Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 regarding the prior art rejections of Claims 1 – 27 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Claims 20 and 25 have been canceled.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees the cited portions of the cited references do disclose, teach, or suggest the following limitations recited in independent claim 1 as shown below. Chen
Chen teaches a plurality of circuitry used for error correction in memory which functions to make determinations to read/write request targets. (Chen: 0073 & Abstract, FIG. 7 illustrates an exemplary apparatus that facilitates elastic error correction in memory, according to one embodiment of the present disclosure. Apparatus 700 can comprise a plurality of units or apparatuses that may communicate with one another via a wired, wireless, quantum light, or electrical communication channel. Apparatus 700 may be realized using one or more integrated circuits, and may include fewer or more units or apparatuses than those shown in FIG. 7. Further, apparatus 700 may be integrated in a computer system, or realized as a separate device that is capable of communicating with other computer systems and/or devices. In response to the system determining that the memory address corresponds to at least one entry in the ECC mapping table, the system may determine, based on value in the counter field, whether the memory address belongs to a first portion or a second portion of the address range specified in the ECC mapping table entry. The system may then process the memory access request based on the selected ECC mode.)
Hyde and Huskisson remedy possible deficiencies as they teach error correction with memory on an integrated circuit and a determing system based on the metrics of a storage system.
Claims 2 – 14 which depend from amended claim 1, have been considered and rejected.
Claims 16 – 18which depend from amended claim 15, have been considered and rejected.
Claims 21 – 22 which depend from amended claim 19, have been considered and rejected.
Claim 24 which depend from amended claim 23, have been considered and rejected.
New Claims 26 - 27 which depend from amended claim 1, have been considered and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9, 11 - 12, 22 – 24 & 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2021/0294692 A1) in view of Hyde (US 2014/ 0136915 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Chen teaches:
An apparatus comprising: first circuitry to process a request generated by a first device, the request specifying a memory address range of a second device to monitor for errors; and
second circuitry to monitor the memory address range of the second device for errors based on the request, wherein monitoring the memory address range of the second device for errors comprises: based on a determination that a write request targets the memory address range of the second device, store first data of the write request to a memory of the apparatus; and (0016 & 0075, the system can determine that the memory access request is a write request when the memory address is the last address in the first portion. Next the system can in response to determining that the memory access request is the write request, update the ECC mapping table by: setting a write ECC mode field in the ECC mapping table to the current ECC mode and increment a value in the counter field of the ECC mapping table entry. The data structures and code described in this detailed description are typically stored on a computer-readable storage medium, which may be any device or medium that can store code and/or data for use by a computer system.)
based on a determination that a read request targets the memory address range of the second device, compare first data the second device (Abstract, The system can then compare a memory address specified in the memory access request with a set of entries in an error correction code (ECC) mapping table);
Chen fails to teach:
to determine whether an error has occurred.
However, Hyde teaches:
to determine whether an error has occurred (0067, The control logic 304 can be operable to analyze memory accesses, determine priority of performance based on the analysis, and selectively detect and correct errors over the plurality of memory blocks 310 based on the determined priority of performance. Memory blocks can include a segment of memory, a memory portion, memory cells in a range of addresses either physical or virtual).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Chen which teaches an apparatus to request specifying a memory address range to monitor for errors with the teaching of Hyde which teaches memory analysis and error detection in order to selectively detect and correct errors over the plurality of memory blocks.
In regards to claim 2, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Further, Chen teaches:
wherein the error is a silent data corruption error that is uncorrectable by error correction hardware of the second device (007, the error correcting technique is not effective when the soft errors are uniformly distributed across the memory chips).
In regards to claim 3, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Chen fails to teach:
the second circuitry to report an error to a source of the read request based on a determination that the first data does not match the second data.
However, Hyde teaches:
the second circuitry to report an error to a source of the read request based on a determination that the first data does not match the second data (0116, The control logic 604 can be operable to receive a report 622 on at least one operating condition 624 of system performance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Chen which teaches an apparatus to request specifying a memory address range to monitor for errors with the teaching of Hyde which teaches reporting based on operating conditions in order to report errors when they occur.
In regards to claim 4, Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Chen fails to teach:
wherein the second circuitry is to provide the first data and the second data to the source of the read request based on the determination that the first data does not match the second data.
However, Hyde teaches:
wherein the second circuitry is to provide the first data and the second data to the source of the read request based on the determination that the first data does not match the second data (0116, The control logic 604 can be operable to receive a report 622 on at least one operating condition 624 of system performance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Chen which teaches an apparatus to request specifying a memory address range to monitor for errors with the teaching of Hyde which teaches reporting based on operating conditions in order to report errors when they occur.
In regards to claim 5, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Further, Chen teaches:
wherein the request is generated by a software application or operating system executed by the first device (Abstract, the system can receive a memory access request from a host processor).
In regards to claim 6, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Further, Chen teaches:
wherein the second circuitry is to compare the first data and second data further based on a sampling rate associated with the memory address range (0068, Specifically, when the error correction method is in operation, the operating system may periodically monitor the ECC decoding statistics).
In regards to claim 7, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Further, Chen teaches:
wherein the second circuitry is to compare the first data and second data further based on a time interval associated with the memory address range (0068, Specifically, when the error correction method is in operation, the operating system may periodically monitor the ECC decoding statistics).
In regards to claim 8, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Further, Chen teaches:
wherein the second circuitry is to compare the first data and second data further based on a determination that a source of the read request is specified as a source device in a monitoring rule for the memory address range (0010, During operation, the system can receive a memory access request from a host processor. The system can then compare a memory address specified in the memory access request with a set of entries in an error correction code (ECC) mapping table).
In regards to claim 9, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Further, Chen teaches:
wherein the request specifies multiple memory address ranges of the second device to monitor for errors (0068, the system may take proactive actions by applying a stronger multi-bit error correction code disabling and mapping out problematic DRAM DIMM, or migrating applications to a different node even before the soft errors in memory reaches beyond the error correction capability of ECC-6).
In regards to claim 11, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Further, Chen teaches:
wherein the memory comprises a plurality of different storage mediums to store write data for different memory address ranges to be monitored for errors, wherein the second circuitry is to assign the memory address range to a storage medium of the storage mediums based on a performance characteristic of the storage medium (0075, The data structures and code described in this detailed description are typically stored on a computer-readable storage medium, which may be any device or medium that can store code and/or data for use by a computer system).
In regards to claim 12, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Chen fails to teach:
wherein the apparatus comprises a switch comprising the first circuitry, second circuitry, and memory.
However, Hyde teaches:
wherein the apparatus comprises a switch comprising the first circuitry, second circuitry, and memory (0206, a computer program which at least partially carries out processes and/or devices described herein), electrical circuitry forming a memory device (e.g., forms of memory (e.g., random access, flash, read only, etc.)), electrical circuitry forming a communications device (e.g., a modem, communications switch, optical-electrical equipment, etc.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Chen which teaches an apparatus for requesting memory address ranges to monitor for errors with the teaching of Hyde which teaches a switch with multiple circuitries in order to bridge between layers of the memory.
In regards to claim 22, Chen in view of Huskisson teaches the system of claim 19.
Further, teaches:
wherein the second device comprises a central processing unit and the first device comprises one or more of a central processing unit, graphics processing unit, a field programmable gate array, or a network interface controller (0046, the system includes an integrated memory controller in a central processing unit (CPU) by introducing an ECC mapping table that can include address ranges and corresponding ECC modes).
In regards to claim 23, Chen teaches:
An apparatus comprising: first circuitry to generate a request specifying a memory address range of a second device to monitor for errors (Abstract, The system can then compare a memory address specified in the memory access request with a set of entries in an error correction code (ECC) mapping table);
Chen fails to teach:
and second circuitry to: transmit the request to a first device that is to monitor the memory address range for errors; [[and]] transmit, to the first device, read and write requests for a second device, the second device including the memory address range. and receive, from the first device, a notification in connection with a read request for data of memory address range, the notification indicating that a silent data corruption error was detected by the first device.
However, Hyde teaches:
and second circuitry to: transmit the request to a first device that is to monitor the memory address range for errors; [[and]] transmit, to the first device, read and write requests for a second device, the second device including the memory address range (0067, The control logic 304 can be operable to analyze memory accesses, determine priority of performance based on the analysis, and selectively detect and correct errors over the plurality of memory blocks 310 based on the determined priority of performance. Memory blocks can include a segment of memory, a memory portion, memory cells in a range of addresses either physical or virtual). and receive, from the first device, a notification in connection with a read request for data of memory address range, the notification indicating that a silent data corruption error was detected by the first device. (0115, The information or signals received from a device or system external to the memory device can include commands, executable instructions, codes, a predetermined signal operable as a function for conveying information about the behavior or attributes of a selected phenomenon, or the like. Physical information or signals can be selected from among any quantity exhibiting variation in time, variation in space, an image, or the like that can supply information on the status of a physical system, or convey a message among devices, components, or user. A signal is a physical quantity which varies with time and space and can contain information from source to the destination memory device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Chen which teaches an apparatus to request specifying a memory address range to monitor for errors with the teaching of Hyde which teaches memory address analysis in order to monitor errors based on memory address ranges (Hyde: 0028, a memory device for storing information to facilitate error detection and/or error correction using control and/or computation logic integrated into memory).
In regards to claim 24, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 23.
Chen fails to teach:
wherein the first circuitry comprises a processor that is to execute software that generates the request.
However, Hyde teaches:
wherein the first circuitry comprises a processor that is to execute software that generates the request (0033, Modules, logic, circuitry, hardware and software combinations, firmware, or so forth may be realized or implemented as one or more general-purpose processors, one or more processing cores).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Chen which teaches an apparatus to request specifying a memory address range to monitor for errors with the teaching of Hyde which teaches the first circuitry comprises a processor in order to control read and write requests.
In regards to claim 26, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Further, Chen teaches:
wherein the second circuitry is to store a monitoring rule based on the request, wherein the monitoring rule specifies the memory address range of the second device to be monitored, wherein the second circuitry is to store the first data of the write request to the memory of the apparatus based on a determination that an address of the write request is within the memory address range specified by the monitoring rule, wherein the second circuitry is to compare the first data with the second data based on a determination that an address of the read request is within the memory address range specified by the monitoring rule. (Abstract & 0042, The system can then compare a memory address specified in the memory access request with a set of entries in an error correction code (ECC) mapping table. In response to the system determining that the memory address corresponds to at least one entry in the ECC mapping table, the system may determine, based on value in the counter field, whether the memory address belongs to a first portion or a second portion of the address range specified in the ECC mapping table entry. The system may then process the memory access request based on the selected ECC mode. ECC mode Stores ECC mode information in information in memory DRAM, hence can be registers of the memory susceptible to soft controller, which has errors. better resilience to soft errors when compared with DRAM.)
In regards to claim 27, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 26.
Further, Chen teaches:
wherein the monitoring rule further specifies at least one of a time interval, source device, destination device, protocol, or sampling rate applicable to the monitoring of the memory address range for errors. (Abstract, In response to the system determining that the memory address corresponds to at least one entry in the ECC mapping table, the system may determine, based on value in the counter field, whether the memory address belongs to a first portion or a second portion of the address range specified in the ECC mapping table entry. The system may then process the memory access request based on the selected ECC mode.)
Claim(s) 15, 18, 19, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2021/0294692 A1) in view of Huskisson (US 2021/0216408 A1).
In regards to claim 15, Chen teaches:
A method comprising: processing a request generated by a first device, the request specifying a memory address range of a second device to monitor for errors; (Abstract, the system can then compare a memory address specified in the memory access request with a set of entries in an error correction code (ECC) mapping table) and monitoring the memory address range of the second device for errors based on the request, wherein monitoring the memory address range of the second device for errors comprises: (0016, the system can determine that the memory access request is a write request when the memory address is the last address in the first portion. Next the system can in response to determining that the memory access request is the write request, update the ECC mapping table by: setting a write ECC mode field in the ECC mapping table to the current ECC mode and increment a value in the counter field of the ECC mapping table entry.);
Chen fails to teach:
based on a determination that a write request targets the memory address range of the second device, storing first data of the write request in a memory; and based on a determination that a read request targets the memory address range of the second device, retrieving the first data from the memory and comparing the first data with second data read from the second device to determine whether an error has occurred.
However, Huskisson teaches:
based on a determination that a write request targets the memory address range of the second device, storing first data of the write request in a memory (0034, Storage array controllers 110C and 110D facilitate the communication, e.g., send the write request to the appropriate storage drive 171A-F); and based on a determination that a read request targets the memory address range of the second device, retrieving the first data from the memory and comparing the first data with second data read from the second device to determine whether an error has occurred (0050, storage device controller 119A-D may perform operations on flash memory devices 120a-n including storing and retrieving data content of pages, arranging and erasing any blocks, tracking statistics related to the use and reuse of Flash memory pages, erase blocks, and cells, tracking and predicting error codes and faults within the Flash memory, controlling voltage levels associated with programming and retrieving contents of Flash cells, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Chen which teaches A method comprising requesting a memory address range to monitor for errors with the teaching of Huskisson which teaches storage of data upon request in order to facilitate communication between storage devices.
In regards to claim 18, Chen in view of Huskisson teaches the method of claim 15. The claim corresponds to claim 5 as analyzed accordingly.
In regards to claim 19, Chen teaches:
A system comprising: a first device comprising a first memory; a second device to generate a request specifying a memory address range of the first device to monitor for errors (Abstract, The system can then compare a memory address specified in the memory access request with a set of entries in an error correction code (ECC) mapping table); monitor the memory address range of the second device for errors based on the request, wherein monitoring the memory address range of the second device for errors comprises: (0016, the system can determine that the memory access request is a write request when the memory address is the last address in the first portion. Next the system can in response to determining that the memory access request is the write request, update the ECC mapping table by: setting a write ECC mode field in the ECC mapping table to the current ECC mode and increment a value in the counter field of the ECC mapping table entry.);and performing error checks for read requests that target the memory address range of the first device by comparing data read from the first device to be stored data of write requests that are retrieved from the second memory (0007, The ECC word includes both data bits and check bits. the error correcting technique re-arranges the data in the cache line by spreading the data across multiple DRAM devices).
Chen fails to teach:
and a third device coupled to the first device and second device, the third device comprising: a second memory to store data of write requests that target the memory address range of the first device; and circuitry to: storing, in the second memory, data of write requests that target the memory address range of the first device;
However, Huskisson teaches:
and a third device coupled to the first device and second device, the third device comprising: a second memory to store data of write requests that target the memory address range of the first device; and circuitry to: store, in the second memory, data of write requests that target the memory address range of the first device (0034 & 0050, Storage array controllers 110C and 110D facilitate the communication, e.g., send the write request to the appropriate storage drive 171A-F. Storage device controller 119A-D may perform operations on flash memory devices 120a-n including storing and retrieving data content of pages, arranging and erasing any blocks, tracking statistics related to the use and reuse of Flash memory pages, erase blocks, and cells, tracking and predicting error codes and faults within the Flash memory, controlling voltage levels associated with programming and retrieving contents of Flash cells, etc.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Chen which teaches A system of requesting a memory address range to monitor for errors with the teaching of Huskisson which teaches storage of data upon request in order to facilitate communication between storage devices.
In regards to claim 21, Chen in view of Huskisson teaches the system of claim 19.
Chen fails to teach:
wherein the first device, second device, and third device are each implemented on separate dies.
However, Huskisson teaches:
wherein the first device, second device, and third device are each implemented on separate dies (0088, It should be appreciated that the flash dies 222 could be packaged in any number of ways, with a single die per package, multiple dies per package (i.e. multichip packages), in hybrid packages, as bare dies on a printed circuit board).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Chen which teaches an apparatus requesting a memory address range to monitor for errors with the teaching of Huskisson which teaches separate dies in order for each device to have their own controllers.
Claim(s) 10 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2021/0294692 A1) in view of Hyde (US 2014/0136915 A1) in view of Huskisson (US 2021/0216408 A1).
In regards to claim 10, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Chen fails to teach:
wherein the request specifies one or more interconnect protocols to be monitored for errors.
However, Huskisson teaches:
wherein the request specifies one or more interconnect protocols to be monitored for errors (0024, The SAN 158 may be implemented with a variety of data communications fabrics, devices, and protocols. For example, the fabrics for SAN 158 may include Fibre Channel, Ethernet, Infiniband, Serial Attached Small Computer System Interface (‘SAS’), or the like. Data communications protocols for use with SAN 158 may include Advanced Technology Attachment (‘ATA’), Fibre Channel Protocol, Small Computer System Interface (‘SCSI’), Internet Small Computer System Interface (‘iSCSI’), HyperSCSI, Non-Volatile Memory Express (‘NVMe’) over Fabrics, or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Chen which teaches an apparatus to request specifying a memory address range to monitor for errors with the teaching of Huskisson which teaches interconnect protocols to be monitored for errors in order to deliver high level performance (Huskisson: 0024).
In regards to claim 25, Chen in view of Hyde teaches the apparatus of claim 23.
Chen fails to teach:
wherein the second circuitry is to provide the first data and the second data to the source of the read request based on the determination that the first data does not match the second data.
However, Huskisson teaches:
wherein the second circuitry is to provide the first data and the second data to the source of the read request based on the determination that the first data does not match the second data (0485, At operation 2904, system 400 provides a notification in response to the determination that the storage system is possibly being targeted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Chen in view of Hyde which teaches an apparatus requesting a memory address range to monitor for errors with the teaching of Huskisson which teaches read request when two sets of data don’t match in order to verify the memory addresses.
Claim(s) 16, 17, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2021/0294692 A1) in view of Huskisson (US 2021/0216408 A1) in view of Hyde (US 2014/0136915 A1).
In regards to claim 16, Chen in view of Huskisson teaches the method of claim 15. The claim corresponds to claim 3 as analyzed accordingly.
In regards to claim 17, Chen in view of Huskisson teaches the method of claim 16. The claim corresponds to claim 4 as analyzed accordingly.
In regards to claim 20, Chen in view of Huskisson teaches the system of claim 19. The claim corresponds to claim 3 as analyzed accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 & 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art mode of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Cochran (US 2006/0129899 A1): All or part of the data stored in an active solid state memory device, and used in an active data processing system, may be copied to at least one redundant memory device, e.g., by transitioning a memory address range that was allocated to the active memory device to the redundant memory device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 regarding the prior art rejections of Claims 1 – 27 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Remarks argue that:
The Examiner rejects claims 1-9, 11-12, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0294692 of Chen (hereinafter “Chen”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0136915 of Hyde et al. (hereinafter “Hyde”). The Examiner further rejects various claims under 35U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over several references, including Chen, Hyde, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0216408 of Huskisson et al. (hereinafter “Huskisson”). This rejection is respectfully traversed for the following reasons.
Applicant respectfully reminds the Examiner that to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met. First, there must be some suggestion or motivation; either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. Second,
there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Third, the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all of the claim limitations.
It is respectfully submitted that the rejected claims are patentable over the art of record based on at least the third criterion of obviousness: none of the references alone or in combination teach, suggest, or disclose each claim limitation of the independent claims.
For example, the cited portions of the cited references fail to disclose, teach, or suggest the following limitations recited in independent claim 1:
second circuitry to monitor the memory address range of the second device for errors based on the request, wherein monitoring the memory address range of the second device for errors comprises:
based on a determination that a write request targets the memory address range of the second device, store first data of the write request to a memory of the apparatus; and
based on a determination that a read request targets the memory address range of the second device, read the stored first data from the memory of the apparatus and compare the first data with second data read from the second device to determine whether an error has occurred.
The cited portions of Chen do not disclose “read the stored first data from the memory of the apparatus and compare the first data with second data read from the second device to determine whether an error has occurred” much less doing so “based on a determination that a read request targets the memory address range of the second device” or doing so as part of “monitoring the memory address range of the second device based on the request.” Rather, Chen discloses “compare a memory address specified in the memory access request with a set of entries in an error correction code (ECC) mapping table.” Chen, Abstract. See also, Office Action, page 2. Instead of comparing “stored first data form the memory of the apparatus” with “second data read from the second device”, Chen is concerned with selecting an ECC mode (e.g., a previous
ECC mode or a current ECC mode) from an entry in an ECC mapping table. See Chen, Abstract and 0051. The cited portions of Hyde and Huskisson fail to remedy these deficiencies.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 and its dependent claims are allowable. For related reasons, claims 15 and 19, and their dependent claims (if any) are allowable. As to claim 23, Applicant has incorporated the subject matter of claim 25 into claim 23. The Office Action’s rejection of claim 25 on pages 12-13 is erroneous as it is not directed to the language of claim 25 (specifically the rejection is silent as to “receive, from the first device, a notification in connection with a read request for data of memory address range, the notification indicating that a silent data corruption error was detected by the first device” as recited in claim 25). Furthermore, the cited portions of the cited references fail to disclose, teach, or suggest a “notification indicating that a silent data corruption error was detected by the first device” as recited in claim 23. As claim 23 presents the original subject matter of claim 25, if claim 23 is rejected in a subsequent office action, Applicant respectfully notes that the office action be issued as a non-final office action.
Applicant’s dependent claims are allowable based on their dependence on their respective independent claims and further because they recite numerous additional patentable distinctions over the prior art. Because Applicant believes he has amply demonstrated the allowability of the independent claims over the prior art, and to avoid burdening the record, Applicant has not provided detailed remarks concerning these dependent claims. Applicant, however, remains ready to provide such remarks if it becomes appropriate to do so. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and allowance of all pending claims.
New Claims
New claims 26 and 27 have been added and are patentable for at least reasons analogous to those described above in connection with Claim 1. New claims 26 and 27 also recite further patentable distinctions.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 regarding the prior art rejections of Claims 1 – 27 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will 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 VICTOR PERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-6319. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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,
Mark Featherstone can be reached on (571) 270-3750. The fax phone number for the organization
where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from
Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional
questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like
assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2111
/GUERRIER MERANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111 3/24/2026