DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 17 are independent.
This office action is Non-Final.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6 – 9, 11, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brey et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0035611 A1, hereinafter “Brey”).
As per claim 1, Brey teaches a method comprising:
determining, by a controller of a device, a power draw value of the device, wherein the device is associated with a plurality of descendant devices of the device [Advanced Management Module (AMM 14) and Baseboard Management Controller (BMC 20) monitors power consumption (P) of servers 12, step 122, fig. 2C, 0014, 0028];
comparing, by the controller of the device, the power draw value of the device to a restriction on power draw of the device, wherein the restriction on the power draw of the device is (a) a budget constraint assigned to the device or (b) a power cap threshold imposed on the device [step 124, fig. 2C and step 144, fig. 2D show checking if power consumption (P) is approaching or exceeding (Pcap), 0007, 0028]; and
responsive to determining, by the controller of the device, that the power draw value of the device exceeds the restriction on the power draw of the device:
based, at least in part, on a set of one or more attributes indicating a current state of the plurality of descendant devices of the device, determining, by the controller of the device, a set of one or more power cap thresholds for a set of one or more descendant devices of the device, wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor [steps 148 and 150, fig. 2D 0005, 0014, 0027, 0028: chassis controller 14 dynamically varying and allocating individual server power caps (Pcap) to keep total power consumption within chassis limits].
As per claim 6, Brey teaches the method of claim 1: wherein the plurality of descendant devices comprises a first descendant device and a second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more attributes comprises (a) a first health metric associated with the first descendant device and (b) a second health metric associated with the second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds is determined based, at least in part, on the first health metric associated with the first descendant device and the second health metric associated with the second descendant device indicating that the first descendant device is healthier than the second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises at least one of (a) a first power cap threshold for the first descendant device or (b) a second power cap threshold for the second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises the second power cap threshold for the second descendant device; and wherein the second power cap threshold for the second descendant device is more restrictive than the first power cap threshold for the first descendant device [0027].
As per claim 7, Brey teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises a first power cap threshold for a first descendant device, wherein the first descendant device is comprised within the plurality of descendant devices of the device, wherein electricity is distributed from the device to the first descendant device, wherein the first descendant device is managed by a first descendant controller, wherein the first descendant controller is a child controller of the controller of the device, and further comprising: determining, by the first descendant controller, a first power draw value of the first descendant device, wherein the first descendant device is associated with a first plurality of descendants of the first descendant device; subsequent to receiving, by the first descendant controller, the first power cap threshold for the first descendant device from the controller of the device: comparing, by the first descendant controller, the first power draw value of the first descendant device to the first power cap threshold for the first descendant device; and responsive to determining, by the first descendant controller, that the first power draw value of the first descendant device exceeds the first power cap threshold for the first descendant device: based, at least in part, on a first set of one or more attributes indicating a first current state of the first plurality of descendant devices of the first descendant device, determining, by the first descendant controller, a first set of one or more power cap thresholds for a first set of one or more descendant devices of the first descendant device [fig. 1, 0014, 0028: parent chassis controller AMM 14 sends a (Pcap) threshold to child descendent controller (BMC 20) on blade server 12A, which in turn measures local power draw and manages lower-level processor power states].
As per claim 8, Brey teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the controller of the device is a leaf-level controller, wherein the plurality of descendant devices comprises a first host, wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises a first power cap threshold for the first host, wherein the first host is managed by a baseboard management controller (BMC), and further comprising: subsequent to receiving, by the BMC, the first power cap threshold for the first host from the controller of the device: restricting, by the BMC, power consumption of the first host in accordance with the first power cap threshold for the first host, wherein restricting the power consumption of the first host comprises at least one of: (a) restricting a first amount of power consumed by a graphics processing unit (GPU) of the first host, (b) restricting a second amount of power consumed by a central processing unit (CPU) of the first host, or (c) shutting down the first host [0006, 0014, 0015, 0023, 0028: BMC 20 enforcing CPU P-state reduction via PECI 36 or SMI handler 38].
As per claim 9, Brey teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of descendant devices comprises a first descendant device, wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises a first power cap threshold for the first descendant device, and further comprising: enforcing the first power cap threshold by performing at least one of: (a) preventing an additional user instance from being assigned to a host, wherein the first descendant device is either (a) an ancestor device of the host or (b) the host, (b) restricting, by a user instance controller of the host, activity of a user instance currently assigned to the host, wherein the user instance controller is comprised within a hypervisor level of the host, or (c) restricting, by an enforcement agent, activity of a user associated with the user instance currently assigned to the host, wherein the enforcement agent is executing on a computer system of the user [fig. 1, 0006, 0014: in band OS/Hypervisor level control].
As per claim 11, Brey teaches the method of claim 1: wherein electricity is being distributed to the device from a first ancestor device of the device; wherein the electricity is being distributed from the device to the plurality of descendant devices; wherein the restriction on the power draw of the device is the power cap threshold imposed on the device; wherein the power cap threshold is imposed on the device by a first ancestor controller of the first ancestor device; wherein the first ancestor controller is a parent controller of the controller of the device; and wherein the first ancestor controller of the first ancestor device determines the power cap threshold imposed on the device based, at least in part, on at least one of: (a) a level of priority of a workload associated with the device, (b) a health metric associated with the device, or (c) an occupancy level associated with the device [fig. 1, 0014, 0028: parent chassis controller AMM 14 sends a (Pcap) threshold to child descendent controller (BMC 20) on blade server 12A, which in turn measures local power draw and manages lower-level processor power states].
As per claim 14, Brey teaches the method of claim 13, wherein determining the actual or predicted impact of assigning the workload to the first candidate device comprises: training a machine learning model to determine actual or predicted impacts of assigning user instances to hosts with sets of training data, wherein a set of training data of the sets of training data defines an association between (a) assigning a particular user instance to a particular host and (b) a particular impact of assigning the particular user instance to the particular host; applying the machine learning model to determine the actual or predicted impact of assigning the workload to the first candidate device; obtaining feedback regarding the actual or predicted impact of assigning the workload to the first candidate device; and further training the machine learning model based on the feedback regarding the actual or predicted impact of assigning the workload to the first candidate device [0028: control loop feedback system].
As per claim 17, Brey teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising: determining, by a controller of a device, a power draw value of the device, wherein the device is associated with a plurality of descendant devices of the device [Advanced Management Module (AMM 14) and Baseboard Management Controller (BMC 20) monitors power consumption (P) of servers 12, step 122, fig. 2C, 0014, 0028]; comparing, by the controller of the device, the power draw value of the device to a restriction on power draw of the device, wherein the restriction on the power draw of the device is (a) a budget constraint assigned to the device or (b) a power cap threshold imposed on the device [step 124, fig. 2C and step 144, fig. 2D show checking if power consumption (P) is approaching or exceeding (Pcap), 0007, 0028]; and responsive to determining, by the controller of the device, that the power draw value of the device exceeds the restriction on the power draw of the device: based, at least in part, on a set of one or more attributes indicating a current state of the plurality of descendant devices of the device, determining, by the controller of the device, a set of one or more power cap thresholds for a set of one or more descendant devices of the device [steps 148 and 150, fig. 2D 0005, 0014, 0027, 0028: chassis controller 14 dynamically varying and allocating individual server power caps (Pcap) to keep total power consumption within chassis limits; 0040 - 0046].
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.
Claims 2-4, and 18- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brey et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0035611 A1, hereinafter “Brey”), in view of Allen-Ware et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0267597 A1, hereinafter “Allen-Ware”).
As per claim 2, Brey teaches the method of claim 1. However, Brey does not explicitly teach “…wherein the plurality of descendant devices comprises a first descendant device; wherein the set of one or more attributes comprises at least one of: (a) a first level of priority of a first workload associated with the first descendant device, (b) a first health metric associated with the first descendant device, or (c) a first occupancy level associated with the first descendant device…”.
Allen-Ware is cited to teach a mechanism for power capping power consumption devices with multiple power supplies. A set of power supplies supplying power to a power consumption device having stranded power is determined. A power budget of one or more power supplies in the set of power supplies is adjusted to match a power budget of a power supply in the set of power supplies with a limiting power budget among the power budgets computed for each power supply in the set of power supplies.
Both Allen-Ware and Brey are directed toward power management and allocation during peak workload demands.
As per claim 2, Allen-Ware teaches the method of claim 1: wherein the plurality of descendant devices comprises a first descendant device; wherein the set of one or more attributes comprises at least one of: (a) a first level of priority of a first workload associated with the first descendant device, (b) a first health metric associated with the first descendant device, or (c) a first occupancy level associated with the first descendant device [servers assigned “Priority 1” and “Priority 0”, fig.3, fig.4, and fig. 6A, 0057: higher priority workloads (Priority 1) are allocated their requested demand first, while lower priority workloads (Priority 0) receive more restrictive power budgets when restrictions are met].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the priority-based allocation rules of Allen-Ware with the chassis controller architecture of Brey to ensure that high-priority/critical workloads retain maximum processing capacity while lower-priority descendent devices absorb power caps, resulting in optimized power distribution.
As per claim 3, Allen-Ware1 teaches the method of claim 1: wherein the plurality of descendant devices comprises a first descendant device and a second descendant device; wherein a first workload is currently assigned to the first descendant device and a second workload is currently assigned to the second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more attributes comprises (a) a first level of priority associated with the first workload and (b) a second level of priority associated with the second workload; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds is determined based, at least in part, on the first level of priority associated with the first workload being greater than the second level of priority associated with the second workload; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises at least one of (a) a first power cap threshold for the first descendant device or (b) a second power cap threshold for the second descendant device; and wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises the second power cap threshold for the second descendant device; wherein the second power cap threshold for the second descendant device is more restrictive than the first power cap threshold for the first descendant device [fig. 3, fig.4, fig.6A, 0057: higher priority workloads (Priority 1) are allocated their requested demand first, while lower priority workloads (Priority 0) receive more restrictive power budgets when restrictions are met].
As per claim 4, Allen-Ware teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the first descendant device is a first host, wherein the second descendant device is a second host, wherein the first workload is a first user instance, wherein the first user instance is associated with a first user, wherein the second workload is a second user instance, wherein the second user instance is associated with a second user, and further comprising: prior to determining the set of one or more power cap thresholds: determining the first level of priority associated with the first workload based, at least in part, on a first set of metadata associated with the first user; determining the second level of priority associated with the second workload based, at least in part, on a second set of metadata associated with the second user [fig. 3, fig.4, fig.6A, 0057: higher priority workloads (Priority 1) are allocated their requested demand first, while lower priority workloads (Priority 0) receive more restrictive power budgets when restrictions are met].
As per claim 18, Allen-Ware teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17: wherein the plurality of descendant devices comprises a first descendant device; wherein the set of one or more attributes comprises at least one of: (a) a first level of priority of a first workload associated with the first descendant device, (b) a first health metric associated with the first descendant device, or (c) a first occupancy level associated with the first descendant device [servers assigned “Priority 1” and “Priority 0”, fig.3, fig.4, and fig. 6A, 0057: higher priority workloads (Priority 1) are allocated their requested demand first, while lower priority workloads (Priority 0) receive more restrictive power budgets when restrictions are met].
As per claim 19, Allen-Ware teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17: wherein the plurality of descendant devices comprises a first descendant device and a second descendant device; wherein a first workload is currently assigned to the first descendant device and a second workload is currently assigned to the second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more attributes comprises (a) a first level of priority associated with the first workload and (b) a second level of priority associated with the second workload; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds is determined based, at least in part, on the first level of priority associated with the first workload being greater than the second level of priority associated with the second workload; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises at least one of (a) a first power cap threshold for the first descendant device or (b) a second power cap threshold for the second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises the second power cap threshold for the second descendant device; and wherein the second power cap threshold for the second descendant device is more restrictive than the first power cap threshold for the first descendant device [fig. 3, fig.4, fig.6A, 0057: higher priority workloads (Priority 1) are allocated their requested demand first, while lower priority workloads (Priority 0) receive more restrictive power budgets when restrictions are met].
As per claim 20, Allen-Ware teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 19, wherein the first descendant device is a first host, wherein the second descendant device is a second host, wherein the first workload is a first user instance, wherein the first user instance is associated with a first user, wherein the second workload is a second user instance, wherein the second user instance is associated with a second user, and further comprising: prior to determining the set of one or more power cap thresholds: determining the first level of priority associated with the first workload based, at least in part, on a first set of metadata associated with the first user; determining the second level of priority associated with the second workload based, at least in part, on a second set of metadata associated with the second user [fig. 3, fig.4, fig.6A, 0057: higher priority workloads (Priority 1) are allocated their requested demand first, while lower priority workloads (Priority 0) receive more restrictive power budgets when restrictions are met].
Claims 5, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brey et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0035611 A1, hereinafter “Brey”), in view of Busch et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0098593 A1, hereinafter “Busch”).
As per claim 5, Brey teaches the method of claim 1. However, Brey does not explicitly teach “… wherein the plurality of descendant devices comprises a first descendant device and a second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more attributes comprises (a) a first level of occupancy associated with the first descendant device and (b) a second level of occupancy associated with the second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds is determined based, at least in part, on the first level of occupancy associated with the first descendant device being greater than the second level of occupancy associated with the second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises at least one of (a) a first power cap threshold for the first descendant device or (b) a second power cap threshold for the second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises the second power cap threshold for the second descendant device; and wherein the second power cap threshold for the second descendant device is more restrictive than the first power cap threshold for the first descendant device …”.
Busch is cited to teach a computer system that has a plurality of heat-generating computer devices arranged in a data center, a cooling system in the data center, and a real-time cooling controller. The cooling system is configured for directing a cooling fluid to a plurality of different zones of the computer system, where each zone is occupied by a different subset of the heat-generating devices. The real-time cooling controller is configured for monitoring a power consumption of the heat-generating devices at each zone, independently controlling a cooling fluid flow rate to each zone, targeting one of the zones for increased cooling in response to a detected increase in the power consumption at the targeted zone, and increasing the cooling fluid flow rate to the targeted zone in immediate response to the power consumption increase. Both Busch and Brey are directed toward power management of data center devices.
As per claim 5, Busch teaches The method of claim 1: wherein the plurality of descendant devices comprises a first descendant device and a second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more attributes comprises (a) a first level of occupancy associated with the first descendant device and (b) a second level of occupancy associated with the second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds is determined based, at least in part, on the first level of occupancy associated with the first descendant device being greater than the second level of occupancy associated with the second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises at least one of (a) a first power cap threshold for the first descendant device or (b) a second power cap threshold for the second descendant device; wherein the set of one or more power cap thresholds comprises the second power cap threshold for the second descendant device; and wherein the second power cap threshold for the second descendant device is more restrictive than the first power cap threshold for the first descendant device [fig. 1, fig.4, 0014, 0016, 0033: a power meter included with the rack power supply 124 may directly measure the net power consumed at the rack 70A and report the rack power consumption over the network 110. Within a primary zone comprising a plurality of racks 70, as in FIG. 3, a zone power consumption may be computed as the net power consumption of the racks 70 in that zone.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the spatial/environmental zone-level controls of Busch with the internal server power-capping feedback loops of Brey, which optimizes total data center power usage effectiveness. Doing so prevents local server hot-spots and avoids over cooling unoccupied or underutilized server zones.
As per claim 102, Busch teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to determining the power draw value of the device: obtaining, by the controller of the device, a plurality of power draw values, wherein a first power draw value of the plurality of power draw values indicates a first amount of power that is being drawn from the device by a first descendant device of the plurality of descendant devices of the device; and subsequent to obtaining the plurality of power draw values: calculating a sum of the plurality of power draw values, wherein determining the power draw of value of the device is based, at least in part, on the sum of the plurality of power draw values [fig.4, 0033: the chassis management module 106 sums the power measurements of on-board blade servers 12 to determine total chassis/rack power draw].
As per claim 12, Busch teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to receiving a request for assignment of a workload, identifying a first candidate device for assignment of the workload, wherein the first candidate device is comprised within the plurality of descendant devices of the device; determining an actual or predicted impact of assigning the workload to the first candidate device; and responsive to determining that the actual or predicted impact of assigning the workload to the first candidate device does not exceed a first set of one or more restrictions associated with the first candidate device, assigning the workload to the first candidate device, wherein the first set of one or more restrictions associated with the first candidate device comprises at least one of: (a) a budget assigned to the device, (b) an enforcement threshold imposed on the device, (c) a hardware and/or software limitation of the device, (d) a first budget assigned to the first candidate device, (e) a first enforcement threshold imposed on the first candidate device, (f) a first hardware and/or software limitation of the first candidate device, or (g) a second hardware and/or software limitation of an infrastructure device that supports operation of the first candidate device [fig.1, fig.3, fig.4, 0005, 0014, 0029, 0030].
As per claim 13, Busch teaches the method of claim 12: wherein identifying the first candidate device is based, at least in part, on determining that the first candidate device is not closed to assignment of new workloads; wherein the infrastructure device that supports the operation of the first candidate device is an atmospheric regulation device or a network infrastructure device; wherein the workload is a user instance; wherein the first candidate device is a first candidate host; wherein determining the actual or predicted impact of assigning the workload to the first candidate device is based, at least in part, on at least one of: (a) a first current state of the first candidate host, (b) a first type of the user instance, (c) a first characteristic of a user requesting assignment of the user instance, or (d) historical data associated with the first type of the user instance and/or the user requesting assignment of the user instance [fig.1, fig.3, fig.4, 0005, 0014, 0029, 0030, 0036: dividing data centers into primary zones and sub-zero zones with atmospheric regulation devices such as Computer Room Air Conditioner (CRAC 80) units, fans/blowers, and rear-door air-to-liquid heat exchangers 140].
As per claim 15, Busch teaches the method of claim 13: wherein the set of one or more restrictions comprises: (a) a power restriction associated with the first candidate device, (b) a thermal restriction associated with the first candidate device, and (c) a network restriction associated with the first candidate device; wherein the first current state of the first candidate host describes at least one of: (a) a first power draw value associated with the first candidate host, (b) a first temperature associated with first candidate host, or (c) a first utilization level of network resources available to the first candidate host; and wherein the workload is assigned to the first candidate device based, at least in part, on determining that the actual or predicted impact of assigning the workload to the first candidate device does not exceed the power restriction associated with the first candidate device, the thermal restriction associated with the first candidate device, or the network restriction associated with the first candidate device [primary zones, sub-zero zones, chiller zones/CRAC zones, fig. 1, fig.3, and fig. 5, 0014, 0029, 0036].
As per claim 16, Busch teaches the method of claim 12: wherein the plurality of descendant devices is divided into a plurality of zones, wherein the first candidate device is comprised within at least one of: (a) a power zone associated with one or more power restrictions, (b) a chiller zone associated with one or more thermal restrictions, or (c) a network zone associated with one or more network restrictions; wherein the set of one or more restrictions comprises at least one of: (a) the one or more power restrictions associated with the power zone, (b) the one or more thermal restrictions associated with the chiller zone, or (c) the one or more network restrictions associated with the network zone; and wherein the workload is assigned to the first candidate device based, at least in part, on determining that the actual or predicted impact of assigning the workload to the first candidate device does not exceed the one or more thermal restrictions associated with the chiller zone, the one or more thermal restrictions associated with the chiller zone, or the one or more network restrictions associated with the network zone [primary zones, sub-zero zones, chiller zones/CRAC zones, fig. 1, fig.3, and fig. 5, 0014, 0029, 0036].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang; Zhikui et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0226922 A1) “Capping Data Center Power Consumption” is cited to teach systems, methods and articles of manufacture to cap data center power consumption are disclosed. A disclosed example system includes a group power capper to allocate a fraction of power for a data center to a portion of the data center, a domain power capper to allocate hosted applications to a server of the portion of the data center to comply with the allocated portion of the power, and a local power capper to control a first state of the server and a second state of a cooling actuator associated with the portion of the data center to comply with the allocated portion of the power.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRELL S JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3485. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-7PM EST M-F.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/TERRELL S JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
1 The detailed discussion of Brey, in view of Allen-Ware is hereby incorporated into the rejections of claims 3, 4, 18 – 20 for reasons set forth in the detailed rejection of claim 2 hereabove to the extent that is applicable.
2 The detailed discussion of Brey, in view of Busch is hereby incorporated into the rejections of claims 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 for reasons set forth in the detailed rejection of claim 5 hereabove to the extent that is applicable.
Prosecution Insights