DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on August 12, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of Claims 1-20 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims.
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
<<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0397489 (hereinafter “Walters”) in view of US 2009/0249369 (hereinafter “Itoh”) and US 2022/0058064 (hereinafter “Ueno”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to processing resources used and managing one or more applications executed on a distributed system (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Walters is generally directed to application program interface (API) call management (Abstract). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Itoh is generally directed to improving the flexibility of module-to-module association in computer software (specification, paragraph [0001]). And Ueno is generally directed to selecting an Application Programming Interface (API) to be applied to the API-linked application (specification, paragraph [0010]). Thus, Walters, Itoh, and Ueno are all analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 1, Walters discloses:
A processor (Figure 5: 520), comprising:
one or more circuits (Figure 5: 520) to:
perform a first application programming interface (API), responsive to an API call to execute the first API […] identifying one or more software workloads to be monitored, to cause the first API to select a second API […] based on the one or more software workloads identified by the API call, to monitor performance of the one or more software workloads identified by the API call (paragraph [0017], “[…] resource utilization for an API call may be determined based on tracked API calls and work load on the resources associated with the tracked API calls. In some embodiments, resource utilization for the API call may be determined further based on network traffic (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0031], “[…] analyzing the API call information and the RU information to obtain the API cost information may include: retrieving data from the data structure; processing the data to determine a number of API calls to each of the one or more API endpoints; and determining the cost per API call for the one or more API endpoints […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0036], “Process 300 may, in some embodiments, begin with step 305, in which gateway 120 may determine whether an API call request has been received [responsive to an API call to execute the first API]. In the context of the current disclosure, an API call request may include one or more API calls to an API endpoint [perform a first application programming interface (API)]. For example, an API call request may be to open a word processor document. In such instances, the API call request may include an API call to access a word processor and a subsequent API call to open the word processor document using the word processor [to cause the first API to select a second API] (emphasis added).” and “In step 310, cost information associated with the API call request may be obtained by gateway 120. In some embodiments, obtaining the cost information associated with the API call may include obtaining (e.g., from internal server 115) physical cost information for a physical infrastructure associated with the project to which the API call request is directed to and/or obtaining human resource cost information for human resources associated with the project [identifying one or more software workloads to be monitored/based on the one or more software workloads identified by the API call] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0043], “The API call requests 410 may include one or more API calls directed to a first resource 415A and one or more API calls directed to a second resource 415B. Each resource may consume existing resources and the display 400 may include an element indicating the first resource 415A and text 420C indicating that the project is consuming 0.5 RU per hour due to API calls directed to the first resource 415A, and an element indicating the second resource 4158 and text 420D indicating that the project is consuming 1.5 RU per hour due to API calls directed to the second resource 4158 [monitor performance of the one or more software workloads identified by the API call].”); and
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
Walters discloses an API call request may include one or more API calls to an API endpoint. For example, an API call request may include an API call to access a word processor and a subsequent API call to open the word processor document using the word processor. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the API call to access the word processor selects the subsequent API call to open the word processor document using the word processor.
obtain, via the selected second API, status information for the identified one or more software workloads running on multiple compute nodes connected via one or more networks (paragraph [0017], “[…] resource utilization for an API call may be determined based on tracked API calls and work load on the resources associated with the tracked API calls. In some embodiments, resource utilization for the API call may be determined further based on network traffic (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0020], “The system 100 may include one or more user device(s) 105, an internal network 110, an internal server 115, a gateway 120, an external network 125, and/or an external server 130 [multiple compute nodes connected via one or more networks].”; paragraph [0042], “The endpoint 405 may generate one or more API call requests in accordance to customer interactions. For example, the endpoint 405 may generate API call requests 410 [the selected second API], and the API call requests 410 may consume existing resources to accommodate customer interactions. The display 400 may include an element indicating the API call requests 410 and text 420B indicating that the project is consuming 2 RU per hour due to the API call request 410. In some embodiments, the display 400 may further include an element indicating the progression of the RU per hour for the API call requests 410. For example, the display 400 may include a downward arrow 425B indicating that the RU per hour is decreasing, thereby gradually consuming less RU, and text 430B indicating that the RU per hour is decreasing by 1 percent [obtain, via the selected second API, status information for the identified one or more software workloads].”).
Walters discloses “the first API,” but Walters does not explicitly disclose:
[…] the first API including one or more arguments […].
However, Itoh discloses:
[…] the first API including one or more arguments […] (paragraph [0070], “[…] the sensor control module 28 is used by calling the client API 25 [the first API] as an interface provided by the adaptor 26 for use of sensor control, and then by calling the service API 27 of the sensor control module 28 via the adaptor 26.”; paragraph [0129], “In the client API [the first API], the first argument ‘id’ of the ‘getData’ function denotes the device ID of the sensor 30, the second argument ‘info’ thereof denotes the type of the internal sensor in charge of measurement and the sensing interval, the third argument ‘count’ thereof denotes the number of elements of the second argument ‘info’, and the fourth argument ‘cb’ thereof designates the callback object for asynchronous data reception [the first API including one or more arguments].”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Walters and Itoh are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Itoh into the teaching of Walters to include “[…] the first API including one or more arguments […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a module to be used by other modules, i.e., service module, makes public an interface to allow the use of its own capabilities, and the remaining modules using the service module, i.e., client modules (Itoh, paragraph [0002]).
Walters discloses “select a second API,” but the combination of Walters and Itoh does not explicitly disclose:
[…] select a second API, from among a plurality of candidate APIs […].
However, Ueno discloses:
[…] select a second API, from among a plurality of candidate APIs […] (Figure 18: S1103 (reproduced below for the Applicant’s convenience); paragraph [0114], “Next, in Step S304, the candidate API extraction processing unit 113 creates a candidate API list [a plurality of candidate APIs] based on the information of the candidate API received from the API reference processing unit 211.”; paragraph [0179], “Next, in Step S1103, the API information update processing unit 213 accepts the selection of the API to be updated by the corresponding user using the user terminal 5 [select a second API, from among a plurality of candidate APIs] (emphasis added).”).
PNG
media_image1.png
822
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As pointed out hereinabove, Ueno is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ueno into the combined teachings of Walters and Itoh to include “[…] select a second API, from among a plurality of candidate APIs […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to dynamically select an API based on an API request of an application developer in the development of an API-linked application (Ueno, paragraph [0046]).
Claim 8 is a computer system claim corresponding to the processor claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 15 is a computer-implemented method claim corresponding to the processor claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 9-11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Itoh and Ueno as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2017/0026312 (hereinafter “Hrischuk”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to processing resources used and managing one or more applications executed on a distributed system (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Hrischuk is generally directed to managing resources in a networked storage environment (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Hrischuk is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first API is to receive one or more input values indicating one or more job identifiers of the one or more software workloads.
However, Hrischuk discloses:
wherein the first API is to receive one or more input values indicating one or more job identifiers of the one or more software workloads (paragraph [0096], “Workload change API 281C may receive a resource identifier that identifies a resource and a workload identifier which identifies one or more workloads that may be added or removed from the resource as inputs.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Hrischuk is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hrischuk into the combined teachings of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno to include “wherein the first API is to receive one or more input values indicating one or more job identifiers of the one or more software workloads.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify a resource and a workload identifier which identifies one or more workloads that may be added or removed from a resource as inputs (Hrischuk, paragraph [0096]).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more software workloads are to be identified by the first API based, at least in part, on an output value of a third API to perform the one or more software workloads.
However, Hrischuk discloses:
wherein the one or more software workloads are to be identified by the first API based, at least in part, on an output value of a third API to perform the one or more software workloads (paragraph [0091], “[…] the performance manager 121 provides a plurality of application programming interfaces (APIs) 281, for example, a service level API 281A that may be used to execute the machine implemented process of FIG. 4F, a physical headroom API 281B that is used to execute the process of FIG. 4G and a workload change API 281C that executes the process of FIG. 4E, described below in detail. The APIs receive various inputs and provide various outputs that are described below in detail.”; paragraph [0095], “Physical headroom API 281B is configured to provide an output including the computed headroom, a latency value at the optimal point, a confidence factor and a time range over which the headroom value is calculated.”; paragraph [0096], “Workload change API 281C may receive a resource identifier that identifies a resource and a workload identifier which identifies one or more workloads that may be added or removed from the resource as inputs.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Hrischuk is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hrischuk into the combined teachings of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno to include “wherein the one or more software workloads are to be identified by the first API based, at least in part, on an output value of a third API to perform the one or more software workloads.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify a resource and a workload identifier which identifies one or more workloads that may be added or removed from a resource as inputs (Hrischuk, paragraph [0096]).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more software workloads are to be identified by the first API based, at least in part, on performing a third API to launch the one or more software workloads.
However, Hrischuk discloses:
wherein the one or more software workloads are to be identified by the first API based, at least in part, on performing a third API to launch the one or more software workloads (paragraph [0091], “[…] the performance manager 121 provides a plurality of application programming interfaces (APIs) 281, for example, a service level API 281A that may be used to execute the machine implemented process of FIG. 4F, a physical headroom API 281B that is used to execute the process of FIG. 4G and a workload change API 281C that executes the process of FIG. 4E, described below in detail. The APIs receive various inputs and provide various outputs that are described below in detail.”; paragraph [0095], “Physical headroom API 281B is configured to provide an output including the computed headroom, a latency value at the optimal point, a confidence factor and a time range over which the headroom value is calculated.”; paragraph [0096], “Workload change API 281C may receive a resource identifier that identifies a resource and a workload identifier which identifies one or more workloads that may be added or removed from the resource as inputs.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Hrischuk is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hrischuk into the combined teachings of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno to include “wherein the one or more software workloads are to be identified by the first API based, at least in part, on performing a third API to launch the one or more software workloads.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify a resource and a workload identifier which identifies one or more workloads that may be added or removed from a resource as inputs (Hrischuk, paragraph [0096]).
Claims 9-11 are computer system claims corresponding to the processor claims hereinabove (Claims 2-4, respectively). Therefore, Claims 9-11 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2-4, respectively.
Claims 16 and 17 are computer-implemented method claims corresponding to the processor claims hereinabove (Claims 2 and 4, respectively). Therefore, Claims 16 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2 and 4, respectively.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Itoh and Ueno as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2021/0342337 (hereinafter “Lu”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to processing resources used and managing one or more applications executed on a distributed system (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Lu is generally directed to data intake and query system (DIQS) instances supporting applications (Abstract). Thus, Lu is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more software workloads are performed using a distributed computing system.
However, Lu discloses:
wherein the one or more software workloads are performed using a distributed computing system (paragraph [0515], “In the example of FIG. 23, each component can run on one or more nodes (e.g., hosting devices). As used herein, the term host may refer to a computing device, a communication device, a storage device, or any electronic device capable of running a software component.”; paragraph [0721], “[…] entity 5004A may be a virtual machine and software application 5020A may be executing outside of the virtual machine (e.g., on a hypervisor or a host operating system) to monitor the performance of the virtual machine via an API. The API can generate network packet data including performance measurements for the virtual machine, such as, memory utilization, CPU usage, etc.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Lu is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lu into the combined teachings of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno to include “wherein the one or more software workloads are performed using a distributed computing system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to monitor performance of one or more nodes (e.g., hosting devices) of a distributed computing system (Lu, paragraphs [0515] and [0721]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more software workloads are performed using one or more nodes of a distributed computing system.
However, Lu discloses:
wherein the one or more software workloads are performed using one or more nodes of a distributed computing system (paragraph [0515], “In the example of FIG. 23, each component can run on one or more nodes (e.g., hosting devices). As used herein, the term host may refer to a computing device, a communication device, a storage device, or any electronic device capable of running a software component.”; paragraph [0721], “[…] entity 5004A may be a virtual machine and software application 5020A may be executing outside of the virtual machine (e.g., on a hypervisor or a host operating system) to monitor the performance of the virtual machine via an API. The API can generate network packet data including performance measurements for the virtual machine, such as, memory utilization, CPU usage, etc.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Lu is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lu into the combined teachings of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno to include “wherein the one or more software workloads are performed using one or more nodes of a distributed computing system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to monitor performance of one or more nodes (e.g., hosting devices) of a distributed computing system (Lu, paragraphs [0515] and [0721]).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Walters discloses “the second API,” but the combination of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second API is to provide one or more output values indicating one or more workload statuses of the one or more software workloads.
However, Lu discloses:
[…] provide one or more output values indicating one or more workload statuses of the one or more software workloads (paragraph [0465], “[…] the user selects a different metric and the lower-tier DIQS dynamically analyzes (in real-time or in near-real-time) the collected data and dynamically updates the user interface 1844, 1846 to present the user with a visualization of the status of the monitored entities for the new metric according to the alert threshold value.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Lu is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lu into the combined teachings of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno to include “wherein the second API is to provide one or more output values indicating one or more workload statuses of the one or more software workloads.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to monitor performance of one or more nodes (e.g., hosting devices) of a distributed computing system (Lu, paragraphs [0515] and [0721]).
Claims 12-14 are computer system claims corresponding to the processor claims hereinabove (Claims 5-7, respectively). Therefore, Claims 12-14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 5-7, respectively.
Claim 20 is a computer-implemented method claim corresponding to the processor claim hereinabove (Claim 7). Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Itoh and Ueno as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2021/0150371 (hereinafter “Marder”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to processing resources used and managing one or more applications executed on a distributed system (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Marder is generally directed to hardware optimization for processing of deep learning networks (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Marder is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 18, the rejection of Claim 15 is incorporated; and the combination of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more software workloads are performed using a deep-learning computing system.
However, Marder discloses:
wherein the one or more software workloads are performed using a deep-learning computing system (paragraph [0023], “As illustrated, a computing apparatus or system 105 is to process a deep learning workload 160 for an [sic] particular client or other agent 150 utilizing computer hardware. The compute [sic] hardware includes a set of processing resources, which may include resources of one or more processors 110 (shown as Proc-1 through Proc-N with processing cores 115), resources of a hardware accelerator, or other processing elements.”; paragraph [0024], “In a particular scenario, the deep learning workload 160 is to be processed according to preferences regarding a set of multiple performance indicators, shown as KPI preferences 165, wherein the set of performance indicators may include, but are not limited to, throughput, latency, core coverage, and power consumption.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Marder is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Marder into the combined teachings of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno to include “wherein the one or more software workloads are performed using a deep-learning computing system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide effective mapping of processing hardware for deep learning to have a great impact on the performance of a neural network in processing a particular workload (Marder, paragraph [0015]).
As per Claim 19, the rejection of Claim 15 is incorporated; and the combination of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more software workloads are performed using one or more nodes of a deep-learning computing system.
However, Marder discloses:
wherein the one or more software workloads are performed using one or more nodes of a deep-learning computing system (paragraph [0023], “As illustrated, a computing apparatus or system 105 is to process a deep learning workload 160 for an [sic] particular client or other agent 150 utilizing computer hardware. The compute [sic] hardware includes a set of processing resources, which may include resources of one or more processors 110 (shown as Proc-1 through Proc-N with processing cores 115), resources of a hardware accelerator, or other processing elements.”; paragraph [0024], “In a particular scenario, the deep learning workload 160 is to be processed according to preferences regarding a set of multiple performance indicators, shown as KPI preferences 165, wherein the set of performance indicators may include, but are not limited to, throughput, latency, core coverage, and power consumption.”; paragraph [0057], “As illustrated in FIG. 7A, a neural network 740 includes a collection of connected units or nodes 745, also referred to as artificial neurons. Typically, nodes are arranged in multiple layers.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Marder is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Marder into the combined teachings of Walters, Itoh, and Ueno to include “wherein the one or more software workloads are performed using one or more nodes of a deep-learning computing system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide effective mapping of processing hardware for deep learning to have a great impact on the performance of a neural network in processing a particular workload (Marder, paragraph [0015]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on August 12, 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered, but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
