well. (4) On page 6 of the remarks attached to the amendment, in describing MacKenty, patent owner states, "the cursors cannot be said to mark the position of a particular string in a document" and "MacKenty is simply maintaining the position at which the reading of a parsed document stopped, and that is not 'marking the position of the string' in the document" and also "If the 'string' in MacKenty is defined by both cursors, then the 'string' cannot be 'marked,' because only one of the cursors is 'maintained'. However, the following is noted: (a) A "string" is a given amount of data. In the rejection, it was explained that the character data of MacKenty may represent strings. (b) The assertion that two cursors are required to mark the location of a string is incorrect. Only one cursor would be required. This is especially true in the MacKenty system, in which character strings are parsed into distinct nodes, whose location may be identified by the read cursor alone. Note, e.g., MacKenty column 6, lines 24-27. (5) On page 6 of the remarks attached to the amendment, in describing MacKenty, patent owner states, "they do not 'mark' the position of the text in the sense of the '707 patent because they do not provide a mechanism to allow a user to return to that specific portion of text". However, MacKenty clearly teaches that "by maintaining the read cursor along with each parsed document, when a user switches to another page in the list the invention can continue reading a document from the position at which it stops when last reading that page"; note MacKenty column 6, lines 52-56, as cited in the rejection. 15. As for the argument that MacKenty does not teach storing the positional value and the URL on a computer accessible medium: (1) On pages 7 and 8 of the remarks attached to the amendment, patent owner states, "there certainly is no teaching in MacKenty of 'storing ... the URL' ... because it does not use the URLs after creating the tree structure, and thus has no reason to store them". However, MacKenty describes an example of when the most recently used list is accessed and the positional value is retrieved so that reading may begin from a previous position. This is akin to the contents of a browser cache, which includes a history of recently visited URLs. Specifically, in column 6, lines 47-52, MacKenty teaches that such a list "provides the `history' of visited HTML documents commonly implemented in browser software". As stated in the rejection, by storing the HTML trees, the list of MacKenty must reference their URLs for use by the browser utility, as described in column 3, lines 36-40. Patent owner argues that this is not true "because the tree data structures that MacKenty uses are not HTML documents that would have URLs". However, this argument fails to address (i) that the tree data structures are representations of the HTML documents themselves and (ii) that such a list "provides the 'history' of visited HTML documents commonly implemented in browser software" (emphasis added), as described above. In other words, MacKenty would require URLs to be associated with the history list in order to revisit the HTML documents implemented in browser software. For example, the BackwardLink function of MacKenty, column 10, lines 34-44, would be unable to work unless the URLs are stored. (2) On pages 8-10 of the remarks attached to the amendment, patent owner states, "MacKenty does not teach 'storing ... on a computer accessible medium" because "the independent claims of the '707 patent involves writing the placemarkers to a file for later use, not simply maintaining them in memory allocated to an instance of the program" and also "MacKenty says nothing about storing any information to a file because it has nothing to do with the creation of persistent placemarkers". However, the following is noted: (a) Despite the patent owner's emphasis that storing markers in the claims is directed to a file", this feature is entirely absent from the claims. (b) As shown above, the markers used in MacKenty are stored for later use. For example, the BackwardPage function of MacKenty would be unable to work as described in column 10, lines 45-55, unless the read cursor for the previous document had been stored in order to show where reading of that document last stopped. (3) On page 10 of the remarks attached to the amendment, patent owner states, "The argument in the Office Action that the list itself (in the 'memory element') can be the claimed `computer accessible medium' cannot be correct". However, the following is noted: (a) The patent owner appears to be relying on some unspecified definition of "computer accessible medium" in order to distinguish the claims from the Morgan system. However, patent owner's remarks are not commensurate in scope with the claims, which include no limitations on the computer accessible medium itself and which do not describe the type of computer accessible medium used. In determining the scope of "computer accessible medium", the claims must be given their broadest reasonable scope. The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, [70 USPQ2d 1827] (Fed. Cir. 2004). That determination must "be consistent with the specification, claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note further that "the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Note also MPEP 2111. However, there is no explicit definition for "computer accessible medium" anywhere in the disclosure of the '707 patent. (b) Note that MPEP 2106.01, citing In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994), states "When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium". (c) The rejection now clarifies that either the list itself or a computer accessible hardware medium, on which the list is stored, teaches the claimed computer accessible medium. (4) On page 10 of the remarks attached to the amendment, patent owner states, "if `storing' is construed to mean maintaining the list in memory, that would describe what is inherent in the rest of the claim, and the language would not be limiting or otherwise add any meaning. However, this is not correct. Maintaining a list of URLs in memory is not only limiting (note that maintaining a list of URLs in memory is neither stated nor suggested anywhere in claim 1 except the last two lines), but also well within the scope of the claims, as described above. 16. On page 11 of the remarks attached to the amendment, patent owner repeats the argument regarding the storage of URLs to distinguish independent claims 4 and 7 and dependent claims 5 and 6 from MacKenty. This argument has been addressed in section 15 of this Office action. Application/Coe 11 of the remarks attached to the amendment, patent owner's remarks regarding the rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over MacKenty in view of Cragun suggest that claim 6 will stand or fall with claim 4. Other References Submitted by the Requester 17. The other prior art references submitted by Requester seem material and relevant because they appear to teach or suggest features of the independent claims. However, because these references do not appear to anticipate or render obvious any of the claims that were not rejected in this Office action, an additional rejection based on these references would be redundant and unnecessary at this time. Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Patentability/Confirmation 18. None of the claims subject to reexamination have been confirmed at this time. Conclusion 19. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire two (2) months from the mailing date of this action. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) do not apply in reexamination proceedings. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and not to parties in a reexamination proceeding. Further, in 35 U.S.C. 305 and in 37 CFR 1.550(a), it is required that reexamination proceedings "will be conducted with special dispatch within the Office." Extensions of time in reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR 1.550(c). A request for extension of time must be filed on or before the day on which a response to this action is due, and it must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g). The mere filing of a request will not effect any extension of time. An extension of time will be granted only for sufficient cause, and for a reasonable time specified. The filing of a timely first response to this final rejection will be construed as including a request to extend the shortened statutory period for an additional month, which will be granted even if previous extensions have been granted. In no event, however, will the statutory period for response expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final action. See MPEP § 2265. Amendment in Reexamination Proceedings 20. Patent Owner is notified that any proposed amendment to the specification and/or claims in this reexamination proceeding must comply with 37 CFR 1.530(d)-(j), must be formally presented pursuant to 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b), and must contain any fees required by 37 CFR 1.20(c). In order to ensure full consideration of any amendments, affidavits or declarations, or other documents as evidence of patentability, such documents must be submitted in response to this Office action. Submissions will be governed by the requirements of 37 CFR 1.116 after final rejection and 37 CFR 41.33 after appeal, which will be strictly enforced. See MPEP § 2250(IV) for examples to assist in the preparation of proper proposed amendments in reexamination proceedings. Service of Papers 21. After filing of a request for ex parte reexamination by a third party requester, any document filed by either the patent owner or the third party requester must be served on the other party (or parties where two or more third party requester proceedings are merged) in the reexamination proceeding in the manner provided in 37 CFR 1.248. The document must reflect service or the document may be refused consideration by the Office. See 37 CFR 1.550(f). Extensions of Time 22. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these proceedings because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and not to parties in a reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that ex parte reexamination proceedings "will be conducted with special dispatch" (37 CFR 1.550(a)). Extensions of time in ex parte reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR 1.550(c). Litigation Reminder 23. The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR 1.565(a) to apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving the patent throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. The third party requester is also reminded of the ability to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or proceeding throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP §§ 2207, 2282 and 2286. All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed: By Mail to: Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam Central Reexamination Unit Commissioner for Patents United States Patent & Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 By FAX to: (571) 273-9900 Central Reexamination Unit By hand to: Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Registered users of EFS-Web may alternatively submit such correspondence via the electronic filing system EFS-Web, at https://sportal.uspto.gov/authenticate/authenticateuserlocalepf html. EFS-Web offers the benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the Office that needs to act on the correspondence. Also, EFS-Web submissions are "soft scanned" (i.e., electronically uploaded) directly into the official file for the reexamination proceeding, which offers parties the opportunity to review the content of their submissions after the "soft scanning" process is complete. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at telephone number (571) 272-7705. B. James Peikari Primary Examiner Central Reexamination Unit 3992