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, 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, 3-10, 12-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SZE David et al. (Patent No: WO 2018/112657 A1), hereinafter, David, in view of Mark DEBBAGE et al. (Patent No: US 2021/0119930 A1), hereinafter, DEBBAGE.
Regarding Claim 1, David teaches,
A system comprising: a transmitting device comprising a multipath traffic scheduler, wherein the multipath traffic scheduler comprises a send buffer; -Fig. 1; Paragraph [0042, 0086, 0122] ([0042] recites, “FIG. 1 is a block schematic of a system having two gateways, each containing a buffer manager, an operations engine, a connection controller, a network characteristic monitoring unit, a flow classification engine (handling flow identification and classification), a scheduler and a sequencer, and linked by N data connections, with each gateway connected to a particular endpoint..” As shown in Fig. 1, the transmitting device may be Gateway A (104) with buffer manager (150) as the send buffer.)
and a receiving device, comprising a reordering module; -Fig. 5, 6; Paragraph [0065-0066, 0088, 0120, 0129 ] (Fig. 5 (508) shows sequencer (reordering module at the multipath receiver end. [0066] recites, “During data transmission, data generated by the application is segmented into data packets and these data packets or segments have information (e.g., "headers") prepended as they are encapsulated for transmission. The headers contain information utilized during transmission that indicate, for example, the sequence number associated with each segment of data. The sequence number is utilized by a receiving device such that segments of data can be reordered and re-constructed despite segments of data being received out of order, lost (e.g., a retransmission may be requested), delayed, corrupted, etc.”)
wherein the multipath traffic scheduler is configured to schedule packets for transmission over at least two paths, -Fig. 5; Paragraph [0129] (As shown in Fig 5., smart scheduler is transmitting to receiver over multiple paths (3, In this example) and can be configured for any number of paths. [0129] recites, “The scheduler 160, in some embodiments, need not be configured to communicate packets across in the correct order, and rather is configured for communicating the packets across the diverse connections to meet or exceed the desired QoS/QoE metrics”)
wherein each packet comprises a sequence identifier wherein the send-buffer is configured to temporarily store the packets for a configurable amount of time; -Paragraph [0097][0154-0162] ([0097] recites, “The buffer manager 150 is configured to set buffers within the gateway that are adapted to more efficiently manage traffic (both individual flows and the combination of multiple simultaneous flows going through the system)….” The configuration sets the buffer to store packets for certain (configurable) amount of time)
wherein the reordering module is configured to receive packets through the at least two paths, and reorder the received packets sequentially based on identifiers of the received packets; -Fig. 5 (508); Paragraph [0066](As shown in Fig.5 the reordering module (sequencer) receives packets from more than two paths and reorder based on packet ID. [0066] recites, “The headers contain information utilized during transmission that indicate, for example, the sequence number associated with each segment of data. The sequence number is utilized by a receiving device such that segments of data can be reordered and re-constructed despite segments of data being received out of order, lost (e.g., a retransmission may be requested), delayed, corrupted, etc.”)
wherein the transmitting device is configured to resend a transmitted packet which was not received by the receiving device; -Paragraph [0065, 0140] ([0065] recites, “The sequence number is utilized by a receiving device such that segments of data can be reordered and re-constructed despite segments of data being received out of order, lost (e.g., a retransmission may be requested)” [0140] recites, “For packet retransmission, the sequencer 162 may be configured to request lost packets immediately over the "best" (most reliable, lowest latency) connection. “)
Although implicit, David does not explicitly mention,
and wherein the multipath traffic scheduler further comprises an interface for external adjustment of transmission reliability of the system through which transmission reliability of the system is tunable based on adjustment of a number of allowed re-transmissions of a not received packet and/or adjustment of a dimension of the send buffer.
However, in an analogous invention DEBBAGE teaches,
and wherein the multipath traffic scheduler further comprises an interface for external adjustment of transmission reliability of the system through which transmission reliability of the system is tunable -Fig. 1, 3, 12-14; Paragraph [0170-0171, 0208-0212] (Fig. 3 shows the generic reliable communication architecture between a sending and a receiving node. Fig. 12-14 shows the procedure (flow chart of reliability adjustment) with external adjustment through interface (NIC). [0170-0171] recites, “Software and NIC guided differentiation of flows at the edge, extended TCs and/or packet queuing at the switch based on packet level fields/markers, supporting mechanisms in NICs and switches for buffer management and priority scheduling. Flow differentiation can provide differentiation of flows to help NIC and switches to modify dynamic buffer allocation and scheduling according to the type of flow. The flow differentiation can occur either within the switch or at the NIC. Various embodiments can differentiate flows at the NIC level and let the switch do the necessary buffering and queuing as dictated by the NIC” [0208-0212] recites, “Network interface 1400 can include transceiver 1402, processors 1404, transmit queue 1406, receive queue 1408, memory 1410, and bus interface 1412, and DMA engine 1452… Transmit queue 1406 can include data or references to data for transmission by network interface…” From the Figures and above description, it is easily understandable to an ordinary person with the skill in the art that transmission reliability can be adjusted through external interface by dynamically adjusting the size of send buffer (transmit queue).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “PACKET TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND METHOD” proposed by David to include the concept of “the multipath traffic scheduler further comprises an interface for external adjustment of transmission reliability of the system through which transmission reliability of the system is tunable based on adjustment of a dimension of the send buffer.” of DEBBAGE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce loads on networks and reduce latency associated with retransmission of lost packets [0002].
Regarding Claim 3, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
David further teaches,
The system of claim 1, wherein the send-buffer comprises a respective path-specific send-buffer for each of the at least two paths, and each path-specific send-buffer is configured to temporarily store the packets for its respective path for a predetermined amount of time. -Paragraph [0023, 0086] ([0086] recites, “A number of different data connections 106 (e.g. , "paths") representing one or more networks (or network channels) is shown, labelled as Connection 1 , Connection 2.. Connection N. There may be multiple data connections / paths across a single network, or multiple data connections that may use one or more networks [0023] recites, “a buffer manager configured to receive a flow (sequence of input data packets) from one or more input data connections, the buffer manager storing the input data packets in one or more buffers to be extracted for routing, each input data packet being associated with a corresponding sequence number representing an order in the flow or sequence; a connection controller configured to interface with a plurality of data connections, each of the data connections having different transmission characteristics; and a scheduler configured to control the operation of the buffer manager by generating instructions that are executed by the buffer manager to control routing of the input data packets from the one or more buffers through the plurality of data connections, the routing determining, for each individual input data packet, (i) a corresponding data connection through which the individual input data packet will be transmitted, and (ii) a connection-specific timing or sequence in which the individual input data packet will be transmitted on the corresponding data connection. “)
Regarding Claim 4, David and DEBBAGE teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
David further teaches,
The system of claim 1, wherein the reordering module is further configured to send an acknowledgment or a negative-acknowledgment to the transmitting device based on determining whether a respective packet was received successfully and/or detected outstanding; and wherein the transmitting device is further configured to receive the acknowledgement or negative-acknowledgement sent from the receiving device, and to delete a respective packet from the send-buffer for which a respective acknowledgement was received. -Paragraph [0017, 0132, 0140] ([0017] recites, “the processor is configured for: receiving packets from a source interface for routing to a destination node via the plurality of network connections; transmitting acknowledgements to the source interface before routing the packets to the destination node; and storing the packets in at least one buffer before the packets are routed to the destination node.” [0132] recites, “…The sequencer 162 may include, for example, a buffer or other mechanism for smoothening out the received flow, and in some embodiments, is configured to control the transmission of acknowledgements and storage of the packets based on monitored of transmission characteristics of the plurality of network connections…”[0140] recites, “…For packet retransmission, the sequencer 162 may be configured to request lost packets immediately over the "best" (most reliable, lowest latency) connection.”)
Regarding Claim 5, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 4.
David further teaches,
The system of claim 4, wherein, the transmitting device is further configured to: based on determining that no acknowledgement or negative-acknowledgement is received for one or more transmitted packets, check whether one or more transmitted packets are stored in the send-buffer, and resend each stored transmitted packet at a configurable time. -Paragraph [0023, 0140, 0143 ]([0023] recites, “ a buffer manager configured to receive a flow (sequence of input data packets) from one or more input data connections, the buffer manager storing the input data packets in one or more buffers to be extracted for routing, each input data packet being associated with a corresponding sequence number representing an order in the flow or sequence; a connection controller configured to interface with a plurality of data connections, each of the data connections having different transmission characteristics; and a scheduler configured to control the operation of the buffer manager by generating instructions that are executed by the buffer manager to control routing of the input data packets from the one or more buffers through the plurality of data connections, the routing determining, for each individual input data packet, (i) a corresponding data connection through which the individual input data packet will be transmitted, and (ii) a connection-specific timing or sequence in which the individual input data packet will be transmitted on the corresponding data connection.” [0140] recites, “the sequencer 162 may, for example, utilize larger jitter buffers on connections that exhibit larger latency variations. For packet retransmission, the sequencer 162 may be configured to request lost packets immediately over the "best" (most reliable, lowest latency) connection.”[0143] recites, “… In this example, if a receiver receives packets 1 , 2, 4, 5, 6, it will send ACK (2) three times (once for each of packets 4/5/6).The sender then is configured to recognize that this event may hint that packet 3 is likely lost in the network, and pre-emptively retransmits it before any normal retransmission time-out (RTO) timers expire.” From the above description, it is easily understandable to an ordinary person with the skill in the art that the sender (transmitting device) based on receiving request for the lost packets (negative acknowledgement) or determining the sent packet is lost, resend the lost (not acknowledged) packets from the send buffer before RTO)
Regarding Claim 6, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
David further teaches,
The system of claim 1, wherein the reordering module is configured to initiate a resend-request to the transmitting device based on monitoring the sequence identifiers of the received packets. -Paragraph [0066, 0216] ([0066] recites, “The sequence number is utilized by a receiving device such that segments of data can be reordered and re-constructed despite segments of data being received out of order, lost (e.g., a retransmission may be requested)…” [0216] recites, “Where packets are received out of order or lost, the sequencer 162 may be configured to request the packet be re-sent across a determined most reliable connection…..”)
Regarding Claim 7, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
David further teaches,
The system of claim 1, wherein the transmitting device is configured to anticipate a packet retransmission from the send-buffer. -Paragraph [0136, 0139, 0142 ] ([0139] recites, “the sequencer 162 is configured to monitor (based on data maintained by the operations engine 152) the latency variation jitter) of each data connection, along with the packet loss, to predict, based on connection reliability, which data connections are likely to delay packets beyond what is expected by the flow (meaning that the endpoints 102 and 1 10 would consider them lost and invoke their error correction routines).” [0142] recites, “…the sequencer 162 may be configured to perform predictive determinations regarding how the protocol (and/or related applications) might behave with respect to mis-ordered packets…” [0136] recites, “…The system may also be configured to retransmit missing packets sooner than the time bound based on heuristics…”)
Regarding Claim 8, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 7.
David further teaches,
The system of claim 7, wherein the transmitting device is configured to anticipate a-the packet retransmission from the send send-buffer based on cross layer information. -Fig. 1; Paragraph [0139] ([0139] recites, “the sequencer 162 is configured to monitor (based on data maintained by the operations engine 152) the latency variation jitter) of each data connection, along with the packet loss, to predict, based on connection reliability, which data connections are likely to delay packets beyond what is expected by the flow (meaning that the endpoints 102 and 1 10 would consider them lost and invoke their error correction routines).” As explained for Claim 7 and also above the prediction (anticipation of packet loss etc.) based on connection reliability information across multiple paths (layers))
Regarding Claim 9, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 7.
Although, it is not clear exactly what the applicant means by cross layer information and outstanding acknowledgements, however, it is easily conceived by an ordinary person with the skill in the art that these terms can be easily included within the scope of connection reliability as stated above in [0139].
Claim 10 is also rejected under the same rational as Claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 12, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
David further teaches,
The system of Claim 1, wherein the reordering module is configured to perform adjustable packet loss detection by using latency information. -Paragraph [0136, 0199] ([0199] recites, “the scheduler 160 and the sequencer 162 only need to reorder the packets enough so that the protocol (e.g. TCP) or application does not incorrectly treat the packets that are still being buffered/transferred as lost. For example, various protocols/applications may be using a multiple of the RTT as an indicator to decide whether or not a packet has been lost” [0136] recites, “…However, the system is configured to establish a time bound on when it expects out of order packets to arrive (usually some multiple of the round trip time or RTT)….” RTT is the latency information.)
Regarding Claim 13, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
David further teaches,
The system of any of claims claim 1, wherein the configurable amount of time is statically or dynamically determined based on: receipt of acknowledgement (ACK) information, negative-acknowledgement (NACK) information, a bandwidth-delay product (BDP), a static value, a buffer level, and/or latency. -Fig. 5; Paragraph [0136, 0151-0155, 0199, 0217-0218] ([0199] recites, “..the scheduler 160 and/or the sequencer 162 may be operable to reduce extreme variability in the buffer time of packets.” [0151] recites, “ If the amount buffered exceeds the limit, a flow control message is sent to 104, to tell it to temporarily stop opportunistically ACKing data sent from endpoint 102. When the amount buffered eventually drops below the limit, a flow control message is sent to 104 to tell it to resume opportunistically ACKing. Limits may be static thresholds, or for example, calculated dynamically taking into account factors such as the aggregate BDP of all connections 106, and the total number of data flows currently being handled by the system.”[0155] recites, “ A difference between "overbuffering" and "buffering" is that the buffer manager may buffer different amounts based on flow requirements, and based on how the connection BDP changes in real time. “[0217-0218] recites, “FIG. 5 is provided to illustrate the use of bandwidth delay product (BDP) and stickiness in relation to multi data connection routing of TCP packets…. Taking the case of FIG. 5, each of the 3 connections depicted at 506 has a different bandwidth-delay product (BDP). The illustrated BDPs and latencies are provided merely as examples and other values are possible.”)
Regarding Claim 14, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
David further teaches,
The system of Claim 1 wherein the multipath traffic scheduler is configured to re-send packets over a different path relative to an original path. -Paragraph [0140] ([0140] recites, “For packet retransmission, the sequencer 162 may be configured to request lost packets immediately over the "best" (most reliable, lowest latency) connection.” As described above the scheduler may re-send packets over a different path “best” (most reliable) at that time.)
Claim 16 is the method Claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 which is rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1 above. Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claim 17 is essentially same as Claim 3 except Claim 3 dependent claim of independent Claim 1, whereas, Claim 17 is dependent claim of independent Claim 16. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 3 which is rejected above. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 3.
Claim 18 is essentially same as Claim 14 except Claim 14 dependent claim of independent Claim 1, whereas, Claim 18 is dependent claim of independent Claim 16. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 14 which is rejected above. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 19, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 12.
David further teaches,
The system of claim 12, wherein the latency information includes round- trip time (RTT) or one-way latency. -Paragraph [0136, 0199] ([0199] recites, “the scheduler 160 and the sequencer 162 only need to reorder the packets enough so that the protocol (e.g. TCP) or application does not incorrectly treat the packets that are still being buffered/transferred as lost. For example, various protocols/applications may be using a multiple of the RTT as an indicator to decide whether or not a packet has been lost” [0136] recites, “…However, the system is configured to establish a time bound on when it expects out of order packets to arrive (usually some multiple of the round trip time or RTT)….”)
Regarding Claim 20, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, David does not explicitly mention,
The system of claim 1, wherein the transmission reliability of the system is tunable via the interface based on adjustment of the number of allowed re-transmissions.
However, in an analogous invention, DEBBAGE teaches,
The system of claim 1, wherein the transmission reliability of the system is tunable via the interface based on adjustment of the number of allowed re-transmissions. -Paragraph[0137, 0170-0171] ([0137] recites, “ A sender can track Global Retransmission State, which can include resend buf and a map. The resend_buf can map from (RLC (Reliability Layer Connection) ID, path ID, PSN) to the original GSN and packet payload or to a “packet descriptor” allowing the payload to be re-fetched from the transport layer. The Map (e.g., a hash table) can map (connection, path id, PSN) to packet descriptor and GSN. This state can track all outstanding packets, for possible packet retransmission. A maximum number of outstanding packets scales with the sender bandwidth and the maximum RTT for retransmission. They can be stored in a single consolidated table for all connections, so that the size of the table need not scale with a number of connections.” [0170-0171] recites, “Software and NIC guided differentiation of flows at the edge, extended TCs and/or packet queuing at the switch based on packet level fields/markers, supporting mechanisms in NICs and switches for buffer management and priority scheduling. Flow differentiation can provide differentiation of flows to help NIC and switches to modify dynamic buffer allocation and scheduling according to the type of flow. The flow differentiation can occur either within the switch or at the NIC. Various embodiments can differentiate flows at the NIC level and let the switch do the necessary buffering and queuing as dictated by the NIC” As explained above NIC dictates dynamic buffer allocation and priority scheduling and can adjust buffer size and retention period according to number of allowed re-transmission. It is easily understandable to an ordinary person with the skill in the art that greater the number of allowable re-transmission, bigger is the size of send-buffer and longer is the time to store the packet in the buffer.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “PACKET TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND METHOD” proposed by David to include the concept of “the transmission reliability of the system is tunable via the interface based on adjustment of the number of allowed re-transmissions” of DEBBAGE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce loads on networks and reduce latency associated with retransmission of lost packets [0002].
Regarding Claim 21, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, David does not explicitly mention,
The system of claim 1, wherein the transmission reliability of the system is tunable via the interface based on adjustment of the number of allowed re-transmissions and based on adjustment of the dimension of the send-buffer.
However, in an analogous invention, DEBBAGE teaches,
The system of claim 1, wherein the transmission reliability of the system is tunable via the interface based on adjustment of the number of allowed re-transmissions and based on adjustment of the dimension of the send-buffer. -Paragraph[0137, 0170-0171] ([0137] recites, “ A sender can track Global Retransmission State, which can include resend buf and a map. The resend_buf can map from (RLC (Reliability Layer Connection) ID, path ID, PSN) to the original GSN and packet payload or to a “packet descriptor” allowing the payload to be re-fetched from the transport layer. The Map (e.g., a hash table) can map (connection, path id, PSN) to packet descriptor and GSN. This state can track all outstanding packets, for possible packet retransmission. A maximum number of outstanding packets scales with the sender bandwidth and the maximum RTT for retransmission. They can be stored in a single consolidated table for all connections, so that the size of the table need not scale with a number of connections.” [0170-0171] recites, “Software and NIC guided differentiation of flows at the edge, extended TCs and/or packet queuing at the switch based on packet level fields/markers, supporting mechanisms in NICs and switches for buffer management and priority scheduling. Flow differentiation can provide differentiation of flows to help NIC and switches to modify dynamic buffer allocation and scheduling according to the type of flow. The flow differentiation can occur either within the switch or at the NIC. Various embodiments can differentiate flows at the NIC level and let the switch do the necessary buffering and queuing as dictated by the NIC” As explained above NIC dictates dynamic buffer allocation and priority scheduling and can adjust buffer size and retention period according to number of allowed re-transmission. It is easily understandable to an ordinary person with the skill in the art that greater the number of allowable re-transmission, bigger is the size of send-buffer and longer is the time to store the packet in the buffer.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “PACKET TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND METHOD” proposed by David to include the concept of “the transmission reliability of the system is tunable via the interface based on adjustment of the number of allowed re-transmissions and based on adjustment of the dimension of the send-buffer” of DEBBAGE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce loads on networks and reduce latency associated with retransmission of lost packets [0002].
Claims 2, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David
in view of DEBBAGE and further in view of Amend Markus et al. (Patent No: EP 3544332 A1), hereinafter, Amend.
Regarding Claim 2, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, David does not explicitly teach,
The system of claim 1, wherein transmission over the at least two paths is performed through a tunnel connection using a Virtual Network Interface- VNI.
However, in an analogous invention Amend teaches,
The system of claim 1, wherein transmission over the at least two paths is performed through a tunnel connection using a Virtual Network Interface- VNI. -Paragraph [0010, 0052] ([0010] recites, “invention relates to a multipath scheduler device for scheduling data traffic for transmission via at least one first type data path and at least one second type data path,…”[0052] recites, “a generic approach for multipath usage, where each of the above mentioned protocols, i.e. MPTCP, Multipath QUIC and Huawei's GRE Tunnel Bonding Protocol can be applied…”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “PACKET TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND METHOD” proposed by David to include the concept of “transmission over the at least two paths is performed through a tunnel connection using a Virtual Network Interface- VNI” of Amend . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to profit from an increased capacity [0052].
Regarding Claim 15, David and DEBBAGE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, David does not explicitly teach,
The system of claim 1, wherein the multipath traffic scheduler is combined with one of the following protocols:
Multipath Datagram Congestion Control Protocol ( MP-DCCP), Multipath Quick User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Internet Connections ( MP-QUIC), UDP, Internet Protocol (IP)-in-IP, or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel Bonding.
However, in an analogous invention Amend teaches,
The system of claim 1, wherein the multipath traffic scheduler is combined with one of the following protocols:
Multipath Datagram Congestion Control Protocol ( MP-DCCP), Multipath Quick User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Internet Connections ( MP-QUIC), UDP, Internet Protocol (IP)-in-IP, or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel Bonding.-Paragraph [0052] ([0052] recites, “a generic approach for multipath usage, where each of the above mentioned protocols, i.e. MPTCP, Multipath QUIC and Huawei's GRE Tunnel Bonding Protocol can be applied…”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “PACKET TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND METHOD” proposed by David to include the concept of “the multipath traffic scheduler is combined with one of the following protocols: Multipath Datagram Congestion Control Protocol ( MP-DCCP), Multipath Quick User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Internet Connections ( MP-QUIC), UDP, Internet Protocol (IP)-in-IP, or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel Bonding” of Amend . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to profit from an increased capacity [0052].
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights