DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
This office action is in reply to Applicant’s Response dated 07/29/2026. Claims 1, 3-10, 17 and 19 are amended. Claims 2, 11 and 20 are canceled. Claims 21-23 are new. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19 and 21-23 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s argument (see page 7) regarding the objection to the drawings and specification, the objection to the drawings and specification have been withdrawn in view of the replacement sheet filed on 07/29/2026 and in view of the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objections to the specification.
In response to the Applicant’s argument (see page 7) regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments made to the claims. Claims 10 and 17 still recite “the service mesh interface is to provide access”, and therefore, claims 10 and 17 have not been amended to overcome the rejection.
The Applicant argues (see page 8) that Ganguli's classifier and forwarder are not proxy operations of a service mesh interface. By contrast, claim 1 requires that "offloaded proxy operations of the service mesh interface comprise packet forwarding and packet filtering."
In response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations “packet forwarding” and “packet filtering” are not defined in the claims. In addition, the Applicant’s argument fails to explain what “packet forwarding” and “packet filtering” are or how the forwarding and filtering are carried out.
Ganguli teaches that the packet processor 222 provides hardware offload of a classifier and forwarder. Ganguli clarifies that the packet processor 222 can perform classification and load balancing as part of the network L7 offload to the IPU 202. Fig. 6B teaches communication of a network packet to a microservice using network L7 offload to an IPU for a service mesh and the IPU processes, by the network L7 proxy endpoint based on the applied routing rules, the network packet to remove one or more headers from the network packet and identify data of the network packet to be transmitted to the microservice on the host device. Ganguli further clarifies that the IPU causes, by the network L7 proxy endpoint based on a routing table, the identified data to be communicated to an L7 interface device (Ganguli, see figs. 2A-2B and 6A-6B; see paragraphs 0037, 0089 and 0092 ). Processing the network packet to remove one or more headers from the network packet and identify data of the network packet to be transmitted is clearly “packet filtering”, and communicating or transmitting the identified data is clearly “packet forwarding”.
Thus, Ganguli teaches “wherein the offloaded proxy operations of the service mesh interface comprise packet forwarding and packet filtering” (Ganguli, see figs. 2A-2B and 6A-6B; see paragraphs 0037, 0089 and 0092 ).
The Applicant argues (see page 8) that Wangde teaches, at ([0026]) to deploy containers, application and cluster of container based virtualization. However, container-based virtualization is not accessing circuitry that performs offloaded proxy operations of a service mesh interface as a virtual network device. Rather, container virtualization isolates applications and dependencies to run on shared hardware resources.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation that Wangde is relied upon to teach is “wherein the circuitry is accessible by access to a virtual network device by a host processor-executed service of the multiple services”. The Examiner respectfully submits that nowhere is this limitation recites “performs offloaded proxy operations of a service mesh interface as a virtual network device”. It is worth noting that the limitation does not require performing accessing of the circuitry. Instead, the limitation merely requires that the circuitry is “accessible” (able to be reached by access to a virtual network device).
Wangde teaches that the service mesh proxy 118 is deployed as a respective microservice sidecar proxy alongside each of a plurality of microservices and that the CaaS 102 for example, makes a request 152 to a service 126, such as a service provided by a CSP. The request 152 may pass into the data plane 116 and run through the service mesh proxy 118. Depending on the service API and proxy implementation, any of a variety of protocols can be used for the request 152 including, but not limited to, such as HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), and gRPC (Google Remote Procedure Call). The service mesh proxy 118 may be executed in a host machine (Wangde, see fig. 1 and paragraphs 0026 and 0031-0032).
Clearly, Wangde teaches “wherein the circuitry (service mesh proxy 118) is accessible by access to a virtual network device (container as a service) by a host processor-executed service (service mesh control plane) of the multiple services (service mesh control plane, vault service, service A, service B, service C and Transformer)” (Wangde, see fig. 1 and paragraphs 0026 and 0031-0032).
The Applicant argues (see page 9) that Claim 3 recites "the virtual network device comprises at least one device driver configured to bypass performance of operations of at least one network filter chain on packets from the host processor-executed service of the multiple services and provide the packets to the circuitry." He, at [0089], teaches instead of using a user space driver, the user space application can directly read or make changes to network packet data and make decisions on how to handle the packet at an earlier stage with the attached XDP program so that the kernel stack may be bypassed in the data path. He's XDP program does not comprise a driver.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. He teaches sending packets from an eBPF/XDP-based program attached to the network device (netdev) bypassing Linux kernel's subsystems and that the kernel stack may be bypassed in the data path(He, see paragraph 0089).
Therefore, He’s system is configured to bypass performance of operations of at least one network filter chain on packets (bypassing Linux kernel's subsystems and bypassing the kernel stack) from the host processor-executed service of the multiple services and provide the packets to the circuitry. Claim 3 fails to recite limitations that explain what a “device driver” is or how a “device driver” is different, structurally or functionally, from He’s system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 12-19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 10 and 17 recite “the service mesh interface is to provide access”. Claims 21 and 23 recite “the circuitry is to”. Claim 21 recites “the host processor-executed service is to”. However, the claims do not recite that “the service mesh interface”, “the circuitry” and “the host processor-executed service” are configured to perform the recited steps. Therefore, it is unclear how “the service mesh interface” and “the circuitry” can perform the steps in the claims if they are not configured to do so. Dependent claims 12-16 and 18-19 fail to remedy the deficiencies of claims 10 and 17 and are rejected. This rejection may be overcome by adding the limitation “configured” to the claims (e.g. “wherein the service mesh interface is configured to provide access…”, “wherein the circuitry is configured to…” and “the host processor-executed service is configured to”)
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 21-23 recite “The apparatus of claim 1…”. However, the term “apparatus” has been removed from claim 1. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “The apparatus” in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 14-15, 17-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganguli et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0014459) in view of Wangde et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0291973).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, Ganguli teaches A network interface device comprising: a host interface; a network interface; a direct memory access (DMA) circuitry; and circuitry configured to: perform offloaded proxy operations of a service mesh interface for multiple services, (Ganguli, see figs. 2A-2B and 5; see paragraph 0023 offloading host services…; see paragraph 0025 network L7 offload to the IPU 105 for a service mesh that supports one or more microservices running on a host device ...an L7 proxy endpoint, illustrated as L7 proxy 107, operating on the IPU 105, that provides a communication interface (e.g., PCIe, CXL) exposing, for example, a gRPC or HTTP interface to the microservices...)
wherein the service mesh interface is configured to provide access to a service mesh to communicate with one or more services, and (Ganguli, see figs. 2A-2B and 5; see paragraphs 0025-0026 offload to the IPU 105 for a service mesh that supports one or more microservices running on a host device…; see paragraph 0122 where offload to an infrastructure processing unit (IPU) for a service mesh...host a network layer 7 (L7) proxy endpoint for the service mesh; and communicate messages between the network L7 proxy endpoint and an L7 interface device of the one or more microservices...)
wherein the offloaded proxy operations of the service mesh interface comprise packet forwarding and packet filtering. (Ganguli, see figs. 2A-2B and 6A-6B; see paragraph 0037 packet processor 222 provides hardware offload of a classifier and forwarder... through side band filters. The packet processor 222 may then provide inline filters to be added in hardware as part of transmitting the packet.; see also paragraph 0089 and 0092 the IPU processes, by the network L7 proxy endpoint based on the applied routing rules, the network packet to remove one or more headers from the network packet and identify data of the network packet (packet filtering) to be transmitted (packet forwarding) to the microservice on the host device. Lastly, at block 690, the IPU causes, by the network L7 proxy endpoint based on a routing table, the identified data to be communicated to an L7 interface device associated with the microservice)
However, Ganguli does not explicitly teach wherein the circuitry is accessible by access to a virtual network device by a host processor-executed service of the multiple services,
Wangde teaches wherein the circuitry is accessible by access to a virtual network device by a host processor-executed service of the multiple services, (Wangde, see figs. 1-2; see paragraph 0026 deploy containers, application and cluster of container-based virtualization…; see paragraphs 0031-0032 cloud service that may enable developers or operators to scale, organize, and manage containers using container-based virtualization. Once the container is deployed, the service mesh proxy 118 may be deployed as a respective microservice sidecar proxy alongside each of a plurality of microservices...the CaaS 102 for example, makes a request 152 to a service 126, such as a service provided by a CSP. The request 152 may pass into the data plane 116 and run through the service mesh proxy 118...; see also paragraph 0034)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ganguli and Wangde to provide the technique of the circuitry is accessible by access to a virtual network device by a host processor-executed service of the multiple services of Wangde in the system of Ganguli in order to allow users to have flexibility in calling the service effectively, so as to thereby improve the performance of the application requesting the service (Wangde, see paragraph 0013).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Ganguli-Wangde teaches wherein the virtual network device is based on a software development kit and (Wangde, see fig. 1; see paragraph 0026 deploy containers, application and cluster of container-based virtualization…; see paragraph 0031 cloud service that may enable developers or operators to scale, organize, and manage containers using container-based virtualization. Once the container is deployed, the service mesh proxy 118 may be deployed as a respective microservice sidecar proxy alongside each of a plurality of microservices...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 10 and 17 is also applied to claims 5 and 14.
the host interface is configured to copy a packet from the host to the circuitry. (Ganguli, see paragraph 0035 strip out data from packets destined for the microservices 207 ... copying between microservices 207 (e.g., copying between containers hosting the microservices 207; see paragraph 0025 utilize direct memory access (DMA) to copy data between the memory regions in the IPU and CPU based on a routing table for the service mesh…; see paragraph 0032 copy data between the shared memory spaces 217, 232 in the IPU 202 and host device 201 is based on a routing table 235 for the service mesh.)
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Ganguli-Wangde teaches wherein the circuitry comprises an accelerator and at least one processor and (Ganguli, see fig. 2A and paragraph 0026 . Host device 201 may include one or more of a CPU, GPU, accelerator…)
the accelerator performs the operations of at least one network filter chain on packets from the host processor-executed service of the multiple services. (Ganguli, see figs. 2A-2B and 6A-6B; see paragraph 0037 packet processor 222 provides hardware offload of a classifier and forwarder... through side band filters. The packet processor 222 may then provide inline filters to be added in hardware as part of transmitting the packet.; see paragraphs 0039-0046 packet processing using network L7 offload to the IPU is as follows:...Microservice application selected (filtered) based on load balancing...This results in ATR component programming a connection filter in the hardware with 3+1 tuple...)
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Ganguli-Wangde teaches wherein the network interface device comprise one or more of: an infrastructure processing unit (IPU), data processing unit (DPU), smartNIC, or network interface controller. (Ganguli, see paragraphs 0130 see paragraphs 0023-0024 an infrastructure processing unit (IPU), data processing unit (DPU), or Smart Network Interface Card (SmartNIC))
Regarding claim 23, Ganguli-Wangde teaches wherein to perform offloaded proxy operations of the service mesh interface for multiple services comprises: the circuitry is to execute the proxy operations in a container. (Wangde, see figs. 1-2; see paragraph 0026 deploy containers, application and cluster of container-based virtualization…; see paragraphs 0031-0032 cloud service that may enable developers or operators to scale, organize, and manage containers using container-based virtualization. Once the container is deployed, the service mesh proxy 118 may be deployed as a respective microservice sidecar proxy alongside each of a plurality of microservices...the CaaS 102 for example, makes a request 152 to a service 126, such as a service provided by a CSP. The request 152 may pass into the data plane 116 and run through the service mesh proxy 118...; see also paragraph 0034; Examiner notes that although the references teaches this limitation, the phrase "is to" indicates intended use or intended purpose. Therefore, the limitation following the phrase "is to" is interpreted as intended use or intended purpose and is given no patentable weight.) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 10 and 17 is also applied to claim 23.
Claims 3-4, 8, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganguli-Wangde in view of He et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0243247).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Ganguli-Wangde teaches all of the features of claims 1, 10 and 17. However, Ganguli-Wangde does not explicitly teach wherein the virtual network device comprises at least one device driver configured to bypass performance of operations of at least one network filter chain on packets from the host processor-executed service of the multiple services and provide the packets to the circuitry.
He teaches wherein the virtual network device comprises at least one device driver configured to bypass performance of operations of at least one network filter chain on packets from the host processor-executed service of the multiple services and provide the packets to the circuitry. (He, see paragraph 0089 where An AF_XDP socket receives and sends packets from an eBPF/XDP-based program attached to the network device (netdev) bypassing Linux kernel's subsystems...read or make changes to network packet data and make decisions on how to handle the packet at an earlier stage with the attached XDP program so that the kernel stack may be bypassed in the data path.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ganguli-Wangde and He to provide the technique of the virtual network device comprises at least one device driver configured to bypass performance of operations of at least one network filter chain on packets from the host processor-executed service of the multiple services and provide the packets to the circuitry of He in the system of Ganguli-Wangde in order to improve latency (He, see paragraph 0053).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Ganguli-Wangde-He teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to perform the operations of at least one network filter chain on the packets prior to performance of the offloaded proxy operations of the service mesh interface. (Ganguli, see figs. 2A-2B; see paragraphs 0039-0046 packet processing using network L7 offload to the IPU is as follows:...Microservice application selected (filtered) based on load balancing...This results in ATR component programming a connection filter in the hardware with 3+1 tuple...; it is noted that although the cited paragraphs and figures teach this entire limitation, this limitation recites the phrase “is to”, which indicates intended use, and therefore, the limitation following the phrase “is to” is interpreted as an intended use and as such, no patentable weight is given to the limitation following the phrase “is to”.)
Regarding claim 8, Ganguli-Wangde teaches all of the features of claim 1. However, Ganguli-Wangde does not explicitly teach wherein the circuitry is configured to tunnel packets from the host processor- executed service of the multiple services to a processor-executed network kernel stack in the circuitry.
He teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to tunnel packets from the host processor- executed service of the multiple services to a processor-executed network kernel stack in the circuitry. (He, see a paragraphs 00104-0105 connection management messages can be sent from transmitter to receiver or receiver to transmitter using UDP packets through a kernel stack… apply to all NICs that can support RX header split, TX header buffer, queue steering, and/or packet sequence number insertion or extraction)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ganguli-Wangde and He to provide the technique of the circuitry is to tunnel packets from the host processor- executed service of the multiple services to a processor-executed network kernel stack in the circuitry of He in the system of Ganguli-Wangde in order to improve latency (He, see paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 19, Ganguli-Wangde teaches wherein the network interface device performs operations of at least one network filter chain on packets from the host processor-executed service of the multiple services prior to performance of the offloaded proxy operations of the service mesh interface. (Ganguli, see figs. 2A-2B; see paragraphs 0039-0046 packet processing using network L7 offload to the IPU is as follows:...Microservice application selected (filtered) based on load balancing...This results in ATR component programming a connection filter in the hardware with 3+1 tuple...; it is noted that although the cited paragraphs and figures teach this entire limitation, this limitation recites the phrase “is to”, which indicates intended use, and therefore, the limitation following the phrase “is to” is interpreted as an intended use and as such, no patentable weight is given to the limitation following the phrase “is to”.)
However, Ganguli-Wangde does not explicitly teach wherein the virtual network device comprises at least one device driver configured to bypass performance of operations of at least one network filter chain on packets from the host processor-executed service of the multiple services and provide the packets to the network interface device and
He teaches wherein the virtual network device comprises at least one device driver configured to bypass performance of operations of at least one network filter chain on packets from the host processor-executed service of the multiple services and provide the packets to the network interface device and (He, see paragraph 0089 where An AF_XDP socket receives and sends packets from an eBPF/XDP-based program attached to the network device (netdev) bypassing Linux kernel's subsystems...read or make changes to network packet data and make decisions on how to handle the packet at an earlier stage with the attached XDP program so that the kernel stack may be bypassed in the data path.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ganguli-Wangde and He to provide the technique of the virtual network device comprises at least one device driver configured to bypass performance of operations of at least one network filter chain on packets from the host processor-executed service of the multiple services and provide the packets to the network interface device of He in the system of Ganguli-Wangde in order to improve latency (He, see paragraph 0053).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganguli-Wangde in view of Ramesh et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0249973).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Ganguli-Wangde teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 10. However, Ganguli-Wangde does not explicitly teach wherein the circuitry is configured to adjust a number of instances of a proxy based on a load from the offloaded proxy operations according to a policy associated with the host processor-executed service of the multiple services.
Ramesh teaches wherein the circuitry is to adjust a number of instances of a proxy based on a load from the offloaded proxy operations according to a policy associated with the host processor-executed service of the multiple services. (Ramesh, see fig. 3; see paragraph 0064 determining that the node usage exceeds the threshold (320: YES), the migration server 140 determines a migration plan to offload the hotspot nodes at 330... migrating (adjusting) at least a VM from a first origin node (e.g., a hotspot node) to a first candidate destination node over a network...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ganguli-Wangde and Ramesh to provide the technique of the circuitry is to adjust a number of instances of a proxy based on a load from the offloaded proxy operations according to a policy associated with the host processor-executed service of the multiple services of Ramesh in the system of Ganguli-Wangde in order to improve system performance (Ramesh, see paragraph 0077).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganguli-Wangde in view of Malomsoky et al. (WO 03077588).
Regarding claim 21, Ganguli-Wangde teaches wherein: the circuitry is to perform offloaded proxy operations of the service mesh interface for multiple services by access to the virtual network device by the host processor-executed service and (Wangde, see figs. 1-2; see paragraph 0026 deploy containers, application and cluster of container-based virtualization…; see paragraphs 0031-0032 cloud service that may enable developers or operators to scale, organize, and manage containers using container-based virtualization. Once the container is deployed, the service mesh proxy 118 may be deployed as a respective microservice sidecar proxy alongside each of a plurality of microservices...the CaaS 102 for example, makes a request 152 to a service 126, such as a service provided by a CSP. The request 152 may pass into the data plane 116 and run through the service mesh proxy 118...; see also paragraph 0034; Examiner notes that although the references teaches this limitation, the phrase "is to" indicates intended use or intended purpose. Therefore, the limitation following the phrase "is to" is interpreted as intended use or intended purpose and is given no patentable weight.) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claim 1 is also applied to claim 21.
However, Ganguli-Wangde does not explicitly teach the host processor-executed service is to provide a packet to transmit to a target to the circuitry for the service mesh interface by a write of the packet to a queue accessible to the circuitry.
Malomsoky teaches the host processor-executed service is to provide a packet to transmit to a target to the circuitry for the service mesh interface by a write of the packet to a queue accessible to the circuitry. (Malomsoky, see page 31, lines 1-24 the corresponding packets are forwarded via the switch fabric 315 to the relevant buffer 320 for subsequent service by the corresponding output server 330. Internal traffic control messages from the control unit 310 generally controls packet switching and scheduling, and more particularly e.g. to which queue, if an admission decision is taken in a multi-queue system, the connection is directed...; Examiner notes that although the references teaches this limitation, the phrase "is to" indicates intended use or intended purpose. Therefore, the limitation following the phrase "is to" is interpreted as intended use or intended purpose and is given no patentable weight.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ganguli-Wangde and Malomsoky to provide the technique of the host processor-executed service is to provide a packet to transmit to a target to the circuitry for the service mesh interface by a write of the packet to a queue accessible to the circuitry of Malomsoky in the system of Ganguli-Wangde in order to provide an efficient connection admission control strategy for a multi-service traffic environment (Malomsoky, see page 3, lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 22, Ganguli-Wangde teaches all of the features of claim 1. However, Ganguli-Wangde does not explicitly teach wherein to perform offloaded proxy operations of the service mesh interface for multiple services comprises: initiate a connection to transmit a packet; accept or reject the connection based on an applicable policy; and based on an applicable policy indicating to accept the connection, initiate the connection to a receiver.
Malomsoky teaches wherein to perform offloaded proxy operations of the service mesh interface for multiple services comprises: initiate a connection to transmit a packet; accept or reject the connection based on an applicable policy; and based on an applicable policy indicating to accept the connection, initiate the connection to a receiver. (Malomsoky, see page 31, lines 1-24 If a connection is rejected, a notification that the ATM/ AAL2 or corresponding layer cannot service the requested connection is sent up to the relevant protocol layers . If a connection is accepted, the connection is established and the corresponding packets are forwarded via the switch fabric 315 to the relevant buffer 320 for subsequent service by the corresponding output server 330. Internal traffic control messages from the control unit 310 generally controls packet switching and scheduling, and more particularly e.g. to which queue, if an admission decision is taken in a multi-queue system, the connection is directed...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ganguli-Wangde and Malomsoky to provide the technique of initiating a connection to transmit a packet; accept or reject the connection based on an applicable policy and based on an applicable policy indicating to accept the connection, initiate the connection to a receiver of Malomsoky in the system of Ganguli-Wangde in order to provide an efficient connection admission control strategy for a multi-service traffic environment (Malomsoky, see page 3, lines 16-18).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-5PM.
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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
