Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to communication filed 10/30/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretations
All the pending claims have been analyzed under 35 USC §101 and 35 USC §112 statutes. All the claims appear to be proper under these statutes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, applicant argues in substance that:
The FOA cites Bower as teaching …”out of band control messaging interface”…however, applicant respectfully disagrees with this…the element “that provides a dedicated management channel separate from primary data communication paths”. This amendment fundamentally distinguishes…and represents a critical architectural advancement over the prior art. Bower discloses…clustering connections between servers for monitoring and backup operations. However, this general clustering approach fails to provide a sophisticated communication architecture required by the claimed subject matter…these connections are not dedicated management channels, architecturally separate from primary data communication paths [remarks, pg. 7-8].
In response to argument [a], Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner would like to remind the applicant that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of specification.
>The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard.
The amended claim 1 merely recites “…out of band control messaging interface that provides a dedicated management channel separate from primary data communication paths in a multi-host environment…”
First, the claim fails to recite any form of sophisticated communication architecture as alleged by the applicant. The claim simply recites a control channel between two servers used for management purposes which is separate from primary data communication path used, a very well-known mechanism in the art used for management functionalities.
Bower, as acknowledged by the applicant, discloses an appropriate physical and logical connections (clustering connections) 31 between the two servers that form a failover cluster 30 for failover management. This clustering connection is a specialty connection that provides a faster connection speed between the two servers 12A and 12B, See Bower [0021].
This clustering or logical channel is specifically used in failover management. The primary server uses this dedicated communication channel to communicate the primary server’s state to the redundant server 12B, See Bower [0033, 0035]. In other words, the channel is specifically used for failover management or simply it’s a dedicated management channel used in management of the failover system.
This clustering or logical connection/channel is also separate from other primary data communication paths in a multi-host environment because as described in fig. 6 and [0045], the computer system 10 has a chassis with fourteen server bays 14. Each server bay 14 receives one of the fourteen blades 12. The blades 12 may include networked server blades, etc…The blades share system resources such as power, cooling and network connectivity provided by support modules in the chassis 10. The support modules includes…network switch module…provides network connectivity between the blade server I/O and the network. This network connectivity to the network for transmitting data is the primary data communication path between the servers and the network which is separate than the logical or clustering connections.
As such, Bower does teach the dedicated management channel which is separate from primary data communication paths.
(b) Building upon this architectural foundation, the FOA …controlling communications, but applicant respectfully disagrees that Bower teaches the specific type of communication control now claimed…The amendment adds the limitation “coordinating traffic rerouting to avoid disruption during host replacement, which represents a proactive coordination approach fundamentally different from Bower’s reactive failover methodology. Bower’s clustering system operates on a failure-response paradigm in which backup serves assume workloads after primary server failure, which inherently involves service disruption and recovery rather than coordinated rerouting to avoid it. The distinction is critical. Bower teaches…which describes post failure recovery rather than proactive coordination to avoid disruption…during replacement [remarks, pg. 8].
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. proactive coordination, sophisticated traffic management techniques that anticipate and prepare for host replacement before disruption occurs, traffic analysis, alternative path establishment, seamless transition orchestration) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In this case, applicant attempts to distinguish Bower post-failure recovery vs unclaimed proactive coordination however the claim does not recite nor teach that the monitored status of the host cannot be “failed” status. In fact, dependent claim 2 recites determining by the second host that the first host is being replaced. Clearly, this is due to failure being detected in the first host, and not because of proactive coordination, as evidenced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On other hand, Bower teaches once the primary server 12A fails and the redundant server 12B assumes workload of the primary server 12A, any clients are automatically reconnected from the primary server 12A to the redundant server 12B. Thus, during failover management, the traffic is rerouted from the primary server to the redundant server in order to avoid disruption when the primary server is troubleshooted or being replaced. See Bower [0004-0006] and [0037]. The whole purpose or goal of failover systems is to avoid downtime with the service availability.
Furthermore, applicant’s own specification does not support applicant arguments pertaining to proactive methodology because applicant’s own specification discloses FAILOVER procedures.
Failover mechanisms or procedures are well known in the art. It is well known in this technology that there is a primary or main component and a secondary or backup component and, in an event, primary component fails or is down, the secondary or backup component takes over the functionalities of the primary component.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In fact, claimed subject matter primarily focuses on controlling communications destined to the first host based on the monitored status of the first host which includes redirecting communications destined for the first NIC to a second NIC in an event first NIC is down (see claim 1 and claim 4).
The references teach away from the claimed subject matter (remarks, pg. 10).
First, applicant should note that “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations and quotations omitted).
See MPEP 2141.02 (VI) and In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004) [However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...."].
In this case, applicant asserts that Bower’s purpose and Ang’s purpose is different and is incompatible with the claimed subject matter’s requirement for active shared access to NICs. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, just because prior arts purposes are different, this does not make the prior art teach away from the claimed subject matter. Secondly, applicant fails to provide any evidence on why Bower and/or Ang references are incompatible with the claimed subject matter just for implementing the similar invention for different reasons or purpose.
Applicant also asserts that Ang is limited to single host context and does not suggest multi-host NIC sharing. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims merely recite “first host in a first server and second host in a second server”. It does not state whether the first and second servers are on a different computer system and are sharing a common NIC nor the claims differentiate between host and virtual machines, VMs.
On the other hand, both Bower and Ang disclose multi-host environment. Specifically, Ang discloses a multi-host NIC sharing environment [see the detailed updated claim mappings below].
Zhong constitutes non-analogous art (remarks, pg. 11).
Applicant asserts that “Zhong constitutes non-analogous art because Zhong relates to handover between heterogenous networks in mobile communication systems. The reference addresses media independent handovers for mobile terminals switching between different network access points. This is non-analogous to the claimed server-based multi-host environment where hosts share NICs within a fixed infrastructure.
In response to applicant's argument that Zhong is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, Zhong is an analogous art because Zhong is directed towards performing a handover from a source network to a destination network which includes the process of transitioning from old link/NIC corresponding to source network to the new link/NIC corresponding to the destination network, also known as Link handover [See 0006-0011, 0062, 0099]. This technology of Link handover is highly pertinent to applicant’s subject matter of failover to a new host/NIC and resetting or reinitializing the old link/NIC resources. Thus, the subject matter in Zhong is pertinent to the problem with which the applicant or inventor was concerned.
Zhong further adds that “handover can be initiated according to other requirements, for example, the current network interface needs maintenance”. This is highly pertinent to the problem applicant is trying to solve as seen in the following description of the specification:
PNG
media_image2.png
260
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, applicant arguments that “Zhong fails both criteria, mobile handover systems are not in the same field of endeavor as server-based multi-host NIC sharing systems and the problems addresses are entirely different: mobile handover focusses on maintaining connectivity during device movement, while the claimed subject matter addresses resource management during host replacement in a shared NIC environment” is not persuasive because Zhong’s invention can be applied during an instance where the original or first host or NIC needs maintenance and link handover is needed. In this case, the connection is transitioned or handover to new destination network and resources occupied by the old link are released.
For the at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower, III et al. (hereinafter Bower, US 2012/0151248 A1) in view of Ang et al. (hereinafter Ang, US 11,995,024 B2) in view of Droux et al. (hereinafter Droux, US 2015/0301844 A1) in view of Petrescu-Prahova et al. (hereinafter Petrescu, US 8,862,743 B1) and further in view of Cardona et al. (hereinafter Cardona, US 2015/0169418 A1).
As per claim 1, Bower discloses a method comprising:
monitoring a status of a first host in a first server by a second host in a second server using an out-of-band control messaging interface that provides a dedicated management channel separate from primary data communication paths in a multi-host environment [fig. 1, fig. 4#68, [0019], [0021], [0030, 0033-0034]: monitoring A or B via clustering connection 31 in a Multi-blade Chassis embodiment comprising number of servers/hosts, i.e. multi-host environment. The clustering connection is selected from variety of connection types, e.g. specialty connection to provide faster connection speed, [0021]. This clustering connection which is specifically used to cluster two or more servers for providing redundancy is separate from the main or primary data communication paths, fig. 6 and [0045] – the servers are connected to the network via network switch module which provides network connectivity between the blade server I/O and the network. This network connectivity is the primary data communications path];
controlling communications destined to the first host or directed through a first network interface controller corresponding to the first host and in the first server based on the status of the first host and wherein controlling communications includes coordinating traffic rerouting to avoid disruption during host replacement [fig. 4#76, [0033-0034, 0037]: Once the primary server 12A fails, redundant/backup server 12B assumes the workload of primary server 12A and any clients are automatically reconnected/redirected from the primary server 12A that has failed [thus requiring replacement or maintenance] to the redundant/backup server 12B. This process avoids disruption which is the sole goal of the highly-available systems, see [0004-0006]]; and
reversing roles or returning to previous roles [fig. 4 #80: backup can be new primary or old primary can be rolled back to new primary when the old primary is restored]. Note: This functionality may require various reconfiguration of hardware/software settings, i.e. management of resources. But, the reference is not relied upon to show this reconfiguration settings.
However, Bower does not disclose a multi-host environment where the first host and second host share access to a first network interface controller and a second network interface controller, wherein the first network interface controller includes virtual ports for managing traffic corresponding to both the first host and the second host and the process of managing resources on the first network interface controller (NIC) established for the second host based on the status of the first host, wherein managing resources includes dynamically allocating and deallocating memory and hardware resources on the shared first network interface controller based on host replacement status, and wherein managing resources includes releasing memory and hardware resources associated with the first host prior to replacement and subsequently rebuilding system memory and hardware resources for the replacement host to establish virtual ports on the first network interface controller.
Ang, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a method of sharing state between smart NICs in a multi-host environment where the first host and second host share access to a first network interface controller and a second network interface controller [fig. 1: VM1…VMn [host 1…n] are connected to multiple smart NICs through virtualization or via vNIC, fig. 9-13: VM1 can communicate with network or with VM2 via both its own primary physical port 905 and also second smart NIC physical port 960 or VF 945. Similarly, Smart NIC 920 is shared by both VM2 and VM 1], wherein the first network interface controller includes virtual ports for managing traffic corresponding to both the first host and the second host [fig. 1 item #161…162, fig. 10: item #940, fig. 13, col. 2 L42-67, virtual interfaces, col. 6 L8-52] and teaches managing resources [any form such as connection context or hardware] on the first NIC established for the second host based on the status of the first host or based on host replacement status [i.e. first NIC][col. 20 L23-63: updating connection context in each NIC card using tracker, col. 21 L32-51: move connection from failed NIC to second NIC for VM1, fig. 13, fig. 19-20: connection trackers share they dynamic state information. As such, in event of NIC failure, all connection info can be lost and can be restored on second NIC. Note: Here, the host replacement status can merely be failed NIC status, etc.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bower in view of Ang in order to incorporate multi-host environment where the first host and second host share access to a first network interface controller and a second network interface controller and manage resources on the first NIC established for the second host based on the status of the first host.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled the backup NIC to process the connections from the failed NIC and provide efficient failover [Ang: col. 19 L55 to col. 20 L8, L51-67].
However, Bower-Ang does not teach wherein managing resources includes dynamically allocating and deallocating memory and hardware resources on the shared first network interface controller based on host replacement status.
Droux, from the same field from endeavor, teaches a method for controlling a network interface controller [0014, 0021] and managing resources dynamically on the NIC [fig. 1: VM A and VM B both connected to network via shared NIC 102, where resources are allocated for A and B, fig. 2 step #212, fig. 3: step #314, reconfigure NIC resources based on instruction], wherein managing resources includes dynamically allocating memory and hardware resources on the shared first network interface controller [[0023]: resources that are allocated on NIC includes microprocessor, portions of memory, network ports, etc., [0030]: alter the resources based on OS instructions].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bower-Ang in view of Droux in order to incorporate dynamically allocating memory and hardware resources on the shared first network interface controller.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because NIC resources are required to perform transmission of data packets to/from the network [Droux, [0016-0017]].
However, Bower-Ang-Droux does not explicitly teach deallocating memory and hardware resources on the shared first network interface controller based on host replacement status and releasing memory and hardware resources associated with the first host prior to replacement and subsequently rebuilding system memory and hardware resources for the replacement host to establish virtual ports on the first network interface controller.
Petrescu, from the same field of endeavor, teaches dynamically deallocating memory and hardware resources on the shared first network interface controller based on host replacement status and releasing memory and hardware resources associated with the first host prior to replacement [col. 4 L39 to col. 5 L3, col. 5 L43-58: when a host fails, all resources for the host are deallocated or released. The resources include variety of types including hard disk, connection resources, VMs, virtual disk, etc.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bower-Ang-Droux in view of Petrescu in order to incorporate dynamically de-allocating or releasing memory and hardware resources on the shared first network interface controller based on host replacement status.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have freed-up resources when the resources are no longer required or needed via dynamic reconfiguration and enables the system to respond to and recover from unexpected events and resource failures, thus providing fault tolerant system [Petrescu: col. 2 L1-17].
However, Bower-Ang-Droux-Petrescu does not explicitly teach subsequently rebuilding system memory and hardware resources for the replacement host to establish virtual ports on the first network interface controller.
Cardona, from the same field of endeavor, teaches monitoring primary adapter for failure, initiating failover priming by setting up secondary adapter and rebuilding system memory and hardware resources for the secondary adapter [fig. 4A-4B, [0065-0067], [0080-0081]].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bower-Ang-Droux-Petrescu in view of Cardona in order to subsequently rebuilding system memory and hardware resources for the replacement host to establish virtual ports on the first network interface controller.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled or facilitated seamless transition of traffic handling from primary node to secondary node and takeover handling of traffic by secondary node [Cardona: [0066-0067], [0081]].
As per claim 2, Bower discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by a second host in a second server, the first host in the first server is being replaced [0034, 0043]: This process can be done in numerous ways. For example: via exchanging state information, failover status, receiving signal from management, etc.].
As per claim 3, Bower-Ang discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving a notification regarding a replacement of the first host via the out-of-band control messaging interface by the second host [Bower: fig. 5 #78, 80, [0043]: Backup that assumes workload of primary needs to know whether primary is failed, restored or not and then reverse roles or return to previous roles, fig. 1-2: connection between A and B, [0004]: scheduled downtime; Ang: col. 21 L16-42: sharing dynamic state information between smart NICs via private channel]. Note: This notification can include any form including backup, status or health information of the NIC.
As per claim 4, Bower-Ang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: redirecting communications through the first network interface controller to a second network interface controller corresponding to the second host and in the second server [Ang: col. 10 L50-60, fig. 10, fig. 19-20, col. 20 L23-63, col. 21 L32-51] in response to a replacement status of the first host [failed NIC], wherein the second host includes a primary communication link with the second network interface controller [Ang: fig. 9-13: VM1 connected to smart NIC 1 and smart NIC 2. In an event of a failure of NIC 1, data packets are rerouted via smart NIC 2 of vm 2]. Same rationale as in claim 1 applies.
As per claim 5, Bower-Ang discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: receiving a notification regarding a replaced status of the first host via the out-of-band control messaging interface by the second host [Bowers: [0043]: When primary is restored, the two servers can either reverse roles of the two servers or the former roles may be resumed whereby workload is passed back to the original primary server. Note: In order for the backup server to know to pass the workload back, it needs to know or must know that the primary server is restored and wants to take the former role back].
As per claims 11-15, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1-5. Therefore, claims 11-15 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-5.
Claim(s) 6-10 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower, III et al. (hereinafter Bower, US 2012/0151248 A1) in view of Ang et al. (hereinafter Ang, US 11,995,024 B2) in view of Droux et al. (hereinafter Droux, US 2015/0301844 A1) in view of Petrescu-Prahova et al. (hereinafter Petrescu, US 8,862,743 B1) in view of Cardona et al. (hereinafter Cardona, US 2015/0169418 A1) and further in view of Zhong et al. (hereinafter Zhong, US 2008/0304454 A1).
As per claim 6, Bower-Ang-Droux-Petrescu-Cardona discloses the method of claim 5 as set forth above, including receiving the notification [see claim 5].
However, Bower-Ang-Droux-Petrescu-CArdona does not disclose releasing resources established for the second host prior to the replaced status of the first host from the first network interface controller in response to receiving the notification.
Zhong teaches the process of releasing resources established for the old link or connection or occupied by the old connection [0062, 0099, 0250]: release resources for the old link after changing connections].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bower-Ang-Droux-Petrescu-Cardona in view of Zhang in order to release resources that were established for the second host prior to the replaced status of the first host from the first network interface controller in response to receiving the notification.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated in order to free up the resources for future connection use.
As per claim 7, Bower-Ang-Droux-Petrescu-Cardona-Zhang discloses the method of claim 6, wherein releasing the resources includes releasing memory and chip resources corresponding to stale communications of the second host over the first network interface [Zhang: 0062, 0099, 0250]: forwarding cached data packets from old connection to the new connection and then release resources for the old link after changing connections. The resources here include the cache which was used to store the data packets for the old connection/link]. Same rationale for modification as in claim 6 applies here.
As per claim 8, Bower-Ang-Droux-Petrescu-Cardona-Zhong discloses the method of claim 7 as set forth above.
However, Bower-Ang-Droux-Zhong does not teach a process of establishing a secondary communications link between the second host and the first network interface controller in response to receiving the notification regarding the replaced status of the first host.
Cardona teaches the process of establishing new secondary link between the second host and the first NIC in response to receiving the notification regarding the replaced status of the first host [0069-0070]: In response to addition of an adapter such as new or when primary is fixed, priming procedure is initiated by either primary or secondary adapter in order to establish a path to reach other adapters by exchanging addresses and configuration parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bower-Ang-Petrescu-Zhong in view of Cardona in order to re-establish a secondary link between the second host and the first NIC in an event the primary host is recovered or restored.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a backup connection to the second server for performing failover communications.
As per claim 9, Bower-Ang-Droux-Petrescu-Cardona-Zhong discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising establishing first and second host virtual ports on both the first and second network interface controllers [Ang: fig. 1: VFs on smart NIC1, smart NIC 2, etc. col. 6 L8-40: VFs]. Same rationale as in claim 1 applies.
As per claim 10, Bower-Ang-Droux-Cardona-Zhong discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising building system hardware resources on the first network interface controller for use by the second host [Ang: col. 6 L8-52: VFs allocated on smart NICs, col. 7 L3-9; Cardona: [0067, 0070]: priming connection involves priming local resources on the adapter which includes setting up of local buffers for the failover connection]. Same rationale as in claim 1 applies.
As per claims 16-17, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 6-7. Therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 6-7.
As per claims 18-20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 8-10. Therefore, claims 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 8-10.
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kashyap US 2006/0171303 A1: Mutual Failover and load balancing between interfaces in a network
Huang et al., US 2010/0097926 – Multiple Host share multiple interfaces [fig. 8]
Herring US 2005/0080933: Master-Slave Adapter
Aggarwal et al. US 11,474,916 B2: Failover of Virtual Devices in a scalable I/O virtualization architecture
Kashyap US 2009/0073875 A1: Mutual Failover and load balancing between interfaces in a network
Engebretsen et al., US 8,843,689 B2: Concurrent Repair of the PCIE Switch in Multi-switch, multi-adapter, multi-host system
Borlick et al. US 2019/0004581 A1: Preventing Unexpected power-up failures of hardware components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL B DIVECHA whose telephone number is 571-272-5863. The examiner can normally be reached IFP Normal Hours M-F: 6am-2pm EST.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 5712721667. 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.
KAMAL B. DIVECHA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453