Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. Claims 1, 5, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Li et al., "IMap: Fast and Scalable In-Network Scanning with Programmable Switches", In Proceedings of the 19th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, April 4, 2022, pp.667-681, “Li”), in view of Saito ‘707 (US 2024/0380707, “Saito ‘707”), and further in view of Zhang ‘870 (US 2022/0200870, “Zhang ‘870”).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Li discloses a system (Introduction, Section 4.1; a switch includes a CPU) comprising:
a processor (Introduction, Section 4.1; CPU included in the switch); and
configure a programmable network device to inject events into network traffic (FIG. 1, Abstract, Introduction, Section 3, Section 4.1; an IMap programmable switch receives parameters parsed from configuration information, and uses these parameters to generate probe packets it sends to scan the network; thus, the IMap programmable switch is configured to inject probe packets into network traffic; IMap programmable switch reads on a programmable network device; probe packets read on events);
the mirrored traffic including the injected events (FIG. 1, Abstract, Introduction, Section 3, Section 4.1; an IMap programmable switch generates probe packets, and sends the probe packets to scan the network; thus, the network traffic includes injected probe packets);
the analysis results reflecting behavior of the network stack functionality in response to the injected events (FIG. 1, Abstract, Introduction, Section 3.2; scanning of the network includes sending the probe packets and receiving response packets, where scanning results are used to understand network behavior in response to the probe packets); and
output the analysis results (FIG. 1, Abstract, Introduction, Section 3.2; scanning results are written into a database).
Although Li discloses configure a programmable network device to inject events into network traffic, Li does not specifically disclose network traffic communicated between two or more hosts having network adapters that perform network stack functionality in hardware.
Saito ‘707 teaches network traffic communicated between two or more hosts having network adapters that perform network stack functionality in hardware (FIGS. 1 and 15-16, para 2-43 and 66-69; client processing for protocol stack function is offloaded to a server over a network (NW), using dedicated respective network interface cards (NICs); the respective NICs of the client and the server are host adapters; the NIC hardware is the functional unit of the server; thus, traffic is communicated between two hosts having network adapters, where network stack functionality of the server is implemented in hardware)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s system that configures a programmable network device to inject events into network traffic, to include Saito ‘707’s client processing for protocol stack function is offloaded to a server. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the latency by eliminating the overhead in the linkage between the "protocol stack" of the OS and the "ACC function and argument data" (Saito ‘707, para 46).
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 does not specifically disclose a storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to; obtain mirrored traffic provided by the programmable network device; and analyze the mirrored traffic to obtain analysis results.
Zhang ‘870 teaches a storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to (FIG. 6, para 120-122, claim 12; an analysis device includes a processor and a memory, where the memory stores instructions that are executed by the processor, to cause the device to perform functions);
obtain mirrored traffic provided by the programmable network device; analyze the mirrored traffic to obtain analysis results (FIG. 1, para 44-45; a data source device mirrors traffic, and sends the mirrored traffic to an analysis device; the analysis device parses the traffic and obtains flow statistical information);
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Li and Saito ‘707, to include Zhang ‘870’s data source device that mirrors traffic. The motivation for doing so would have been to resolve the problem of poor accuracy of prediction technology (Zhang ‘870, para 8-9).
Regarding claim 5, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Further, Li teaches further comprising: populating a configuration file with event parameters for the events; and sending the configuration file to the programmable network device, the programmable network device being configured to read the configuration file and inject the events according to the event parameters (FIG. 1, Abstract, Introduction, Section 3, Section 4.1; configuration information is sent to the IMap programmable switch; the IMap programmable switch receives the configuration information, and uses parameters parsed from the configuration information to generate and send probe packets to scan the network).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses a programmable network device (FIG. 1, Abstract; IMap programmable switch that performs network scanning) comprising:
a plurality of ports (FIG. 1, Abstract, Section 4.1; the IMap programmable switch includes multiple ports); and
a programmable logic circuit (FIG. 1, Abstract, Section 2.2; the IMap programmable switch includes programmable ASICs) configured to:
receive event parameters of events to inject into network traffic connected to two or more of the ports; inject the events into the network traffic (FIG. 1, Abstract, Introduction, Section 3, Section 4.1; the IMap programmable switch includes multiple ports; the IMap programmable switch receives parameters parsed from configuration information, and uses these parameters to generate probe packets it sends to scan the network; thus, the IMap programmable switch receives parameters of probe packets to inject into network traffic, using multiple ports);
distribute the network traffic having the injected events (FIG. 1, Abstract, Introduction, Section 3; the IMap programmable switch generates probe packets it sends to scan the entire network; thus, the IMap programmable switch sends traffic to the entire network, to scan the network, where the traffic includes the generated probe packets); and
for subsequent analysis (FIG. 1, Abstract, Introduction, Section 3; the IMap programmable switch generates probe packets it sends to scan the network, and receives response packets for subsequent analysis).
Although Li discloses receive event parameters of events to inject into network traffic connected to two or more of the ports, Li does not specifically disclose the network traffic communicated between two or more network adapters.
Saito ‘707 teaches the network traffic communicated between two or more network adapters (FIGS. 1 and 15-16, para 2-43 and 66-69; client processing for protocol stack function is offloaded to a server over a network (NW), using dedicated respective network interface cards (NICs); the respective NICs of the client and the server are host adapters; thus, traffic is communicated between two hosts having network adapters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s programmable network device that injects events into network traffic, to include Saito ‘707’s client processing for protocol stack function is offloaded to a server. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the latency by eliminating the overhead in the linkage between the "protocol stack" of the OS and the "ACC function and argument data" (Saito ‘707, para 46).
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 does not specifically disclose mirror the network traffic to one or more other devices for subsequent analysis.
Zhang ‘870 teaches mirror the network traffic to one or more other devices for subsequent analysis (FIG. 1, para 44-45; a data source device mirrors traffic, and sends the mirrored traffic for an analysis device for parsing the traffic and obtain flow statistical information; thus, the data source mirrors traffic to the analysis device for subsequent analysis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined programmable network device of Li and Saito ‘707, to include Zhang ‘870’s data source device that mirrors traffic. The motivation for doing so would have been to resolve the problem of poor accuracy of prediction technology (Zhang ‘870, para 8-9).
Regarding claim 14, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 13, as outlined above.
Further, Li teaches wherein the programmable logic circuit is configured to populate a match-action table to inject the events based at least on the event parameters (FIG. 1, Abstract, Introduction, Section 3, Section 4.1; the IMap programmable switch receives parameters parsed from configuration information, and updates a Probe IP Range (PIPR) table to inject probe packets into network traffic)
Regarding claim 17, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 13, as outlined above.
Further, Li teaches wherein the event parameters are received in a configuration file and the programmable logic circuit is configured to parse the configuration file to extract the event parameters from the configuration file (FIG. 1, Abstract, Introduction, Section 3, Section 4.1; the IMap programmable switch receives configuration information, and uses parameters parsed from the configuration information to generate and send probe packets to scan the network).
4. Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Saito ‘707, further in view of Zhang ‘870, and further in view of Nguyen ‘755 (US 2013/0346755, “Nguyen ‘755”).
Regarding claim 2, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 does not specifically disclose wherein the injected events comprise packet corruptions.
Nguyen ‘755 teaches wherein the injected events comprise packet corruptions (para 20; injected corrupt packets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Li, Saito ‘707, and Zhang ‘870, to include Nguyen ‘755’s corrupt packets. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of traditional digital signature schemes failing in situations where a digital signature on arbitrarily combined packets needs verification (Nguyen ‘755, para 3).
Regarding claim 15, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 13, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 does not specifically disclose wherein the injected events include at least one of a packet corruption event.
Nguyen ‘755 teaches wherein the injected events include at least one of a packet corruption event (para 20; injected corrupt packets; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art), a packet drop event, or an explicit congestion notification event.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined programmable network device of Li, Saito ‘707, and Zhang ‘870, to include Nguyen ‘755’s corrupt packets. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of traditional digital signature schemes failing in situations where a digital signature on arbitrarily combined packets needs verification (Nguyen ‘755, para 3).
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Saito ‘707, further in view of Zhang ‘870, and further in view of Huang ‘953 (US 2021/0184953, “Huang ‘953”).
Regarding claim 3, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 does not specifically disclose wherein the injected events comprise packet drops.
Huang ‘953 teaches wherein the injected events comprise packet drops (para 25; special packets are injected and are dropped).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Li, Saito ‘707, and Zhang ‘870, to include Huang ‘953’s special packets that are injected and dropped. The motivation for doing so would have been to address challenges relating to network trouble shooting and diagnosis (Huang ‘953, para 2 and 10).
6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Saito ‘707, further in view of Zhang ‘870, and further in view of Janakiraman ‘785 (US 2004/0196785, “Janakiraman ‘785”).
Regarding claim 4, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 does not specifically disclose wherein the injected events comprise explicit congestion notification marks.
Janakiraman ‘785 teaches wherein the injected events comprise explicit congestion notification marks (para 26; a data packet is sent, where the data packet includes congestion notification marker).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Li, Saito ‘707, and Zhang ‘870, to include Janakiraman ‘785’s data packet that includes congestion notification marker. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a congestion notification process for use in a communication network (Janakiraman ‘785, para 6-8).
7. Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Saito ‘707, further in view of Zhang ‘870, and further in view of Rothenberger (Rothenberger et al., "ReDMArk: Bypassing ROMA Security Mechanisms", In Proceedings of the 30th USENIX Security Symposium, August 11, 2021, pp. 4277-4292, “Rothenberger”).
Regarding claim 6, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 5, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 does not specifically disclose wherein the configuration file identifies a particular queue pair for which the programmable network device is to inject a particular event.
Rothenberger teaches wherein the configuration file identifies a particular queue pair for which the programmable network device is to inject a particular event (Section 2.1, Section 5.1, lines 1-25; a packet is injected based on a queue pair number (QPN)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Li, Saito ‘707, and Zhang ‘870, to include Rothenberger’s packet that is injected based on a queue pair number. The motivation for doing so would have been to consider potential mitigation techniques to secure remote direct memory access (RDMA) (Rothenberger, Introduction).
Regarding claim 16, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 13, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 does not specifically disclose wherein the programmable logic circuit is configured to inject the events for a particular queue pair specified by the event parameters.
Rothenberger teaches wherein the programmable logic circuit is configured to inject the events for a particular queue pair specified by the event parameters (Section 2.1, Section 5.1, lines 1-25; a packet is injected based on a queue pair number (QPN)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined programmable network device of Li, Saito ‘707, and Zhang ‘870, to include Rothenberger’s packet that is injected based on a queue pair number. The motivation for doing so would have been to consider potential mitigation techniques to secure remote direct memory access (RDMA) (Rothenberger, Introduction).
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Saito ‘707, further in view of Zhang ‘870, further in view of Rothenberger, and further in view of Sarangapani ‘769 (US 9,705,769, “Sarangapani ‘769”).
Regarding claim 7, Li in combination with Saito ‘707, Zhang ‘870, and Rothenberger discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707, Zhang ‘870, and Rothenberger does not specifically disclose wherein the configuration file identifies a particular packet sequence number of a particular packet in which to inject the particular event.
Sarangapani ‘769 teaches wherein the configuration file identifies a particular packet sequence number of a particular packet in which to inject the particular event (col. 13:23-33; a sequence number identifies a relative position of a packet in a sequence of packets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Li, Saito ‘707, Zhang ‘870, and Rothenberger, to include Sarangapani ‘769’s sequence number that identifies a relative position of a packet in a sequence of packets. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve network efficiency and design the network in a more latency-sensitive manner (RDMA) (Sarangapani ‘769, col. 4:5-12).
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Saito ‘707, further in view of Zhang ‘870, further in view of Rothenberger, further in view of Sarangapani ‘769, and further in view of Youn ‘830 (US 2025/0167830, “Youn ‘830”).
Regarding claim 8, Li in combination with Saito ‘707, Zhang ‘870, Rothenberger, and Sarangapani ‘769 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 7, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707, Zhang ‘870, Rothenberger, and Sarangapani ‘769 does not specifically disclose wherein the configuration file identifies a particular event type of the particular event.
In a similar field of endeavor, Youn ‘830 teaches wherein the configuration file identifies a particular event type of the particular event (para 511; a header includes packet type indication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the system of Li, Saito ‘707, Zhang ‘870, Rothenberger, and Sarangapani ‘769, to include Youn ‘830’s header that includes packet type indication. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a negotiation method and device for fast frequency shift keying (FSK) (Youn ‘830, para 6-7).
10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Saito ‘707, further in view of Zhang ‘870, further in view of Rothenberger, further in view of Sarangapani ‘769, further in view of Youn ‘830, and further in view of Lee ‘909 (US 2019/0181909, “Lee ‘909”).
Regarding claim 9, Li in combination with Saito ‘707, Zhang ‘870, Rothenberger, Sarangapani ‘769, and Youn ‘830 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 8, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707, Zhang ‘870, Rothenberger, Sarangapani ‘769, and Youn ‘830 does not specifically disclose wherein the configuration file identifies an iteration number specifying a transmission round in which the particular event is to be injected by the programmable network device.
Lee ‘909 teaches wherein the configuration file identifies an iteration number specifying a transmission round in which the particular event is to be injected by the programmable network device (para 84; parameter “Retry count” indicates the number of retransmissions of a packet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the system of Li, Saito ‘707, Zhang ‘870, Rothenberger, Sarangapani ‘769, and Youn ‘830, to include Lee ‘909’s “Retry count” parameter. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of slow frequency hopping resulting in occasional collisions when another wireless device is introduced into the environment (Lee ‘909, para 2).
11. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Saito ‘707, further in view of Zhang ‘870, and further in view of Kulshreshtha ‘592 (US 2016/0359592, “Kulshreshtha ‘592”).
Regarding claim 10, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 does not specifically disclose wherein the analysis results reflect retransmission latency.
Kulshreshtha ‘592 teaches wherein the analysis results reflect retransmission latency (para 79; a monitoring device determines retransmission latency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Li, Saito ‘707, and Zhang ‘870, to include Kulshreshtha ‘592’s monitoring device that determines retransmission latency. The motivation for doing so would have been to address difficult to identify node topologies, data path flow, and/or path characteristics for devices and/or networks within data center networks (Kulshreshtha ‘592, para 3).
12. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Saito ‘707, further in view of Zhang ‘870, and further in view of Lee ‘909.
Regarding claim 11, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 does not specifically disclose wherein the analysis results reflect timeout values and retry counts.
Lee ‘909 teaches wherein the analysis results reflect timeout values and retry counts (para 52 and 84; pre-determined timeout time; parameter “Retry count” that indicates the number of retransmissions of a packet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the system of Li, Saito ‘707, and Zhang ‘870, and Youn ‘830, to include Lee ‘909’s “Retry count” parameter. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of slow frequency hopping resulting in occasional collisions when another wireless device is introduced into the environment (Lee ‘909, para 2).
13. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Saito ‘707, further in view of Zhang ‘870, and further in view of Janakiraman ‘785.
Regarding claim 12, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 does not specifically disclose wherein the analysis results reflect congestion notification behavior.
Janakiraman ‘785 teaches wherein the analysis results reflect congestion notification behavior (para 26; a data packet is sent, where the data packet includes congestion notification marker).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Li, Saito ‘707, and Zhang ‘870, to include Janakiraman ‘785’s data packet that includes congestion notification marker. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a congestion notification process for use in a communication network (Janakiraman ‘785, para 6-8).
14. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Saito ‘707, further in view of Zhang ‘870, and further in view of McLean ‘212 (US 2024/0284212, “McLean ‘212”).
Regarding claim 19, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 18, as outlined above.
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 does not specifically disclose wherein the outputting of the results comprises displaying one or more graphical user interfaces that convey at least one of retransmission latency, timeout values, retry counts, or congestion notification behavior.
McLean ‘212 teaches wherein the outputting of the results comprises displaying one or more graphical user interfaces that convey at least one of retransmission latency, timeout values, retry counts, or congestion notification behavior (para 144 and 164; congestion is a radio coverage issue; the affected geographic area is displayed on a graphical user interface (GUI); examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Li, Saito ‘707, and Zhang ‘870, to include McLean ‘212’s geographic area that is affected by congestion, and is displayed on a GUI. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a need for a data processing, storage and analysis system for storing large amounts of radio network measurement data that results from the testing or measurement or monitoring of multiple heterogeneous radio communications networks, and for the temporal querying, visualization and analysis of that data by both technically-skilled and lay users (McLean ‘212, para 29).
15. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Saito ‘707, further in view of Zhang ‘870, and further in view of Wylie ‘966 (US 2020/0021966, “Wylie ‘966”).
Regarding claim 20, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 18, as outlined above.
Further, Li teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: configure the programmable network device to inject the particular events according to the particular event parameters (FIG. 1, Abstract, Introduction, Section 3, Section 4.1; an IMap programmable switch receives parameters parsed from configuration information, and uses these parameters to generate probe packets it sends to scan the network; thus, the IMap programmable switch is configured to inject probe packets into network traffic; IMap programmable switch reads on a programmable network device; probe packets read on events).
However, Li in combination with Saito ‘707 and Zhang ‘870 does not specifically disclose display a graphical user interface having elements for specifying event parameters; receive user input directed to the elements of the graphical user interface, the user input identifying particular event parameters for particular events.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wylie ‘966 teaches display a graphical user interface having elements for specifying event parameters (FIG. 8C, para 48 and 92; live event fields are displayed on the mobile device’s graphical user interface (GUI));
receive user input directed to the elements of the graphical user interface, the user input identifying particular event parameters for particular events (FIG. 8C, para 48 and 92; the user selects a live event using the displayed field).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Li, Saito ‘707, and Zhang ‘870, to include Wylie ‘966’s live event fields that are displayed on the mobile device’s GUI. The motivation for doing so would have been to address challenges in setting up a WiFi network to handle all the devices that would need to connect to it during an event (Wylie ‘966, para 3-8).
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If 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.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474