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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argument is based on the amended limitations.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the amended limitations do not overcome the cited prior arts. Bosshart discloses direct stages as shown in figures 4 and 8 in the ingress portion of pipelines by applying packet data related to match action table in the sequence of states. That is, wherein the determination that the packet is to be forwarded to the second pipeline is made in the packet directing stage of the ingress portion of the first pipeline by applying packet data associated with the packet to a match action table in the packet directing stage (e.g. figs. 4-6, 8; col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 28; col. 8, lines 29-44; col. 9, line 18-col. 10, line 20; col. 13, line 51-col. 14, line 32; and so on).
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully submits that the amended claims are not patentable in view of the cited prior arts.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosshart et al. (US 10,454,833 B1) in view of Chang (US 2016/0234097 A1), and further in view of Attig et al. (US 8,443,102 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Bosshart discloses a method, comprising: receiving a packet at a network device (e.g. 300) (abstract; col. 1, lines 34-39; col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 28; and so on, illustrating packet is received at network element); forwarding the packet to an ingress portion of a first pipeline configured at the network device according to a first pipeline program (e.g. figs. 3 and 11; col. 3, line 20-col. 4, line 3; col. 15, line 47-col. 16, line 3; col. 16, lines 40-49; col. 16, line 60-col. 17, line 12; and so on, forwarding the received packet to an ingress of the first pipeline of the network element according to process, such as process 1); processing the packet with the ingress portion of the first pipeline (fig. 11; col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 28; col. 3, lines 30-34; col. 4, line 51-col. 5, line 5; col. 16, lines 4-38; and etc., describing processing the packet at the ingress of the first pipeline); determining, by a packet directing stage of the ingress portion of the first pipeline, that the packet is to be forwarded to a second pipeline configured at the network device according to a second pipeline program (e.g. figs. 3-5, 8, and 11; col. 3, lines 20-54; col. 4, line 4-col. 5, line 5; col. 15, line 47-col. 16, line 49; col. 16, line 60-col. 17, line 12; col. 17, line 66-col. 18, line 15; col. 18, line 63-col. 19, line 44; col. 19, line 58-col. 20, line 14; and so on, determining to forward the packet to a second pipeline as egress pipeline of the first pipeline), wherein the second pipeline is associated with a second recirculation port and packets received at the second recirculation port are forwarded to an ingress portion of the second pipeline (e.g. figs. 3 and 11; col. 3, lines 31-54; col. 4, line 4-16; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; col. 16, line 50-col. 17, line 3; col. 18, lines 16-27; and so on, explaining the second pipeline is associated with a port related to loopback so that the packet will loopback to the ingress part of the first pipeline), and wherein the determination that the packet is to be forwarded to the second pipeline is made in the packet directing stage of the ingress portion of the first pipeline by applying packet data associated with the packet to a match action table in the packet directing stage (e.g. figs. 4-6, 8; col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 28; col. 8, lines 29-44; col. 9, line 18-col. 10, line 20; col. 13, line 51-col. 14, line 32; and so on); forwarding, by the packet directing stage of the ingress portion of the first pipeline, the packet to the second pipeline (e.g. figs. 3 and 11; col. 3, lines 20-54; col. 4, line 4-col. 5, line 5; col. 15, line 47-col. 16, line 49; col. 16, line 60-col. 17, line 12; col. 17, line 66-col. 18, line 15; col. 18, line 63-col. 19, line 44; col. 19, line 58-col. 20, line 14; and so on, illustrating forwarding the packet to the second pipeline from the ingress of the first pipeline); and processing the packet by the second pipeline (fig. 11; col 15, line 60-col. 16, line 59; col. 1, line 65-col. line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; and so on, describing processing the packet by the second pipeline).
Bosshart doesn’t explicitly disclose the forwarding, by the ingress portion of the first pipeline, the packet is directly to the second pipeline, and the first and second configured is at a packet processor.
Chang teaches the forwarding, by the ingress portion of the first pipeline, the packet is directly to the second pipeline (figs. 1-8; paragraph [0017]-[0022]; [0026]-[0033]; [0035]-[0048]; [0055]-[0072]; [0075]-[0083]; and so on).
Chang doesn’t explicitly disclose the first and second configured is a packet processor.
Attig teaches the first and second configured is at a packet processor (figs. 4-6; col. 11, line 9-col. 12, line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the forwarding, by the ingress portion of the first pipeline, the packet is directly to the second pipeline, and the first and second configured is at a packet processor as taught by Chang and Attig into Bosshart in order to decrease dropping of packets, and to improve efficiency and quality of communication.
Regarding claim 2, Bosshart discloses wherein processing the packet by the second pipeline comprises processing the packet by an egress portion of the second pipeline (e.g. fig. 11; col 15, line 60-col. 16, line 59; col. 1, line 65-col. line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; and so on).
Regarding claim 4, Bosshart discloses wherein forwarding the packet to the second pipeline comprises forwarding the packet to the second recirculation port associated with the second pipeline so the packet is forwarded from the second recirculation port to the ingress portion of the second pipeline for processing by the ingress portion of the second pipeline (e.g. figs. 3 and 11; col. 3, lines 31-54; col. 4, line 4-16; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; col. 16, line 50-col. 17, line 3; col. 18, lines 16-27; col 15, line 60-col. 16, line 59; col. 1, line 65-col. line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; and so on).
Regarding claim 5, Bosshart further discloses comprising: forwarding, by the ingress portion of the second pipeline, the packet to a first recirculation port associated with the first pipeline, wherein the packet is forwarded from the first recirculation port to the ingress portion of the first pipeline; and processing the packet by the ingress portion of the first pipeline again (e.g. figs. 3 and 11; col. 3, lines 31-54; col. 4, line 4-16; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; col. 16, line 50-col. 17, line 3; col. 18, lines 16-27; col 15, line 60-col. 16, line 59; col. 1, line 65-col. line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; and so on).
Regarding claim 8, Bosshart discloses wherein the first recirculation port and the second recirculation port are internal recirculation ports and the packet is forwarded internally using the internal recirculation ports (col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; col. 17, line 66-col. 18, line 15; and etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Bosshart further discloses comprising: forwarding, by the second pipeline, the packet directly to an egress port of the network device (col. 2, line 60-col. 3, line 4; col. 14, lines 33-61; and so on).
Regarding claim 10, Bosshart discloses wherein the first program is a standard pipeline program provided with the network device (fig. 11; paragraph col. 16, lines 39-49; and so on).
Regarding claim 11, Bosshart discloses a network device (e.g. 300), comprising: a processor executing multiple pipelines for forwarding packets received at ports of the network device (col. 2, line 60-col. 3, line 4; col. 4, lines 4-16; col. 7, line 59-col. 8, line 11; col. 14, lines 13-47; col. 14, line 62-col. 15, line 23; col. 17, line 66-col. 18, line 15; and etc., explaining multiple pipelines such as first and second pipelines to forward received packet at the network element), the multiple pipelines including: a first pipeline configured according to a first pipeline program, the first pipeline including an ingress portion comprising a packet directing stage including a match action table (e.g. figs. 3-5, 8, and 11; col. 3, line 20-col. 4, line 3; col. 15, line 47-col. 16, line 3; col. 16, lines 40-49; col. 16, line 60-col. 17, line 12; col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 42; col. 3, line 55-col. 4, line 3; col. 4,lines 17-27, 38-50; col. 13, line 32-col. 14, line 32; and so on, illustrating the multiple pipeline include ingress and egress parts including match-action unit, MAU); and a second pipeline configured according to a second pipeline program, wherein the second pipeline is associated with a recirculation port and packets received at the recirculation port are forwarded to the second pipeline, and wherein the match action table of the packet direction stage of the first pipeline includes a match action table comprising an entry specifying an action associated with an identifier for the recirculation port associated with the second pipeline (e.g. figs. 3-5, 8 and 11; col. 3, lines 31-54; col. 4, line 4-16; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; col. 16, line 50-col. 17, line 3; col. 18, lines 16-27; col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 42; col. 3, line 55-col. 4, line 3; col. 4,lines 17-27, 38-50; col. 13, line 32-col. 14, line 32; col. 8, lines 45-54; col. 11, line 66-col. 12, line 7; col. 14, lines 1-32; col. 17, lines 24-44; and so on, explaining the second pipeline configured according to process such as process 2, where the second pipeline is associated with a port related to loopback so that the received packet to the second pipeline as egress pipeline for the first pipeline including MAU and table comprising an entry identifying the port associated to the loopback and the second pipeline); the processor executing the steps: receiving a packet at a port of the network device (col. 1,lines 34-54; col. 1, line 65-col. 2,line 28; col. 2, line 60-col. 3, line 19; col. 7, line 59-col. 8, line 28; col. 12, lines 42-48; and etc., illustrating receiving a packet at a port of the network element); determining packet data associated with the packet (col. 17, lines 50-65; col. 9, lines 32-51; col. 13, lines 32-50; and so on, determining or identifying the packet and header fields); processing the packet with the ingress portion of the first pipeline based on the packet data (col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; col. 4, line 51-col. 5, line 5; col. 8, lines 12-44; col. 9, lines 18-31, 52-65; and etc., describing processing the packet at the ingress of the first pipeline such as by process 1); determining, by the packet processing stage of the first pipeline, that the packet is to be forwarded to the second pipeline (figs. 3-5, 8; col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 59; col. 3, line 55-col. 4, line 3; col. 4, lines 17-50; col. 10, lines 5-20, 42-49; and so on, determining the MAU forward the packet to the second pipeline), wherein determining that the packet is to be forwarded to the second pipeline comprises forming a key based on the packet data and performing a lookup in the match action table based on the key to determine the entry associated with the recirculation port for the second pipeline (figs. 3-5, 8; col. 2, line 43-col. 3, line 4 ;col. 4, lines 38-50; col. 8, lines 29-44; col. 10, lines 5-20; col. 11, line 55-col. 12, line 24; col. 13, line 32-col. 14, line 61; and etc., explaining the forwarded packet to the second pipeline includes header vector (PHV) based on the received packet and perform lookup in the table for entry); forwarding, by the ingress portion of the first pipeline, the packet from the packet processing stage of the first pipeline to the second pipeline (e.g. figs. 3-5, 8, and 11; col. 3, lines 20-54; col. 4, line 4-col. 5, line 5; col. 15, line 47-col. 16, line 49; col. 16, line 60-col. 17, line 12; col. 17, line 66-col. 18, line 15; col. 18, line 63-col. 19, line 44; col. 19, line 58-col. 20, line 14; and so on, illustrating the forwarding of the packet to the second pipeline); and processing the packet by the second pipeline (fig. 11; col 15, line 60-col. 16, line 59; col. 1, line 65-col. line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; and so on, processing the packet at the second pipeline such as by process 2).
Bosshart doesn’t explicitly disclose forwarding, by the ingress portion of the first pipeline, the packet is directly to the second pipeline, and the configured is a packet processor of a network device and the first and second configured is a on packet processor.
Chang teaches the forwarding, by the ingress portion of the first pipeline, the packet is directly to the second pipeline (figs. 1-8; paragraph [0017]-[0022]; [0026]-[0033]; [0035]-[0048]; [0055]-[0072]; [0075]-[0083]; and so on).
Chang doesn’t explicitly disclose the configured is packet processor of a network device and the first and second configured is a on packet processor.
Attig teaches the configured is packet processor of a network device and the first and second configured is a on packet processor (figs. 4-6; col. 11, line 9-col. 12, line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the forwarding, by the ingress portion of the first pipeline, the packet is directly to the second pipeline, and the configured is packet processor of a network device and the first and second configured is a on packet processor as taught by Chang and Attig into Bosshart in order to decrease dropping of packets, and to improve efficiency and quality of communication.
Regarding claim 12, Bosshart discloses wherein the processor is adapted for: determining, by a packet processing stage of the second pipeline, that the packet is to be forwarded to a third pipeline (col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 59; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 3; col. 4, lines 17-50; col. 10, lines 5-20, 42-49; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 3; and so on); and forwarding, by an ingress portion of the second pipeline, the packet to the third pipeline (e.g. figs. 3 and 11; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 3; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; and so on).
Regarding claim 13, Bosshart discloses wherein the processor is adapted for: forwarding, by an ingress portion of the third pipeline, the packet to a first recirculation port associated with the first pipeline, wherein the packet is forwarded from the first recirculation port associated with the first pipeline to the ingress portion of the first pipeline (e.g. figs. 3 and 11; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 3; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; and so on).
Regarding claim 14, Bosshart discloses wherein processing the packet by the second pipeline comprises processing the packet by an egress portion of the second pipeline (e.g. fig. 11; col 15, line 60-col. 16, line 59; col. 1, line 65-col. line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; and so on)
Regarding claim 15, Bosshart discloses wherein forwarding the packet to the second pipeline comprises forwarding the packet to the second recirculation port associated with the second pipeline based on the identifier for the recirculation port specified in the action of the determined entry such that the packet is forwarded from the second recirculation port to an ingress portion of the second pipeline for processing by the ingress portion of the second pipeline (e.g. figs. 3 and 11; col. 3, lines 31-54; col. 4, line 4-16; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; col. 16, line 50-col. 17, line 3; col. 18, lines 16-27; col 15, line 60-col. 16, line 59; col. 1, line 65-col. line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; and so on).
Regarding claim 16, Bosshart discloses wherein the processor is adapted for: determining, by a packet processing stage of the ingress portion of the second pipeline, that the packet is to be forwarded to the first pipeline (col. 1, line 65-col. 2,line 59; col. 3, line 55-col. 4, line 3; col. 4, lines 17-50; col. 8, lines 12-54; col. 9, line 32-col. 10, line 20; and so on); and forwarding, by the ingress portion of the second pipeline, the packet to a first recirculation port associated with the first pipeline, wherein the packet is forwarded from the first recirculation port to the ingress portion of the first pipeline (e.g. figs. 3 and 11; col. 3, lines 31-54; col. 4, line 4-16; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; col. 16, line 50-col. 17, line 3; col. 18, lines 16-27; col 15, line 60-col. 16, line 59; col. 1, line 65-col. line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; and so on).
Regarding claim 18, Bosshart discloses wherein the recirculation port is a loopback port of the network device and the packet is forwarded using the loopback port (col. 3, lines 31-54; col. 16, lines 22-38; and etc.).
Regarding claim 19, Bosshart discloses a network device (e.g. 300), comprising: processor and multiple distinct pipelines, the processor executing the steps of: receiving a packet at an ingress portion of a first pipeline of the multiple distinct pipelines (e.g. fig. 11; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; col. 9, lines 1-17; col. 12, lines 25-41; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 3; col. 16, lines 22-38; col. 17, lines 13-22; and so on); processing the packet with the ingress portion of the first pipeline (e.g. figs. 3 and 11; col. 3, lines 31-54; col. 4, line 4-16; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; col. 16, line 50-col. 17, line 3; col. 18, lines 16-27; col 15, line 60-col. 16, line 59; col. 1, line 65-col. line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; and so on); determining, by a packet directing stage of the ingress portion of the first pipeline, that the packet is to be forwarded to a second pipeline of the multiple distinct pipelines (e.g. figs. 3-5, 8, and 11; col. 3, lines 20-54; col. 4, line 4-col. 5, line 5; col. 15, line 47-col. 16, line 49; col. 16, line 60-col. 17, line 12; col. 17, line 66-col. 18, line 15; col. 18, line 63-col. 19, line 44; col. 19, line 58-col. 20, line 14; and so on), and wherein the determination that the packet is to be forwarded to the second pipeline is made in the packet directing stage of the ingress portion of the first pipeline by applying packet data associated with the packet to a match action table in the packet directing stage (e.g. figs. 4-6, 8; col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 28; col. 8, lines 29-44; col. 9, line 18-col. 10, line 20; col. 13, line 51-col. 14, line 32; and so on); forwarding the packet from the ingress portion of the first pipeline from the packet directing stage of the ingress portion of the first pipeline to the second pipeline (e.g. figs. 3-5, 8, and 11; col. 3, lines 20-54; col. 4, line 4-col. 5, line 5; col. 15, line 47-col. 16, line 49; col. 16, line 60-col. 17, line 12; col. 17, line 66-col. 18, line 15; col. 18, line 63-col. 19, line 44; col. 19, line 58-col. 20, line 14; and so on); processing the packet by the second pipeline (fig. 11; col 15, line 60-col. 16, line 59; col. 1, line 65-col. line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; and so on); determining that the packet is to be forwarded back to the first pipeline of the multiple distinct pipelines (col. 3,lines 31-54; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; col. 16, line 50-col. 17, line 3; col. 18, lines 16-27; and etc.); forwarding the packet from an ingress portion of the second pipeline to the first pipeline (col. 3, lines 30-54; col. 4, lines 4-16; col. 15, line 47-col. 16, line 3; col. 16, lines 22-49; col. 16, line 60-col. 17, line 12; and so on); and processing the packet with the first pipeline again (e.g. figs. 3 and 11; col. 3, lines 31-54; col. 4, line 4-16; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; col. 16, line 50-col. 17, line 3; col. 18, lines 16-27; col 15, line 60-col. 16, line 59; col. 1, line 65-col. line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; and so on).
Bosshart doesn’t explicitly disclose the forwarding, by the ingress portion of the first pipeline, the packet is directly to the second pipeline, and configured with multiple distinct pipelines.
Chang teaches the forwarding, by the ingress portion of the first pipeline, the packet is directly to the second pipeline (figs. 1-8; paragraph [0017]-[0022]; [0026]-[0033]; [0035]-[0048]; [0055]-[0072]; [0075]-[0083]; and so on).
Chang doesn’t explicitly disclose configured with multiple distinct pipelines.
Attig teaches configured with multiple distinct pipelines (figs. 4-6; col. 11, line 9-col. 12, line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the forwarding, by the ingress portion of the first pipeline, the packet is directly to the second pipeline, and configured with multiple distinct pipelines as taught by Chang and Attig into Bosshart in order to decrease dropping of packets, and to improve efficiency and quality of communication.
Regarding claim 20, Bosshart discloses wherein forwarding the packet from the ingress portion of the second pipeline to the first pipeline comprises forwarding the packet to an egress portion of the first pipeline for forwarding of the packet to a network interface of the network device (e.g. figs. 11-13; and so on).
Claims 3, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosshart in view of Mizrahi, and further in view of Kamisetty et al. (US 2023/0117644 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Bosshart discloses wherein forwarding the packet to the second recirculation port (col. 3, lines 31-54; col. 4, lines 4-16; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; col. 16, line 50-col. 17, line 12; col. 18, lines 28-39). However, Bosshart doesn’t disclose comprises appending a header to the packet, the header identifying an ingress port associated with the packet, a virtual local area network (VLAN) associated with the packet, or a classification tag associated with the packet.
Kamisetty teaches comprises appending a header to the packet, the header identifying an ingress port associated with the packet, a virtual local area network (VLAN) associated with the packet, or a classification tag associated with the packet (paragraph [0086]; [0061]; [0103]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use comprises appending a header to the packet, the header identifying an ingress port associated with the packet, a virtual local area network (VLAN) associated with the packet, or a classification tag associated with the packet as taught by Kamisetty into Bosshart in order to improve performance and scalability.
Regarding claim 6, Bosshart discloses wherein forwarding the packet to the first recirculation port (e.g. figs. 3 and 11; col. 3, lines 31-54; col. 4, line 4-16; col. 15, line 60-col. 16, line 38; col. 16, line 50-col. 17, line 3; col. 18, lines 16-27; col 15, line 60-col. 16, line 59; col. 1, line 65-col. line 28; col. 3, line 31-col. 4, line 16; and so on). Bosshart does not disclose comprises appending a reply header to the packet, the reply header including at least one of a re-run classification indicator or a forwarding domain identifier.
Kamisetty teaches comprises appending a reply header to the packet, the reply header including at least one of a re-run classification indicator or a forwarding domain identifier (paragraph [0053]-[0054]; [0060]; [0076]-[0080]; [0082]-[0086]; [0108]; [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use comprises appending a reply header to the packet, the reply header including at least one of a re-run classification indicator or a forwarding domain identifier as taught by Kamisetty into Bosshart in order to increase security and quality, and reduce dropping of data.
Regarding claim 7, Bosshart discloses wherein the forwarding domain identifier (col. 2, line 43-col. 3, line 19; col. 4, lines 28-50; col. 6, lines 27-51; col. 7, lines 9-41; and so on). Bosshart doesn’t disclose identifier is a VLAN encapsulation tag.
Kamisetty teaches identifier is a VLAN encapsulation tag (paragraph [0037]; [0006]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use identifier is a VLAN encapsulation tag as taught by Kamisetty into Bosshart in order to increase security and quality.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosshart in view of Mizrahi, and further in view of Gajjala et al. (US 2022/0345392 A1).
Regarding claim 17, as applied above, Bosshart discloses wherein the identifier for the recirculation port. However, Bosshart doesn’t disclose comprises a link aggregation group (LAG) identifier associated with the recirculation port.
Gajjala teaches comprises a link aggregation group (LAG) identifier associated with the recirculation port (paragraph [0020]-[0021]; [0048]; [0052]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use comprises a link aggregation group (LAG) identifier associated with the recirculation port as taught by Gajjala into Bosshart in order to improve quality of service.
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 KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, HUY D VU can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights