DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the RCE filed on August 5th 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/5/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-9, filed 8/5/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 13 under 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant points to the amended features and then cites several portions of the reference (pg. 7-8) and then concludes the claim is patentable without further discussion (pg. 8). This is not persuasive. Most of the amendment is editorial in nature, the primary new feature regards a transmitter and transmitting setting of the function. Harada clearly discloses transmitting function setting information (e.g. the title is “transmitting apparatus”, see abstract, paragraph 43 and Fig. 1). Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive. See the updated detailed rejection below for more information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (US 20090296720), herein in view of Adiga et al. (US 2020/0220873) and in further view of Gidvani et al. (US 2018/0220368).
Regarding claims 1 and 13,
Harada teaches a communication system comprising: a first node; and a second node that is located at a lower level of the first node and connected to the first node ((Applicant’s specification discloses devices located away and close from the core network as lower level or upper level (see para. 18). Here, see paras. 43 and 49, a messaging system comprising an upper (i.e. first) and lower (i.e. second node) that is located at a lower adjacent node to the upper (i.e. connected at lower level));
the first node includes a receiver that receives function identification information transmitted from the second node, the function identification information identifying functions installed in the second node, a first transmitter, and processor circuitry that is connected to the receiver and the first transmitter (see paras. 50 and 71-72, wherein an input (i.e., receiver) side of an apparatus receives cross-connect information and ID (i.e., function identification information) from apparatus, and wherein a controller is attached to the apparatus (i.e., processor)).
and the second node includes a second transmitter that transmits, when the second node is connected to the first node, the function identification information (Applicant’s specification discloses functions to be those installed for interconnection of devices (see paras. 6). Here, see paras. 50 and 71-72, wherein an output side of an apparatus (i.e., second node transmitter) transmits to another apparatus (i.e., first node) cross-connect information and ID (i.e., function identification information) for identifying functions for connection);
Although, Harada teaches the processor circuitry that is connected to the receiver, and that is configured to compare, based on the function identification information, the functions installed in each of the first node and the second node. It does not explicitly select at least a test item used for verifying the function that is decided to be enabled.
However, in analogous art, Adiga teaches processor circuitry that is connected to the receiver, and that is configured to compare, based on the function identification information, the functions installed in each of the first node and the second node (see paras. 15 and 33, comparing devices that are attempting to connect with device (i.e., first node) by authenticating data packets including operational capabilities (i.e., function identification information) that indicates compatibility of category type of device that indicates functionality of device (i.e., functions installed) (see also para. 65) of between devices attempting to connect (i.e., second node)),
and select at least a test item used for verifying the function that is decided to be enabled (see paras. 15-16 and 22, selecting a test to be used for implementing protocols (i.e. enabling function) based on operational capabilities of device (i.e. verifying function).
The claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross connect information taught in Harada to include and a-processor circuitry that is connected to the receiver, and that is configured to compare, based on the function identification information, the functions installed in each of the first node and the second node and select at least a test item used for verifying the function that is decided to be enabled as taught in Adiga with predictable results. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of selecting a test based on compatibility (see paras. 15-16 and 22).
The combination of Harada and Adiga fails to explicitly teach decide a function to be enabledto disable a function that is not supported by the first node out of the functions installed in the second node.
However, in analogous art Gidvani teaches decide a function to be enabled(see paras. 61-62, decide features (i.e. functions) in the BSS (basic service set) to be enabled/re-enabled in one of the client devices/STA (i.e. second node) when the BSS parameters are implemented/supported by both STAs (i.e. first node and second node) at substantially the same time to operate in the ER (extended range) format),
and decide to disable a function that is not supported by the first node out of the functions installed in the second node … and then the function that is decided to be disabled is disabled in the second node (see paras. 39, deciding to disable features (i.e. functions) that have different PHY formats (i.e. not supported) in the different STAs/client devices (i.e. nodes)(see also. para. 106); also see Fig. 6, paragraphs 75-77 which show deciding to disable a function in a node wherein the function was already disabled in another node, and disabling a function in a node that was disabled in another node).
The claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross connect information taught in Harada to include decide a function to be enabledsee paras. 61-62).
Regarding the new limitations, Harada explicitly discloses “control to transmit setting of the function that is decided to be disabled to the second node using the first transmitter” (the title of Harada is “transmitting apparatus”, also see abstract, paragraph 43 and Fig. 1). The transmitting signaling message relates to function setting information (paragraphs 15, 42-43 and 90, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9,
Harada teaches the limitations as described in claim 1 above.
Harada fails to explicitly teach a conducting a test of the selected test item.
However, in analogous art Adiga teaches wherein the process further includes conducting a test of the selected test item (see paras. 15-16 and 22, processor identifies capabilities (i.e. function identification) of device and selects authentication test for device).
The claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross connect information taught in Harada to include conducting a test of the selected test item as taught in Adiga with predictable results. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of selecting a test based on compatibility (see paras. 15-16 and 22).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Adiga and Gidvani and further in view of Balakrishnan et al. (US 2021/0200664).
Regarding claim 4,
Harada teaches the limitations as described in claim 1 above.
Harada fails to explicitly teach receives verification completion information and selecting a test item for which verification has not been completed out of test items.
However, in analogous art Balakrishnan teaches wherein the receiver receives verification completion information indicating a test item for which verification has already been completed in the second node (see paras. 37, test results are received (i.e. verification completion information) indicating features that have been tested (i.e. completed));
and the selecting includes selecting, based on the verification completion information, a test item for which verification has not been completed out of test items used for verifying the function that is decided to be enabled (see paras. 11 and 31, test manager 130 may identify the features to test, wherein test features that have been successfully tested are removed (i.e. test item for items not completed)).
The claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross connect information taught in Harada to include receives verification completion information and selecting a test item for which verification has not been completed out of test items as taught in Balakrishnan with predictable results. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of modifying features to test (see paras. 11 and 31).
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Adiga and Gidvani and further in view of Pueblas. (US 2019/0260663).
Regarding claim 5,
Harada teaches the limitations as described in claim 1 above.
Harada fails to explicitly teach profile information indicating a version of a profile of the second node, and the process further includes determining, based on the profile information, whether or not a change of a profile of the first node or the second node is needed.
However, in analogous art Pueblas teaches wherein the receiver receives profile information indicating a version of a profile of the second node, and the process further includes determining, based on the profile information, whether or not a change of a profile of the first node or the second node is needed (see paras. 35 and 56, wherein a pre-configured test profile is received and it is determined based on the pre-configured test profile whether or not the test profile needs to be edited (i.e. changed)).
The claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross connect information taught in Harada to include profile information indicating a version of a profile of the second node, and the process further includes determining, based on the profile information, whether or not a change of a profile of the first node or the second node is needed as taught in Pueblas with predictable results. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of determining if a profile needs to be changed (see paras. 35 and 56).
Regarding claim 6,
Harada teaches the limitations as described in claim 5 above.
Harada fails to explicitly teach comparing the version of the profile of each of the first node and the second node, and determining that, when the versions of the profiles of both of the nodes match, the change of the profile is not needed.
However, in analogous art Pueblas teaches wherein the determining includes comparing the version of the profile of each of the first node and the second node, and determining that, when the versions of the profiles of both of the nodes match, the change of the profile is not needed (see paras. 34 and 35, derive a test profile for validating the network device under test and matching the parameters of profiles, wherein the profile that closely matches is directly used and not edited).
The claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross connect information taught in Harada to include comparing the version of the profile of each of the first node and the second node, and determining that, when the versions of the profiles of both of the nodes match, the change of the profile is not needed as taught in Pueblas with predictable results. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of determining if a profile needs to be changed (see paras. 35 and 56).
Regarding claim 8,
Harada teaches the limitations as described in claim 5 above.
Harada fails to explicitly teach instructing the second node to update the profile when it is determined that the change of the profile is needed.
However, in analogous art Pueblas teaches wherein the process further includes instructing the second node to update the profile when it is determined that the change of the profile is needed (see paras. 35 and 56, wherein a pre-configured test profile is received and it is determined based on the pre-configured test profile the test profile needs to be edited (i.e. changed)).
The claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross connect information taught in Harada to include instructing the second node to update the profile when it is determined that the change of the profile is needed as taught in Pueblas with predictable results. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of determining if a profile needs to be changed (see paras. 35 and 56).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Harada, Adiga and Gidvani and Pueblas, in further view of Horikoshi (US 2019/0196842).
Regarding claim 7,
The combination of Harada does not explicitly disclose the determining includes determining that the change of the profile of the first node or the second node is not needed when the version of the profile of the second node is a version in which backward compatibility with respect to the profile of the first node is guaranteed.
However, Horikoshi teaches that receives profile information indicating a version of a profile of the second node, and processor circuitry that is connected to the receiver, and determine, based on the profile information,of the first node or the second node is not needed when the version of the profile of the second node is a version in which backward compatibility with respect to the profile of the first node is guaranteed (see paras. 7 and 202, receiving version of function (i.e., profile) of second device and determining based on version that a change of the version of the function is not needed when there is compatibility with the latest version, wherein it is determined if new version has compatibility in features with previous version (see also, para. 83)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Harada to determine, based on the profile information,guaranteed as taught by Horikoshi. Horikoshi suggests this provides the benefit of comparing version compatibility (see para 202).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada and further in view of Adiga, Gidvani and in further in view of Tsdua et al. (US 2023/0234599).
Regarding claim 10,
Harada teaches the limitations as described in claim 9 above.
Although Harada teaches maintaining results for display, Harada fails to explicitly teach notifying a result of the test to the second node.
However, in analogous art Tsuda teaches wherein the processor circuitry is further configured to notify (see fig. 5, para. 138, wherein mobile device, (i.e. second node (functions as lower node)) receiving from compatibility test determination unit of the driving management device (e.g. sensor and driving assistance processing unit (i.e. first node) notification of the verification result (i.e. test result) of compatibility between devices)
The claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of the test results taught in Harada to include notifying a result of the test to the second node as taught in Tsuda with predictable results. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of providing compatibility notification (see paras. 138).
Regarding claim 11,
Harada teaches the limitations as described in claim 10 above.
Harada further teaches wherein the process further includes starting, when obtaining a test result indicating that the function that is decided to be enabled is normally operated, a service that uses the function (see paras. 51-55, wherein transmission based on cross-connect/path management (i.e. service that uses function) information is started).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Do et al. US 2021/0250387 A1 discloses comparing function information using transmitted messages to enable matching functions (paragraph 68).
Urbanek US 2014/0080467 A1 discloses customizing the configuration of mobile device functions, including transmitting commands to enable and disable functions (abstract, Fig. 1, paragraph 53).
Asano US 5,761,399 discloses requesting function information from a device, receiving function information, comparing function information, and transmitting settings to change functions (abstract, Figs. 5, 8).
Macwan et al. US 11,329,891 B2 discloses configuration and management of multiple devices in a network, including enabling, disabling and testing functions of devices (abstract, col. 3 ln. 6-24).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458