IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Telephone Interview Summary

Application Serial No. 09/947,801

Filed: 09/06/2001

For: DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING SYSTEM

Examiner: Chirag R. Patel   Art Unit: 2141

In re Application of   Jed Margolin
                                3570 Pleasant Echo Dr.
                                San Jose, CA  95148-1916
                                Phone: 408-238-4564

Telephone Interview Date: 8/5/2005

Participants: Examiner Chirag R. Patel, pro se Applicant Jed Margolin
 

Mail Stop AF
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

Sir,

The following Interview Summary is submitted as required by Rule 713.04 Substance of Interview Must Be Made of Record [R-2] - 700 Examination of Applications paragraph (b)
 

Background

Application 09/947,801 Distributed Computing System filed September 6, 2001.

The application was docketed to five Examiners. The last one (Examiner Chirag R. Patel) issued the First Office Action on January 26, 2005.

The Examiner rejected all the claims solely under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Ellis (US 6,167,428). It was clear that the Examiner did not understand my invention and had misinterpreted Ellis.

I filed a response on April 21, 2005 where I respectfully pointed out the Examiner's errors.

The Second Office Action was issued June 15, 2005.

The Examiner mistakenly insisted (again) that Ellis's Network Server 2 is a Home Network Server as defined in my application and rejected all the claims again.

He made the rejection Final.

The Examiner stated, " Applicant's arguments filed for claims 1-5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive."

While he may have considered them, he did not respond to them in his rejection.

Among other things, he came up with a new rejection that was not based on my having amended the claims (I didn't amend the claims) and was not based on new prior art. The Patent Rules say the Examiner is supposed to give the Applicant the opportunity to respond to new rejections under these circumstances.

He also came up with a novel definition of the term subscribing that is not supported by the way I used it in my application. I clearly used the common meaning of the term.

I called the Examiner on Monday, July 25, 2005. He refused to conduct or schedule a telephone interview. He refused to withdraw making the Second Office Action final. He refused to discuss the case at all. He said he did things only in writing. He said to file an After Final Response. I pointed out that an After Final Responses costs $395 and I would not do that since he had improperly made the Second Office Action final. He said I could send him a fax and he gave me what he said was his personal fax number (571-273-7963). He said that sending him the fax would not trigger the $395 fee for filing a submission after final rejection.

I said I would send him the fax he had requested and call him the next week to discuss it.

The next day (Tuesday, July 26, 2005) I called him to make sure he had gotten the fax. He said he hadn't. It turned out he had given me the wrong fax number. His correct fax number is 571-273-7966. (The last four digits are the same as his voice number.) He also, for the first time, characterized the fax as "talking points."

I called him on Wednesday, August 3, 2005 to talk about it.

He refused to talk about it again. He said to file an After-Final Response. When I protested his refusal to talk about it, especially after he had characterized the fax that he had asked for as Talking Points, he terminated the conversation.

An After-Final Response costs $395, which is the same as filing an RCE (Request for Continued Examination). Given his blatant unfairness and his refusal to follow the Rules, this is unacceptable especially in view of Rule 408 which strongly encourages Examiners hold telephone interviews with Attorneys. I assume this applies to pro se Applicants as well. If I am wrong, please correct me. I am sure other Independent Inventors will want to know.

Afterwards (also Wednesday, August 3) I called his supervisor, SPE Rupal Dharia (571-272-3880), got his voicemail, and left a message. It has been my experience that SPE Dharia does not answer his phone and does not return messages.

I called SPE Dharia's supervisor, Group Supervisor Jack B. Harvey (571-272-3896), with the same result. I called Group Director Peter Wongís office (571-272-2100), and spoke to one of his administrative assistants.
I explained that, among other things,  Examiner Patel had issued a new rejection in the Second Office Action that was not based on my having amended the claims and was not based on new prior art. By making the Office Action Final he had unfairly deprived me of the opportunity to respond to the new rejection. I also explained that he had come up with his own definition of a term that was not supported by my application.

I told her that my attempts to contact his supervisor (SPE Dharia) had been unsuccessful because SPE Dharia does not answer his phone and does not return phone calls.

She promised to have SPE Dharia return my phone call. He never called me.

The next day I called the usual suspects again. Again, neither SPE Dharia nor Group Supervisor Harvey were answering their phones or returning their calls.

When I called Group Directorís office I spoke to another administrative assistant (Janine), who also promised to have SPE Dharia call me.

She did better than that. She had Examiner Patel call me.
 

The Telephone Interview with Examiner Chirag R. Patel  Friday 8/5/2005

I started by discussing the points I had raised in my Informal Response to the Second Office Action. Since Examiner Patel has refused to enter this material into the File Wrapper I am including it in this summary for the following reasons:

1. This material is relevant to the advancement of the case.

2. It was discussed and referenced extensively in our telephone discussion, especially regarding the Examinerís novel definition of the term subscribing and his having issued a rejection not based on my having amended the claims or on new prior art and improperly making the Second Office Action final.


After getting off to a somewhat rocky start, we had what seemed to be a productive conversation.

I explained in simpler terms what my invention was and how it was different from Ellis. He asked  questions that suggested he finally understood my invention and in particular, that my Home Network Server is distinctly different from Ellisís Network Server NS2.

We discussed how my invention is different from Ellis.

1.  My Home Network Server is a server in a subscriberís home. The Home Network Server has clients in the home such as sensors used in running the home (fire and burglar alarm functions, furnace control, etc.) and PCs. The Home Network Server also acts as a Proxy Server for access to the Internet.

Ellisís Server (NS 2) is part of the ISPís equipment. If you have Dial-up service you are connected to the ISPís Dial-up server, so NS2 would be a Dial-up Server. If you have DSL, then your DSL line would be the ISPís DSL Server, and NS2 would be a DSL Server.  For those with High Speed Internet over Cable, the subscriberís Cable Modem would be talking to a server operated by the Cable TV system which would be the ISP.

2.  In my invention, it is the otherwise unused resources (CPU cycles and storage) of the Home Network Server that are traded for something of value in an arrangement with a contracting company which may or may not also be the ISP. The subscriber is nominally the home owner and owns the Home Network Server.

In Ellis, the distributed computing is done in the Userís PC, not in the ISPís Server (NS2).
 

3.  In my invention, the Home Network server is controlling the Home so it is essential that it use a robust and reliable Operating System, which rules out the operating systems currently used by most PCs. By using only the Home Network Server for distributing computing, the Userís PCs can continue to use the current operating systems thereby preserving his investment in the software that requires those operating systems.

Ellis stresses the need for the system performing distributed computing to use the standard operating systems used by most PCs.
 

4.  My Home Network Server acts as a typical server as opposed to the method used in Peer-to-Peer Networking where the PCs may, at times, swap the roles of Server and Client.
 

5.  The otherwise unused computing resources of my Home Network Server that can be used for distributed computing include CPU cycles and storage. Using the Home Network Serverís storage capabilities makes it possible to create Web sites whose pages are redundantly stored on several Home Network Servers for increased reliability and which makes it unnecessary to use the large Server Farms currently in use whose power demands pose a problem for electric utilities.

As long as the Home Network Servers are uniformly distributed geographically the demand on electric utilities will also be uniformly distributed.

Whether the Home Network Servers are uniformly distributed or not comes under the category of the Statistics of Large Numbers.

Statistically, it is possible that all the Oxygen molecules in a room will end up in one corner of the room and the roomís occupants will suffocate. Although the chance of this happening is very small, it is not zero. However, as far as I know, this has never happened because the number of Oxygen molecules in a room is generally extremely large.

Similarly, for a large number of Home Network Servers, it is likely that they will be uniformly distributed (unless Marketing screws up).

Ellis discusses only CPU cycles to be used for distributed computing and expresses a preference for clusters of PCs located near each other.

6.   Ellisís Specification is ridiculously broad. For example, Ellis wants to own Distributed Computing using organic computers. The Human brain is frequently considered an organic computer.

Consider the case where people form a team to work together on a task. Each person performs a part of that task. They are paid for performing that task. The team must determine the identity and reliability of the customer whose task they are performing. (Is it a lawful task? Will they get paid?) If they have more than one customer they must make sure not to breach the confidentiality of each customer. In other words, the team members must use a mental Firewall {also known as good business judgment }.

Therefore, anyone forming such as team is infringing on the Ellis patent. {That includes the Patent Office whose many departments perform different tasks in order to process each Patent Application.}

My invention is limited to Home Network Servers. It does not apply to cell phones, TVs, video games, or your own brain.
 

7.  I proposed to amend the phrase in Claim 1, Claim 3, and Claim 5  "something of value" to  "something of value from a contracting company" if it would result in the application being allowed. He seemed receptive to my offer to amend the claims but said he did not have the authority to negotiate the deposition of the application.
 

8.  I asked him if he had ever had a pro se Applicant before, and he said, "no." He also said that he had never talked to an Applicant's attorney.
 

9.  The Examiner thanked me for clarifying my invention and distinguishing it from Ellis, and agreed to talk to his supervisor who has the authority to negotiate the disposition of the application. The Examiner stated he would do an additional search to see if there is other Prior Art relevant to my invention.

10.   A conference telephone interview with SPE Dharia was subsequently arranged for Tuesday, August 9, 2005 for 2:00 pm (Eastern).
 

As noted, my Informal Response of July 25, 2005, is to be incorporated in this Summary for the reasons stated and follows the customary boiler plate.
 

Respectfully submitted,

Jed Margolin
pro se inventor
August 12, 2005


Jed Margolin
3570 Pleasant Echo Dr.
San Jose, CA  95148-1916
(408) 238-4564
______________________________________________________________________

I hereby certify that this correspondence is being faxed to the Central Fax Number
571-273-8300.
 

Date:  August 12, 2005

Inventor's Signature:     _____________________________________