DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to claims filed 22 June 2026.
Claims 1-17, and 21-23 are pending.
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 22 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10, the applicant argues:
“Claim 1 is not directed to a mental process. Claim 1 recites a specific computer-networking process…A human cannot mentally prepare storage block page entries corresponding to a transmit packet in host memory, determine from an initiative state stored in host memory whether to interrupt a shared network adapter, update that initiative state to reflect active shared-adapter packet processing, program a NIC to transmit a packet, and then update the initiative state after packet transmission to reflect that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets.
“The rejection reaches the opposite conclusion only by abstracting the claim limitations away from their actual technological context…Claim 1 recites operations performed by, and on, specific computer-networking components…
“Thus, the claim does not merely recite a result or an abstract decision. It recites a concrete transmit-side interaction among a host, host memory, a shared network adapter, and a NIC. The claimed process is rooted in computer networking and shared-adapter operation, and its limitations are meaningful only in that technological environment. The asserted ‘mental process’ characterization therefore fails under step 2A prong one.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the limitation ““preparing, by a host, one or more storage block page entries (SBPEs) corresponding to a transmit (TX) packet”, The 2019 PEG states “examiners should take note that the recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. For instance, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes grouping.” In this case, claim 1 recites at least one operation that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of those operations in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. For example, the limitation “preparing, by a host, one or more storage block page entries (SBPEs) corresponding to a transmit (TX) packet” describes an operation that “prepares” a storage block page entry that corresponds to a transmit packet, and further recites a generic computer component (host) that performs the operation. Since the claim does not disclose any detail other than the generic computer component that would preclude this operation from practically being performed within the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation falls in the mental processes grouping.
The rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 101 identifies additional limitations as reciting abstract ideas, specifically: “determining, based on an initiative state stored in host memory, to transmit an interrupt to inform a shared network adapter of the TX packet”, “updating the imitative state to indicate the shared network adapter is currently processing TX packets”, and “updating, after transmitting the TX packet, the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets”. The limitations do not specify that these steps are “performed by, and on, specific computer-networking components” as the applicant alleges (i.e., for example, they do not recite “by a host” as the preceding limitation, or “by a computer-networking component”). These limitations recite steps of “determining” and “updating” which, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, do not preclude performance of these limitations as mental processes within the mind. For example, given an initiative state, the human mind is capable of making a determination of whether or not to transmit an interrupt, by simply making a decision or judgement that a transmission should be done. Further, given a particular initiative state, the human mind is capable of evaluating that state and making a judgement of an updated value of that state.
Since the claim recites limitations that cover performance within the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On page 11, the applicant argues
“The claim uses the initiative state stored in host memory as part of a specific packet-transmission mechanism involving interrupt handling between a host and a shared network adapter…The initiative state is used in connection with controlling whether an interrupt is transmitted to inform the shared network adapter of a TX packet, and the shared network adapter then programs the NIC to transmit the TX packet. After transmission, the initiative state is updated to reflect that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets.
“The ordered combination of claim 1 therefore provides a practical application in the operation of a shared network adapter and NIC. The claim applies the recited initiative state and SBPE processing to a concrete packet-transmission process…
“The office action treats the limitation ‘programming, by the shared network adapter, a network interface card (NIC) to transmit the TX packet’ as merely linking the alleged exception to a technological environment. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Programming the NIC to transmit the TX packet is not an incidental environment or post solution activity. It is the technological action through which the host-prepared SBPEs and initiative-state-based interrupt handling are applied to actual packet transmission. In the context of claim 1 as a whole, this limitation is part of the claimed improvement in shared-network-adapter operation, because the shared network adapter is not merely mentioned as an environment; it performs the recited operation of programming the NIC to transmit the TX packet and participates in the initiative-state workflow.
“The specification confirms this practical technological operation…If the shared adapter is not currently processing TX packets, the host can issue an interrupt to the shared adapter, along with the index associated with the TX SBPE. The shared adapter can then fetch the TX SBPE from host memory and program the NIC to transmit the TX packet. The specification further explains that this approach reduces the number of interrupts transmitted to the shared adapter relative to prior systems wherein an interrupt is sent whenever the host has TX packets ready, regardless of whether the adapter is already processing TX packets.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument that claim 1 is part of a “specific packet-transmission mechanism involving interrupt handling between a host and a shared network adapter” does not reflect the claim language, which neither recites “transmitting” a TX packet”, nor does it recite “handling” an interrupt. At best, TX packet transmission is discussed passively, by “programming” a network interface card to transmit a TX packet. However, simply programming a NIC to transmit a TX packet at some point in the future is not necessarily equivalent to reciting or requiring actual transmission of the TX packet. A NIC that is programmed to transmit a TX packet may simply be describing a type of NIC, and therefore is indicative of a mere technological environment having NICs that are programmed for packet transmission. Further, the claim determines to transmit an interrupt, but fails to actually recite transmitting the interrupt, let alone describe any process akin to “handling” the interrupt.
Applicant argues that “the initiative state is used in connection with controlling whether an interrupt is transmitted” and that “this approach reduces the number of interrupts transmitted to the shared adapter relative to prior systems wherein an interrupt is sent whenever the host has TX packets ready, regardless of whether the adapter is already processing TX packets”. The language of claim 1 does not support this argument. Besides the fact that, as discussed above, claim 1 does not actually describe transmission of interrupts, there is no indication that the initiative state is used to determine that interrupts should not be transmitted. In other words, the language of claim 1 transmits interrupts regardless of what state the initiative state is, because there is no situation where the interrupt is not transmitted. At best, claim 5 (and corresponding claim 12) describes a situation where an interrupt is not transmitted, thereby realizing the improvement of reducing the number of interrupts sent to a shared network adapter by not sending interrupts corresponding to new TX packets received before updating the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets. The examiner has therefore determined that the combination of claims 1, 4, and 5 provide the alleged improvement to the functioning of a computer. However, claim 1 alone does not. Similarly, the combination of claims 8, 11, and 12 would realize the alleged improvement for similar rationale. However, since applicant’s argument is directed only to claim 1, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On pages 17-18, the applicant argues:
“As an initial matter, the rejection does not establish that the cited combination teaches or suggests the claimed method as a whole. Claim 1 is not directed merely to packet transmission, queue status, address indexing, or interrupt signaling in isolation. Rather, claim 1 recites a particular ordered transmit-side interaction…
“The rejection instead relies on separate, generalized teachings from different references and maps those teachings onto isolated portions of the claim. This approach does not sufficiently account for the claimed relationship among the host-prepared SBPEs, the initiative state stored in host memory, the interrupt transmitted to inform the shared network adapter of the TX packet, and the shared network adapter programming the NIC to transmit the TX packet.
“Elhaddad, on current review, does not teach or suggest an ‘initiative state stored in host memory’ as recited in claim 1. The Office Action equates Elhaddad’s queue status or status indications with the claimed initiative state. Applicant respectfully submits that this mapping is improper. A queue status indication or indication of empty space in a queue is not the same as an initiative state stored in host memory that is used by a host to determine whether to transmit an interrupt to inform a shared network adapter of a TX packet, and that is later updated after packet transmission to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets.
“The distinction is material. In claim 1, the initiative state is not merely a general indication that queue space exists or that a queue is empty. The initiative state participates in a specific host/shared-adapter coordination mechanism. The state indicates whether the shared network adapter is currently processing TX packets. Based on that state, the host determines whether to transmit an interrupt to inform the shared network adapter of the TX packet. The state is then updated to indicate active processing and later updated after transmitting the TX packet to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets. Elhaddad, on current review, does not disclose this state-controlled interrupt workflow.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. With regard to the initial matter, the office action relies on a combination of references to teach the claimed limitation, and provides sufficient motivation to make the combinations specified in MPEP 2143 motivation (g). Specifically, motivation (g) allows the examiner to combine separate teachings from different references to support a conclusion of obviousness, so long as the office action articulates “(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.” Since the remarks do not specifically challenge the office action’s motivation to combine the prior art teachings, and rather represents a general allegation that “the rejection instead relies on separate, generalized teachings from different references and maps those teachings onto isolated portions of the claim”, the combination of references is understood to be proper and will be maintained.
Further, ELHADDAD teaches that which applicant alleges it does not, by teaching a workflow that transfers data to a shared network adapter until a queue of the shared network adapter has been filled, by providing status indications of the availability of queuing resources. The status indication represents a state of a queue corresponding to how full it is. This state is used to control whether additional packets are transmitted to the queue for processing by the network adapter. In other words, ELHADDAD teaches a “state-controlled workflow” for transmitting TX packets, where the state of the queue controls the transfer and transmission of packets. What ELHADDAD does not explicitly teach is taught by the additional references. For example, ELHADDAD does not explicitly teach that transmit packets correspond to one or more storage block page entries. However, JAMES cures this deficiency, by teaching, in the context of generation of transmit packets also taught by ELHADDAD, that transmit packets correspond to page table address values of storage blocks in a target node, representing “storage block page entries.” Applicant argues that the combination of references “does not sufficiently account for the claimed relationship among the host-prepared SBPEs.” However, at least in claim 1, SBPEs are only mentioned during the preparing step, and do not have a “relationship” with any other limitation of the claim. At best, claim 2 discusses determining whether additional SBPEs are prepared by a host, but that is not present in claim 1. Additionally, while ELHADDAD informs a shared network adapter of a TX packet, via a queue and queue status, ELHADDAD does not explicitly teach that the shared network adapter is informed of this packet via interrupt. However, SRIVASTRAVA cures this deficiency, by teaching, in the context of transferring data packets between host devices, causing a unified adapter layer to receive an interrupt notifying it of an incoming data packet. Further, again, while the applicant argues that the combination of references fail to teach a state controlled “interrupt workflow”, claim 1 only recites using an interrupt to inform a shared network adapter of a TX packet. No where is the interrupt mentioned, or involved in the control of other aspects of the workflow.
As such, at least the combination of references teaches the limitations at issue, and the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On page 18, the applicant argues:
“James, on current review, does not cure this deficiency. The Office Action relies on James for allegedly teaching transmit packets corresponding to storage block page entries. However, the cited portion of James concerns table index values and expanded address values used in connection with routing packets between nodes. Even assuming that James teaches an indexed address or page-table-type value, such a teaching is not the claimed preparation, by a host, of one or more storage block page entries corresponding to a TX packet in the context of the claimed shared-network-adapter transmit process. Nor does James teach or suggest the claimed initiative state stored in host memory, the determination based on that initiative state to transmit an interrupt to a shared network adapter, or the claimed updating of the initiative state before and after TX-packet processing by the shared network adapter.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. JAMES was relied upon to teach a prepared packet for transmission that includes page table address values of storage blocks in a target node. Therefore, an action taken by a host computing device to prepare a transmission packet, combined with JAMES’s teaching of the transmission packet including page table address values of storage blocks, would also include preparation of the page table address values of the storage blocks within the prepared transmission packet. Therefore, the combination of ELHADDAD and JAMES teaches the limitation at issue, of “preparing, by a host, one or more storage block page entries (SBPEs) corresponding to a transmit (TX) packet.” As JAMES is not relied upon to teach any of the other limitations mentioned in the applicant’s argument, those arguments are moot. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
On page 18, the applicant argues:
“Srivastava, on current review, also does not cure the deficiencies of Elhaddad and James. The Office Action relies on Srivastava for allegedly teaching transmitting an interrupt to inform a shared network adapter of a TX packet. The cited Srivastava passage describes a unified adapter layer receiving an interrupt from a device and using the interrupt in connection with packet priority. That is different from the claimed host determination, based on an initiative state stored in host memory, to transmit an interrupt to inform a shared network adapter of a TX packet. Srivastava may generally show that interrupts can be used in packet-processing environments, but the rejection does not establish that Srivastava teaches or suggests the claimed initiative-state-based interrupt mechanism.
“The claim does not merely require "an interrupt" in a networking system. The claim requires determining, based on an initiative state stored in host memory, to transmit an interrupt to inform a shared network adapter of the TX packet. Thus, the interrupt is tied to the initiative state and to the claimed host/shared-adapter transmit process. The Office Action's reliance on Srivastava for a generalized interrupt teaching does not account for this relationship.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. ELHADDAD and JAMES discuss notifying a network adapter driver of TX data using queue status. SRIVASTAVA is relied upon to teach using an interrupt to inform a network adapter of an incoming data packet. Thus, the combination teaches notifying a network adapter driver of an incoming data packet for transmission using an interrupt indicating queue status. In this way, the combination of references relate, or tie queue status representing “initiative state” to the interrupt, and further to the claimed host/shared-adapter transmit process. The applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
On page 19, the applicant argues:
“Moreover, the proposed combination lacks a sufficiently articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Elhaddad’s queue-resource-management system using James’s address-indexing teachings and Srivastava’s interrupt-priority teachings to arrive at the claimed initiative-state-based transmit mechanism. The rejection states that James would have been combined to ensure that a packet is directed appropriately and that Srivastava would have been combined to handle packets based on priority indicated by an interrupt. But those rationales do not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have arrived at the claimed arrangement in which an initiative state stored in host memory controls whether the host transmits an interrupt to inform a shared network adapter of a TX packet, and in which the initiative state is updated to reflect whether the shared network adapter is currently processing TX packets.
“At most, the cited reference show separate concepts…The rejection has not shown that these teachings, even if combined, would result in the ordered combination of claim 1. The claimed invention is not obtained merely by placing an interrupt somewhere in Elhaddad, or by replacing packet data with indexed address information from James. The claim requires a specific relationship among the host, the SBPEs, the initiative state stored in host memory, the interrupt to the shared network adapter, and adapter-side programming of the NIC.
“Accordingly, the cited combination fails to teach or suggest at least the following limitations of claim 1…”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2143 motivation G recites “To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following…a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings.” In other words, the office action is only required to articulate the motivation to combine teachings of the prior art, not “explain why a person of ordinary skill would have arrived at the claimed arrangement” of all the claim elements, as the applicant alleges. In fact, ELHADDID teaches the claim substantially as claimed, and differs from the claim only in two aspects: it does not mention that SBPES correspond to prepared transmit packets, and it does not inform a network adapter of a TX packet specifically using an interrupt. However, these limitations are obvious over the prior art, because the limitation of SBPES corresponding to prepared TX packets is taught by JAMES, and using interrupts to notify a network adapter of a packet is taught by SRIVASTRAVA. Further, the office action correctly articulates each of the required findings to establish a rejection of the claim under motivation G, by articulating a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, and a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments directed to the rejections of claims 8-17, and 22-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant’s arguments are persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments directed to the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant’s argument is moot because it does not address the new art used to reject the claim in the current office action.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 8-17, and 21-23 were not rejected using prior art, but stand rejected under other statutes.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities (line number corresponds to claim 1): In line 6 “imitative state” should read “initiative state”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a method that transmits a packet by a network interface card of a shared network adapter based on an initiative state. A method is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
i. “preparing, by a host, one or more storage block page entries (SBPEs) corresponding to a transmit (TX) packet” (a person can mentally prepare storage block page entries by simply making a judgement of certain data to include in a SBPE (MPEP 2106.04(a)))
ii. “determining, based on an initiative state stored in host memory, to transmit an interrupt to inform a shared network adapter of the TX packet” (a person can mentally determine to transmit an interrupt by simply evaluating an initiative state, and making a judgement of whether or not to transmit the interrupt (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
iii. “updating the imitative state to indicate the shared network adapter is currently processing TX packets” (a person can mentally update an initiative state by simply evaluating a current state and making a judgement of an updated state (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
iv. “updating, after transmitting the TX packet, the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets” (a person can mentally update an initiative state by simply evaluating a current state and making a judgement of an updated state (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A, prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
v. “programming, by the shared network adapter, a network interface card (NIC) to transmit the TX packet” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined through reanalysis of the following limitations considered in step 2A prong 2, that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
v. “programming, by the shared network adapter, a network interface card (NIC) to transmit the TX packet” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the additional element “checking whether any additional SBPEs corresponding to a new TX packet have been prepared by the host” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally check whether SBPEs are prepared by simply observing the host and evaluating whether additional SBPEs have been prepared (MPEP 2106.04(a))). Further, the additional element “determining that no additional SBPEs have been prepared by the host” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally determine whether SBPEs have been prepared or not by simply evaluating whether prepared SBPEs exist (MPEP 2106.04(a))). Further the additional element “in response, performing the updating of the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally update an initiative state by simply evaluating a current state and making a judgement of an updated state (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Regarding claim 3, the additional element “determining that no additional SBPEs have been prepared by the host comprises determining whether an SBPE index stored in the host memory has been increased” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally check whether SBPEs are prepared by simply evaluating whether an index has increased (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 4, the additional element “before updating the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets: checking whether any additional SBPEs corresponding to new TX packets have been prepared by the host…determining that an additional SBPE has been prepared by the host” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally check whether SBPEs are prepared by simply observing the host and evaluating whether additional SBPEs have been prepared (MPEP 2106.04(a))). Further, the additional element “upon determining that an additional SBPE has been prepared by the host, programming, by the shared network adapter, the NIC to transmit a new TX packet wherein the initiative state still indicates that the shared network adapter is currently processing TX packets” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further, the additional element “before updating the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets: checking whether any additional SBPEs corresponding to new TX packets have been prepared by the host… determining that no additional SBPEs have been prepared by the host” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally check whether SBPEs are prepared by simply observing the host and evaluating whether additional SBPEs have been prepared (MPEP 2106.04(a))). Further the additional element “performing the updating of the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally update an initiative state by simply evaluating a current state and making a judgement of an updated state (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Regarding claim 5, the additional element “the host does not transmit an interrupt to the shared network adapter in order for the shared network adapter to transmit the new TX packet” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 6, the additional element “storing an SBPE index in host memory in response to preparing the one or more SBPEs” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storage (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing data in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Further, the additional element “passing the SBPE index to the shared network adapter in response to determining to transmit the interrupt to the shared network adapter” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 7, the additional element “fetching, by the shared network adapter, the one or more SBPEs from the host memory based on the SBPE index” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 8, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a system that transmits a packet by a network interface card of a shared network adapter based on an initiative state. A system is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
i. “preparing, one or more storage block page entries (SBPEs) corresponding to a transmit (TX) packet” (a person can mentally prepare storage block page entries by simply making a judgement of certain data to include in a SBPE (MPEP 2106.04(a)))
ii. “determining, based on an initiative state stored in host memory, to transmit an interrupt to inform a shared network adapter of the TX packet” (a person can mentally determine to transmit an interrupt by simply evaluating an initiative state, and making a judgement of whether or not to transmit the interrupt (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
iii. “updating the initative state to indicate the shared network adapter is currently processing TX packets” (a person can mentally update an initiative state by simply evaluating a current state and making a judgement of an updated state (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
iv. “after receiving a TX completion from the NIC indicating that the NIC has transmitted the TX packet, determine whether the SBPE index in the CP queue index has been updated” (a person can mentally determine whether an SBPE index has been updated by simply evaluating the SBPE index, and making a judgement that it has changed (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
v. “updating, after transmitting the TX packet, the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets” (a person can mentally update an initiative state by simply evaluating a current state and making a judgement of an updated state (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
vi. “update, in response to determining that the SBPE index in the CP queues index has not been updated, after transmitting the TX packet, the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets (a person can mentally update an initiative state by simply evaluating a current state and making a judgement of an updated state (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A, prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
vii. “wherein the one or more SBPEs comprise one or more pointers to the TX packet in the host memory” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
viii. “storing an SBPE index in a control program (CP) queue index in the host memory in response to preparing the one or more SBPEs” (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
ix. “wherein the initiative state indicates whether the shared adapter is currently processing TX packets” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
x. “transmitting the interrupt to the shared network adapter with the SBPE index”
(insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
xi. “fetch the one or more SBPEs from the host memory based on the SBPOE index transmitted with the interrupt” (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
xii. “program, by the shared network adapter, the NIC to retrieve the TX packet from the host memory using the one or more pointers in the one or more SBPEs and to transmit the TX packet (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined through reanalysis of the following limitations considered in step 2A prong 2, that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
vii. “wherein the one or more SBPEs comprise one or more pointers to the TX packet in the host memory” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
viii. “storing an SBPE index in a control program (CP) queue index in the host memory in response to preparing the one or more SBPEs” (well-understood, routine and conventional activity of storing data in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
ix. “wherein the initiative state indicates whether the shared adapter is currently processing TX packets” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
x. “transmitting the interrupt to the shared network adapter with the SBPE index”
(well-understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
xi. “fetch the one or more SBPEs from the host memory based on the SBPOE index transmitted with the interrupt” (well-understood, routine and conventional activity of retrieving data in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
xii. “program, by the shared network adapter, the NIC to retrieve the TX packet from the host memory using the one or more pointers in the one or more SBPEs and to transmit the TX packet (well-understood, routine and conventional activity of retrieving data in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9-14, they comprise limitations similar to those of claims 2-7, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a system that transmits a packet by a network interface card of a shared network adapter based on an initiative state. A system is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
i. “preparing, one or more storage block page entries (SBPEs) corresponding to a transmit (TX) packet” (a person can mentally prepare storage block page entries by simply making a judgement of certain data to include in a SBPE (MPEP 2106.04(a)))
ii. “determining, based on an initiative state stored in host memory, to transmit an interrupt to inform a shared network adapter of the TX packet” (a person can mentally determine to transmit an interrupt by simply evaluating an initiative state, and making a judgement of whether or not to transmit the interrupt (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
iii. “updating the initiative state to indicate the shared network adapter is currently processing TX packets” (a person can mentally update an initiative state by simply evaluating a current state and making a judgement of an updated state (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
iv. “updating, after transmitting the TX packet, the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets” (a person can mentally update an initiative state by simply evaluating a current state and making a judgement of an updated state (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A, prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
v. “wherein the one or more SBPEs comprise one or more pointers to the TX packet in the host memory” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
vi. “storing an SBPE index in host memory in response to preparing the one or more SBPEs” (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storage (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
vii. “wherein the initiative state indicates whether the shared adapter is currently processing TX packets” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
viii. “transmitting the interrupt to the shared network adapter with the SBPE index”
(insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined through reanalysis of the following limitations considered in step 2A prong 2, that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
v. “wherein the one or more SBPEs comprise one or more pointers to the TX packet in the host memory” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
vi. “storing an SBPE index in host memory in response to preparing the one or more SBPEs” (well-understood, routine and conventional activity of storing data in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
vii. “wherein the initiative state indicates whether the shared adapter is currently processing TX packets” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
viii. “transmitting the interrupt to the shared network adapter with the SBPE index”
(well-understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 16-17. They comprise limitations similar to claims 2-3, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, the additional element “the one or more SBPEs comprise one or more pointers to the TX packet in host memory” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 22, the additional element “transmitting the interrupt to the shared network adapter with an SBPE index corresponding to the one or more SBPEs” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (insignificant, extra solution activity of mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g))), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (well-understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
Regarding claim 23, the additional element “after transmitting the TX packet, determining whether an SBPE index stored in the host memory has been updated before updating the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it describes a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally update an initiative state by simply evaluating a current state and making a judgement of an updated state (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
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.
Claims 1-2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELHADDAD et al. Pub. No.: US 2014/0359160 A1 (hereafter ELHADDAD), in view of JAMES et al. Patent No.: US 6,993,022 B1 (hereafter JAMES), in view of SRIVASTRAVA et al. Pub. No.: US 2022/0006883 A1 (hereafter SRIVASTAVA).
ELHADDAD, JAMES, and SRIVASTAVA were cited previously.
Regarding claim 1, ELHADDAD teaches the invention substantially as claimed, including:
A method comprising:
preparing, by a host ([0028] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating functional blocks of computing device 200)…a transmit (TX) packet ([0029] Applications 210A and 210B may include any type of application that may receive or transmit data over a network or other communications medium. For example, applications 210A and 210B may include user-mode programs, kernel-mode processes, virtual machines, or the like (i.e., virtual machine applications generate data to transmit and execute on device 200 which represents a virtual machine “host”). [Claim 16] The portion of the received data includes a plurality of data packets (i.e., data to be transmitted over a network comprises “packets”));
determining, based on an initiative state stored in host memory…to inform a shared network adapter of the TX packet ([0044] Network adapter driver 250 includes traffic classifier 310, queue status component 320, transfer manager component 330, reclamation component 340, and downlink interface 350. [0049] Transfer manager component 330 transfers data from the virtual adapters to the shared network adapter any time data arrives via traffic classifier 310 (i.e., data arrival represents informing of the network adapter driver) while queue status component 320 indicates that the shared network adapter can accept the received data. However, if queue status component 320 indicates that the shared network adapter does not have sufficient queuing resources to currently receive the data, transfer manager component 330 may queue the data for later transfer to the shared network adapter or, in conjunction with traffic classifier 310, may defer acceptance of the data (i.e., queue status is used to determine whether to transmit data to the network adapter driver 250, thereby “informing” the network adapter driver 250 of the TX data));
updating the imitative state to indicate the shared network adapter is currently processing TX packets ([0061] Transfer manager component 330 may transfer data to the shared network adapter until a queue of the shared network adapter has been filled. While this data is being transferred, the shared network adapter may provide status indications regarding the availability queuing resources (i.e., status indications represent the updated status of the queues while the shared network adapter handles the data to be transferred));
programming, by the shared network adapter, a network interface card (NIC) to transmit the TX packet ([0039] In the example of computing device 200, network adapter 260 (i.e., “network interface card”, according to [0001]) is adapted to interface computing device 200 to a wireless medium under the control of network adapter driver 250, e.g., by enabling transmission and reception of data to the wireless medium via an air interface (i.e., network adapter driver causes, or “programs” the network adaptor to transmit the data)); and
updating, after transmitting the TX packet, the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets ([0046] For example, these status indications may be notifications of amounts of empty space in a queue of the shared network adapter (e.g., numbers of packets, bytes, bits, frames, etc. that the shared network adapter can currently accept for queuing (i.e., a status indication sent after transmission has completed indicates that the queue is empty and that packets are no longer queued for transmission)).
While ELHADDAD discusses processing of transmit packets by shared network adapters, ELHADDAD does not explicitly teach that the transmit packets correspond to:
one or more storage block page entries (SBPEs).
However, in analogous art that similarly teaches generation of transmit packets, JAMES teaches transmit packets that correspond to:
one or more storage block page entries (SBPEs) ([Column 9, Line 61-Column 10, Line 10] The table 46 includes expanded address values which are indexed by corresponding table index values. The table index value within a packet corresponds to a location in the table 46 which includes a corresponding expanded address value including 40 bits…The corresponding expanded address value represents a page table address value mapped into the address space of the target node…After obtaining this expanded address value from the table 46 and including it within the packet, the router 40 then transmits the packet on the appropriate bus directed to the appropriate node (i.e., transmit packet includes, and therefore “corresponds” to a page table address value of a storage block in the target node, representing a “storage block page entry”)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined JAMES’s teaching of a transmit packet including page table address values of an address space of a target node, with ELHADDAD’s teaching of generating a transmit packet, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that generates a transmit packet to be handled by a shared network adapter, as in ELHADDAD, which corresponds with page table address values of an address space of a target node, as in JAMES. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination so to ensure that a packet is directed appropriately (JAMES Column 9, Line 61-Column 10, Line 10).
While ELHADDAD and JAMES discuss informing a shared network adaptor of incoming data packets, ELHADDAD and JAMES do not explicitly teach:
transmit an interrupt to inform a shared network adapter of the TX packet
However, in analogous art that similarly transmits data packets between host devices, SRIVASTRAVA teaches:
transmit an interrupt to inform a shared network adapter of the TX packet ([0067] The unified adapter layer 110 determines a priority associated with the device data packet at 604. In an embodiment, the device data packets are prioritized in the order that the device data packets are received at the bridge 102. In an embodiment, the unified adapter layer 110 may receive an interrupt from a device 108A1, 108A2, 108B1, 108B2 and the unified adapter layer 110 may prioritize device data packets from the device 108A1, 108A2, 108B1, 108B2 that generated the interrupt over device data packets received from the other devices 108A1, 108A2, 108B1, 108B2. [Claim 16] Cause the machine to: receive an interrupt from the first device; and prioritize transmission of the first host data packet over transmission of the second host data packet to the host device based in part on the received interrupt (i.e., interrupts are transmitted to a unified adapter layer that at least informs the adapter layer of the priority of an incoming data packet)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined SRIVASTRAVA’s teaching of transmitting an interrupt to inform a network adapter of a transmit packet, with ELHADDAD and JAMES’s teaching of generating a transmit packet for a shared network adapter, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that generates a transmit packet for a network adapter, as in ELHADDAD and JAMES, and notifies the network adapter of the packet using an interrupt, as in SRIVASTRAVA. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to more favorably handle packets based on priority indicated by the interrupt (SRIVASTRAVA [0067]).
Regarding claim 2, ELHADDAD further teaches:
before updating the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets: checking whether any additional SBPEs corresponding to a new TX packet have been prepared by the host; and determining that no additional SBPEs have been prepared by the host, and in response, performing the updating of the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets ([0046] For example, these status indications may be notifications of amounts of empty space in a queue of the shared network adapter (e.g., numbers of packets, bytes, bits, frames, etc. that the shared network adapter can currently accept for queuing (i.e., when no other additional transmit packets are queued for processing, the status indication will indicate that the queue is empty and the shared network adapter is no longer processing any packets)).
Regarding claim 4, ELHADDAD further teaches:
before updating the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets: checking whether any additional SBPEs corresponding to new TX packets have been prepared by the host; and upon determining that an additional SBPE has been prepared by the host, programming, by the shared network adapter, the NIC to transmit a new TX packet, wherein the initiative state still indicates that the shared network adapter is currently processing TX packets; checking, after transmitting the new TX packet, whether any additional SBPEs have been prepared by the host; and determining that no additional SBPEs have been prepared by the host, and in response, performing the updating of the initiative state to indicate that the shared network adapter is no longer processing TX packets ([0046] For example, these status indications may be notifications of amounts of empty space in a queue of the shared network adapter (e.g., numbers of packets, bytes, bits, frames, etc. that the shared network adapter can currently accept for queuing (i.e., when additional transmit packets are queued for processing, the shared network adapter driver forwards the packets for transmission by the shared network adapter until the queue is empty, whereupon the status indication will indicate that the queue is empty and the shared network adapter is no longer processing any packets)).
Regarding claim 5, ELHADDAD further teaches:
the host does not transmit an interrupt to the shared network adapter in order for the shared network adapter to transmit the new TX packet ([0049] Transfer manager component 330 transfers data from the virtual adapters to the shared network adapter any time data arrives via traffic classifier 310 (i.e., data arrival represents informing of the network adapter driver without transmission of an interrupt, because the packet is queued without interrupting the operation of the network adapter) while queue status component 320 indicates that the shared network adapter can accept the received data).
Regarding claim 6, JAMES further teaches:
storing an SBPE index in host memory in response to preparing the one or more SBPEs; and passing the SBPE index to the shared network adapter ([Column 9, Line 61-Column 10, Line 10] The table 46 includes expanded address values which are indexed by corresponding table index values (i.e., “SBPE indexes”). The table index value within a packet corresponds to a location in the table 46 which includes a corresponding expanded address value including 40 bits…The corresponding expanded address value represents a page table address value mapped into the address space of the target node…After obtaining this expanded address value from the table 46 and including it within the packet, the router 40 then transmits the packet on the appropriate bus directed to the appropriate node (i.e., transmit packet includes, and therefore “corresponds” to a page table address value of a storage block in the target node, representing a “storage block page entry”))
SRIVASTRAVA further teaches
passing the [packet] to the shared network adapter in response to determining to transmit the interrupt to the shared network adapter ([0067] The unified adapter layer 110 determines a priority associated with the device data packet at 604. In an embodiment, the device data packets are prioritized in the order that the device data packets are received at the bridge 102. In an embodiment, the unified adapter layer 110 may receive an interrupt from a device 108A1, 108A2, 108B1, 108B2 and the unified adapter layer 110 may prioritize device data packets from the device 108A1, 108A2, 108B1, 108B2 that generated the interrupt over device data packets received from the other devices 108A1, 108A2, 108B1, 108B2. [Claim 16] Cause the machine to: receive an interrupt from the first device; and prioritize transmission of the first host data packet over transmission of the second host data packet to the host device based in part on the received interrupt).
Regarding claim 7, JAMES further teaches:
fetching, by the shared network adapter, the one or more SBPEs from the host memory based on the SBPE index ([Column 9, Line 61-Column 10, Line 10] The table 46 includes expanded address values which are indexed by corresponding table index values. The table index value within a packet corresponds to a location in the table 46 which includes a corresponding expanded address value including 40 bits…The corresponding expanded address value represents a page table address value mapped into the address space of the target node…After obtaining (i.e., “fetching” based on the index value) this expanded address value from the table 46 and including it within the packet, the router 40 then transmits the packet on the appropriate bus directed to the appropriate node (i.e., transmit packet includes, and therefore “corresponds” to a page table address value of a storage block in the target node, representing a “storage block page entry”)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELHADDAD, in view of JAMES, in view of SRIVASTRAVA, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of HIROTA Pub. No.: US 2016/0373346 A1 (hereafter HIROTA).
Claim 3 was cited previously
Regarding claim 3, while ELHADDAD, JAMES, and SRIVASTRAVA discuss processing of packets, they do not explicitly teach:
determining that no additional SBPEs have been prepared by the host comprises determining whether an SBPE index stored in the host memory has been increased.
However, in analogous art that similarly teaches processing of packets, HIROTA teaches:
determining that no additional SBPEs have been prepared by the host comprises determining whether an SBPE index stored in the host memory has been increased ([0101] Timing at which the processing unit 140 that is an allocation destination is changed is determined by counting the number of packets (i.e., “SBPEs”) that have been processed at that time by the processing unit 140. For example, a counter is provided that increments the count value by 1 when a packet having a certain flow ID has been transmitted to a certain processing unit 140 and decrements the count value by 1 when a packet in which the processing has been completed has been recovered from the processing unit 140. In addition, when the counter value becomes “0”, it is determined that the processing unit 140 that is the allocation destination may be changed (i.e., determining whether the counter has a zero value represents a determination of whether that counter has been increased to a non-zero value or not, and when zero, indicates that there are no additional packets of a processing flow that are waiting for processing)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined HIROTA’s teaching of a counter associated with transmit packets that indicates whether packets of a processing flow are waiting for processing, with the combination of ELHADDAD, JAMES and SRIVASTRAVA’s teaching of generating packets for processing, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that generates packets for processing, as in ELHADDAD and JAMES, which are tracked using a counter that indicates whether packet processing has completed, as in HIROTA. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to increase processor utilization and balance load across processing units (HIROTA [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CHANDRA et al. Patent No.: US 11,258,714 B1 discusses a packet builder using a set of pointers to retrieve packet header and payload data from host memory to generate a packet that is sent to a transceiver for transmission.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W AYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6420. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/MICHAEL W AYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights