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 .
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 6, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunasekara et al. (US 2015/0271826 A1, hereinafter “Gunasekara”) in view of Gong et al. (US 2008/0225737 A1, hereinafter “Gong”).
As to claim 1:
Gunasekara discloses a method of metering data flows within a wireless mesh-tree network having a root access point (RAP) and mesh access points (MAPs) (see Figs. 2-3; Abstract; [0076]-[0080]) including a first set of the MAPs at a one-hop level (see Figs. 2-3; Abstract; [0076]-[0080]) and a second set of the MAPs at a two-hop level (see Figs. 2-3; Abstract; [0076]-[0080]), the method comprising:
allocating, by a controller (management resource 140; Figs. 2-3; [0078]; [0080]), available data rates (ADRs) for the respective MAPs (“the management resource 140 allocates available wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 60 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-1”; see Figs. 2-3; [0077]-[0078]; [0095] “the management resource 140 allocates sufficient wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 120 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-2”; [0080] note: data rates is associated with Bandwidth, note 2: links connected to respective MAPs), wherein, for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP is a predefined [portion] of a total ADR of the RAP (“allocates portions of wireless bandwidth in the mesh network to wirelessly communicate between a root access point in the mesh network and each of the multiple interconnected access points”; Abstract; [0069] “When allocating available bandwidth based on hop count, a respective conventional mesh network typically allocates more bandwidth to access points disposed closer to the root access point. Access points further away from the root access point are allocated less bandwidth”; Figs. 2-3; [0006]; Abstract); and
apportioning, at a given MAP, the ADR allocated to the given MAP based on an origination type of data flowing through the given MAP (“provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; [0076]-[0080]), wherein a first portion of the ADR of the given MAP is designated for a first origination type and a second portion of the ADR of the given MAP is designated for a second origination type (“The data rate values assigned to different subscribers may vary depending on a class of service to which each respective client subscribes. For example, by way of a non-limiting example, a first class of service can support 10 megabits per second of data through the mesh network to a respective subscriber; a second class of service can support 20 megabits per second of data through the mesh network to a respective subscriber; a third class of service can support 30 megabits per second; and so on”; [0018] “provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080]).
Gunasekara does not explicitly disclose fraction.
However, Gong discloses for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP is a predefined fraction of a total ADR (“The data rate supported by mesh access points is essentially shared among all neighboring MAPs, meaning that, due to contention, each MAP receives a fraction of the available bandwidth”; [0012] note: data rate is associated with Bandwidth).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gong into Gunasekara’s system/method as it would allow, for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP to be a predefined fraction of a total ADR of the RAP. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where applying a known technique (i.e., using a fraction of available bandwidth/ data rate) to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement would yield predictable results. Such combination would have also improved similar systems by accounting for the differentiating attributes of wireless mesh networks in addition to facilitating implementation of dynamic rate limiting mechanisms wireless mesh networks (Gong; [0003]; [0012]).
As to claim 2:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above. Gunasekara further discloses apportioning, at the given MAP, the ADR allocated to the given MAP (“provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; [0076]-[0080]) by:
determining a first number of tokens that are allocated for the first origination type and a second number of tokens that are allocated for a second origination type (“the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens); and
transmitting data through the given MAP by: limiting an amount of data of the first origination type flowing through the given MAP to less than or equal to the first number of tokens (“the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens), and
limiting an amount of data of the second origination type flowing through the given MAP to less than or equal to the second number of tokens (“the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens).
As to claim 3:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above. Gunasekara further discloses apportioning, at the given MAP, the ADR allocated to the given MAP among three origination types of data, which are (1) [first] data type, (2) [second] data type, and (3) [third] data type, the ADR of the given MAP being apportioned by (“class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; class of service #3 can support a downlink data rate of 30 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens):
providing, at predefined times, a first number of tokens for the [first] data type, a second number of tokens for the [second] data type, and a third number of tokens for the [third] data type (“class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; class of service #3 can support a downlink data rate of 30 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 , COS=3 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens for each data type (i.e., class));
limiting, during a predefined time period, an amount of [first] data transmitted through the given MAP to be less than or equal to the first number of tokens (“class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; class of service #3 can support a downlink data rate of 30 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 , COS=3 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens for each data type (i.e., class));
limiting, during the predefined time period, an amount of [second] data transmitted through the given MAP to be less than or equal to the second number of tokens (“class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; class of service #3 can support a downlink data rate of 30 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 , COS=3 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens for each data type (i.e., class)); and
limiting, during a predefined time period, an amount of [third] data transmitted through the given MAP to be less than or equal to the third number of tokens (“class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; class of service #3 can support a downlink data rate of 30 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 , COS=3 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens for each data type (i.e., class)).
Gunasekara does not explicitly disclose three origination types of data, which are (1) a backhaul (BH) data type, (2) an ethernet-bridged data type, and (3) a client data type, where the first data is a BH data, the second data is an ethernet-bridged data, and the third data is a client data.
However Gong discloses three origination types of data, which are (1) a backhaul (BH) data type, (2) an ethernet-bridged data type, and (3) a client data type, where the first data is a backhaul (BH) data, the second data is an ethernet-bridged data, and the third data is a client data (backhaul traffic as first data type, 802.3 (Ethernet) traffic as second data type and ; client data as third data type; see Figs. 3A/B; [0024]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gong into Gunasekara’s system/method as it would allow three origination types of data, to be (1) a backhaul (BH) data type, (2) an ethernet-bridged data type, and (3) a client data type, where the first data is a BH data, the second data is an ethernet-bridged data, and the third data is a client data. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where applying a known technique (i.e., types of data) to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement would yield predictable results. Such combination would have also improved similar systems by accounting for the differentiating attributes of wireless mesh networks in addition to facilitating implementation of dynamic rate limiting mechanisms wireless mesh networks (Gong; [0003]; [0012]).
As to claim 6:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above. Gong further discloses wherein the predefined fraction of the total ADR of the RAP that is allocated as the ADR of the given MAP is determined based, at least in part, on a hop level of the given MAP, a number of neighbors of the given MAP, and a number of clients within the wireless mesh-tree network (“The data rate supported by mesh access points is essentially shared among all neighboring MAPs, meaning that, due to contention, each MAP receives a fraction of the available bandwidth… implementations of the present invention incorporate hop count information as a factor in computing the client data rates for the mesh network”; see [0012]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gong into Gunasekara’s system/method as it would allow the predefined fraction of the total ADR of the RAP that is allocated as the ADR of the given MAP to be determined based, at least in part, on a hop level of the given MAP, a number of neighbors of the given MAP, and a number of clients within the wireless mesh-tree network. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where applying a known technique (i.e., using a fraction of available bandwidth/ data rate) to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement would yield predictable results. Such combination would have also improved similar systems by accounting for the differentiating attributes of wireless mesh networks in addition to facilitating implementation of dynamic rate limiting mechanisms wireless mesh networks (Gong; [0003]; [0012]).
As to claim 15:
Gunasekara discloses a computing apparatus (management resource 140; Figs. 2-3, and 7; [0078]; [0080]; [0135]) comprising:
a processor (processor 813; see Fig. 7; [0135]); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to (“computer readable storage media 812 is encoded with management application 140-1 (e.g., software, firmware, etc.) executed by processor 813”; [0139]; [0137]):
allocate, by a controller (management resource 140; Figs. 2-3; [0078]; [0080]), available data rates (ADRs) for the respective MAPs (“the management resource 140 allocates available wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 60 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-1”; see Figs. 2-3; [0077]-[0078]; [0095] “the management resource 140 allocates sufficient wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 120 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-2”; [0080] note: data rates is associated with Bandwidth, note 2: links connected to respective MAPs), wherein, for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP is a predefined [portion] of a total ADR of the RAP (“allocates portions of wireless bandwidth in the mesh network to wirelessly communicate between a root access point in the mesh network and each of the multiple interconnected access points”; Abstract; [0069] “When allocating available bandwidth based on hop count, a respective conventional mesh network typically allocates more bandwidth to access points disposed closer to the root access point. Access points further away from the root access point are allocated less bandwidth”; Figs. 2-3; [0006]; Abstract); and
apportion, at a given MAP, the ADR allocated to the given MAP based on an origination type of data flowing through the given MAP (“provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; [0076]-[0080]), wherein a first portion of the ADR of the given MAP is designated for a first origination type and a second portion of the ADR of the given MAP is designated for a second origination type (“The data rate values assigned to different subscribers may vary depending on a class of service to which each respective client subscribes. For example, by way of a non-limiting example, a first class of service can support 10 megabits per second of data through the mesh network to a respective subscriber; a second class of service can support 20 megabits per second of data through the mesh network to a respective subscriber; a third class of service can support 30 megabits per second; and so on”; [0018] “provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080]).
Gunasekara does not explicitly disclose fraction.
However, Gong discloses for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP is a predefined fraction of a total ADR (“The data rate supported by mesh access points is essentially shared among all neighboring MAPs, meaning that, due to contention, each MAP receives a fraction of the available bandwidth”; [0012] note: data rate is associated with Bandwidth).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gong into Gunasekara’s system/method as it would allow, for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP to be a predefined fraction of a total ADR of the RAP. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where applying a known technique (i.e., using a fraction of available bandwidth/ data rate) to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement would yield predictable results. Such combination would have also improved similar systems by accounting for the differentiating attributes of wireless mesh networks in addition to facilitating implementation of dynamic rate limiting mechanisms wireless mesh networks (Gong; [0003]; [0012]).
As to claim 16:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above. Gunasekara further discloses wherein, when executed by the processor, the stored instructions further configure the apparatus to (“computer readable storage media 812 is encoded with management application 140-1 (e.g., software, firmware, etc.) executed by processor 813”; [0139]; [0137]) apportion the ADR allocated to the given MAP by (“provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; [0076]-[0080]) by:
determining a first number of tokens that are allocated for the first origination type and a second number of tokens that are allocated for a second origination type (“the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens); and
transmitting data through the given MAP by: limiting an amount of data of the first origination type flowing through the given MAP to less than or equal to the first number of tokens (“the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens), and
limiting an amount of data of the second origination type flowing through the given MAP to less than or equal to the second number of tokens (“the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens).
As to claim 19:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above. Gong further discloses wherein, the predefined fraction of the total ADR of the RAP that is allocated as the ADR of the given MAP is determined based, at least in part, on a hop level of the given MAP, a number of neighbors of the given MAP, and a number of clients within the wireless mesh-tree network (“The data rate supported by mesh access points is essentially shared among all neighboring MAPs, meaning that, due to contention, each MAP receives a fraction of the available bandwidth… implementations of the present invention incorporate hop count information as a factor in computing the client data rates for the mesh network”; see [0012]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gong into Gunasekara’s system/method as it would allow the predefined fraction of the total ADR of the RAP that is allocated as the ADR of the given MAP to be determined based, at least in part, on a hop level of the given MAP, a number of neighbors of the given MAP, and a number of clients within the wireless mesh-tree network. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where applying a known technique (i.e., using a fraction of available bandwidth/ data rate) to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement would yield predictable results. Such combination would have also improved similar systems by accounting for the differentiating attributes of wireless mesh networks in addition to facilitating implementation of dynamic rate limiting mechanisms wireless mesh networks (Gong; [0003]; [0012]).
Claims 5, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunasekara (US 2015/0271826 A1) in view of Gong (US 2008/0225737 A1) and further in view of Rahman et al. (US 2006/0268749 A1, hereinafter “Rahman”).
As to claim 5:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose shaping traffic within the wireless mesh tree by assigning topology maintenance data traffic to an access class that ensures that the topology maintenance data traffic will be fed directly into a data queue.
However, Rahman discloses shaping traffic within the wireless mesh tree by assigning topology maintenance data traffic to an access class that ensures that the topology maintenance data traffic will be fed directly into a data queue (“a wireless mesh point includes a mechanism to classify end user traffic into one of a predefined set of different classes. Thus, one embodiment includes a method in the wireless mesh point for classifying end user traffic into one of the predefined set of different classes”; [0139] “In one implementation, the AC field values classify traffic into one of Voice (AC=3), Video (AC=2), Best Effort (AC=1), and Background (AC=0).”; [0145] note: background = topology maintenance data traffic).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rahman into the combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong as it would allow shaping traffic within the wireless mesh tree by assigning topology maintenance data traffic to an access class that ensures that the topology maintenance data traffic will be fed directly into a data queue. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art where a motivation would have been to achieve appropriate levels of QoS for the traffic class, thus improving on user experience. This method ensures end-to-end QoS in a mesh network (Rahman; [0141]).
As to claim 14:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above. Gunasekara further discloses reserving portions of the ADRs for the respective MAPs for an origination type, the reserved portions of the ADR being determined to provide sufficient bandwidth for [origination type] to ensure stable operation of the wireless mesh-tree network (“The data rate values assigned to different subscribers may vary depending on a class of service to which each respective client subscribes. For example, by way of a non-limiting example, a first class of service can support 10 megabits per second of data through the mesh network to a respective subscriber; a second class of service can support 20 megabits per second of data through the mesh network to a respective subscriber; a third class of service can support 30 megabits per second; and so on”; [0018] “provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080]). The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong does not explicitly disclose the origination type of control data.
However, Rahman discloses origination type of control data (“a wireless mesh point includes a mechanism to classify end user traffic into one of a predefined set of different classes. Thus, one embodiment includes a method in the wireless mesh point for classifying end user traffic into one of the predefined set of different classes”; [0139] “In one implementation, the AC field values classify traffic into one of Voice (AC=3), Video (AC=2), Best Effort (AC=1), and Background (AC=0).”; [0145] note: background = control data)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rahman into the combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong as it would allow the origination type of control data. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art where a motivation would have been to achieve appropriate levels of QoS for the traffic class, thus improving on user experience. This method ensures end-to-end QoS in a mesh network (Rahman; [0141]).
As to claim 18:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose to shape traffic within the wireless mesh tree by assigning topology maintenance data traffic to an access class that ensure that the topology maintenance data traffic will be fed directly into a data queue.
However, Rahman discloses to shape traffic within the wireless mesh tree by assigning topology maintenance data traffic to an access class that ensure that the topology maintenance data traffic will be fed directly into a data queue (“a wireless mesh point includes a mechanism to classify end user traffic into one of a predefined set of different classes. Thus, one embodiment includes a method in the wireless mesh point for classifying end user traffic into one of the predefined set of different classes”; [0139] “In one implementation, the AC field values classify traffic into one of Voice (AC=3), Video (AC=2), Best Effort (AC=1), and Background (AC=0).”; [0145] note: background = topology maintenance data traffic).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rahman into the combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong as it would allow, when executed by the processor, the stored instructions further configure the apparatus to: shape traffic within the wireless mesh tree by assigning topology maintenance data traffic to an access class that ensure that the topology maintenance data traffic will be fed directly into a data queue. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art where a motivation would have been to achieve appropriate levels of QoS for the traffic class, thus improving on user experience. This method ensures end-to-end QoS in a mesh network (Rahman; [0141]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-13, 17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO whose telephone number is (571)272-1250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM to 5:00PM.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights