DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1, 3-6
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1, 4
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: 2
The following claim(s) is/are new: -
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 is/are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 4/16/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a step of causing the reading apparatus to read identification information” “a step of causing the setting system to check” and the remainder of the “a step of causing” in Claim 4 and dependent claims invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Examiner construes the steps of Claim 4 in step-plus and therefore the steps require the algorithm for performing the functionality. The specification does not disclose those algorithms with sufficient specificity. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (US Pat. 9,355,055) in view of Shi (US Pub. 2019/0280928) and further in view of Kandur Raja (US Pub. 2017/0311368).
With respect to Claim 1, Klein teaches a computer system comprising: a reading apparatus; (Fig. 1, col. 3/ln. 62 to col. 4/ln. 34; Data center includes a portable verification device (PVD) such as a cart or a smartphone. PVD includes a scanner such as a barcode scanner, which makes it a reader. All future references are in “column/line”, e.g. 3/62-65 is col. 3, lns. 62-65.)
And a setting system including one or more computers that are communicatively connected to the reading apparatus via a first communication network, (Fig. 1, 4/35-46; connection configuration engine (CCE) in server which facilitates management of data center. See also Shi, para. 49; auto-configuration apparatus may be an operation support subsystem (OSS).)
wherein the reading apparatus reads identification information of a communication apparatus from the communication apparatus, (Fig. 1, 4/10-34, 4/47-5/39; When installing or replacing devices in the system the technician uses the scanner to scan interfaces for connection. For example, the technician scans interfaces 116 and 146 to identify that they are going to connect a particular cable to a particular interface, generating an identifier pair. 6/17-28; the same step is performed for the other end of the cable. 5/60-67; connection may occur first and then verification may happen after. Examiner notes that Applicant also admits that reading a barcode is well known in the art, see Remarks, 4/16/2026, pg. 23.)
and transmits the identification information to the communication network, the setting system receives the identification information via the communication network (Fig. 1, 5/26-39; identifier pair of connection is uploaded to the CCE from the PVD)
and the setting system reflects setting information of the communication apparatus to the communication apparatus (6/1-16; CCE adds the connection information to the data center topology. See also Shi, paras. 113-114; system configures the device.)
But Klein does not explicitly teach checking according to a detected connection.
Shi, however, does teach and detects a connection of the communication apparatus corresponding to the identification information to another communication apparatus, (paras. 61-64, 72; system scans through connections to determine actual connection relationship and system topology.)
the setting system checks whether the communication apparatus is correctly connected to a predetermined counterpart apparatus based on the detected connection, (para. 72; system checks that configuration data and actual connection relationship match. See also Klein, 5/40-59; CCE uses identifier pair to determine if connection is correct according to specifications.)
in a case where it is confirmed that the communication apparatus is correctly connected to the predetermined counterpart apparatus. (Fig. 2, paras. 73-75, 93-98, 113-116; after receiving inventory, the system may determine the physical and logical configurations of the system and configure each node that needs to be configured. Para. 72; system checks that configuration data and actual connection relationship match. See also Klein, 6/1-16; CCE adds the connection information to the data center topology.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Klein with checking according to a detected connection of Shi in order to prevent a situation where a node cannot work properly because configuration data and actual connection relationship do not match. (Shi, para. 72)
But modified Klein does not explicitly teach device type.
Kandur Raja, however, does teach and a connection state that is for a type of a group of communication apparatus; (para. 62, 75, 91-102; data on device includes connection state and device type.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Klein with the device type and connection state in order to confirm that the connection should be made to a particular type of device.
With respect to Claim 4 it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klein (US Pat. 9,355,055) in view of Shi (US Pub. 2019/0280928), in view of Kandur Raja (US Pub. 2017/0311368) and further in view of Jubran (US Pub. 2014/0101467).
With respect to Claim 3, modified Klein teaches the computer system according to claim 1, and Klein also teaches wherein the setting system executes a test for the communication apparatus in a case where it is detected that the setting information of the communication apparatus is reflected in the communication apparatus. (Spec, para. 42 states that an acceptance test is work for a person to check whether physical configurations are correct, such as by checking cables. See Klein, 16/50-61; health check module may periodically generate task for technician to check couplings of components. See also Shi, para. 120; system may periodically check physical configuration of devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to issue the check when the setting information is reflected to confirm the validity of cabling configuration following a power interruption. See also Jubran, Jubran, paras. 46-49; system periodically checks whether a device is reachable. Paras. 50, 72; system determines connectivity of devices. Reachability tests are also tests.)
But modified Klein does not explicitly teach checking reachability.
Jubran, however, does teach further wherein the setting system detects that the setting information of the communication apparatus is reflected in the communication apparatus by checking reachability of communication to the communication apparatus, (Examiner notes that Shi’s topology scan would function as a reachability test, however to specifically teach reachability tests, Examiner cites Jubran, paras. 46-49; system periodically checks whether a device is reachable. Paras. 50, 72; system determines connectivity of devices.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Klein with the periodically checking reachability in Jubran in order to confirm that the device is properly configured and operable. (Jubran, paras. 25, 46-47)
With respect to Claim 5, modified Klein teaches the system according to Claim 3, and Jubran also teaches wherein: the setting system further comprises at least a first computer and a second computer communicably connected to the first computer (Examiner asserts Klein may teach this on its own, see Klein 4/35-46. Regardless, Examiner cites Jubran, para. 24; workflow engines in bootstrap process that provide for orchestration. Para. 25; workflows confirm settings and configuration and determine connectivity. See also Klein, 4/35-46; CCE may be multiple devices and run on servers that facilitate management of data centers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to employ a server to perform the orchestration functionality in order to confirm settings and determine connectivity.)
the second computer executes the test. (Spec, para. 42 states that an acceptance test is work for a person to check whether physical configurations are correct, such as by checking cables. See Klein, 16/50-61; health check module may periodically generate task for technician to check couplings of components. See also Shi, para. 120; system may periodically check physical configuration of devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to issue the check when the setting information is reflected to confirm the validity of cabling configuration following a power interruption. See also Jubran, Jubran, paras. 46-49; system periodically checks whether a device is reachable. Paras. 50, 72; system determines connectivity of devices. Reachability tests are also tests.)
The same motivation to combine as the Claim 3 applies here.
And Shi also teaches via a second communication network, (First see Klein, 4/35-46; LAN/WAN or Wireless connection between PVD and CCE. Network may be a collection of networks. Then see Shi, Fig. 1, paras. 47-48; Network connection between configuration apparatus and node to be configured. Thus, the PVD/CCE communication network need not be the same network as the network that configures and tests a device to be configured.)
the first computer detects that the setting information of the communication apparatus has been reflected in the communication apparatus, and (paras. 114-120; system configures the node. System can determine incremental updates to the node configuration which means the system knows how the node has been configured. See also Jubran, para. 40, 77-81; validation of BIOS, firmware and other software components.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 6, it is substantially similar to Claim 3 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Remarks
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 5-23 that Claims 4 and 6 are not indefinite because “Processors are routine components of systems. As such, processors must communicate with the components…Such communication abilities of processors are so integral to the functioning of processors as to be coextensive with processors. Therefore, the ‘transit’ and ‘receive’ aspects of the claims are coextensive with a general purpose computer.”
Examiner does not dispute that transmission and reception themselves do not require special programming, so Examiner agrees inasmuch as transmission and reception are described purely by reference to the hardware that performs them. However, the rejection is to “a step of causing the reading apparatus to read identification information,” “a step of causing the setting system to check” and the other “a step of causing” limitations in Claims 4 and 6. Those features are all special purpose actions taken under the command of specialized programming. Consequently, Applicant’s statement as to transmission and reception is agreeable, but irrelevant to the rejection.
Applicant continues at Remarks, pgs. 23-24, Applicant states with respect to the causing the reading apparatus to read identification information step that “the specification discloses [what the information to be read is]…Algorithms for reading [the information] are well known to the extent that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand these examples as sufficient to define the structure and make the boundaries of the claim understandable.” With respect to the “causing…to detect a connection” step Applicant states “Algorithms for a cable matrix check by mapping connections using the Cisco Discovery protocol are well known…” With respect to the “causing setting system to check whether the communication apparatus is correctly connected…” step Applicant states that Spec, para. 44 discloses a structure.
Para. 44 reads in relevant part to the checking step “Furthermore, the OSS-FS 46 checks whether or not each of the communication apparatuses of the GC 16 is correctly connected to a predetermined counterpart apparatus, that is, whether or not the connection state is suitable to the GC type of the GC 16 based on the product code and the MAC address of each of a plurality of communication apparatuses disposed in the GC 16 and the result of the mapping.”
Applicant admits the indefiniteness as to two of the features, and the third is clearly insufficient. Applicant premises the definiteness on algorithms that Applicant appears to admit are not described in the specification but are “well known” to the art. But computer-implemented functionality must be described by reference to an algorithm in the specification itself. See MPEP 2181(II)(A) (“The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function…’[a] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure’.”) Further, “[i]t is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function” and “[t]he inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing that structure.” (Id., quoting Aristocrat v. Int’l Game Tech, 521 F.3d 1328, internal citations omitted) Consequently, Applicant stating that persons of ordinary skill applying well-known algorithms rather than algorithms in the specification could achieve the functionalities confirms the rejection is proper because the question under 112f is a query as to the specification disclosures, not as to whether it would be generally enabled by persons of ordinary skill applying well-known algorithms in the art.
With respect to paragraph 44, as quoted above, the relevant disclosure there is merely a restatement of the functionality – Applicant attempts to describe the algorithm for “causing setting system to check whether the communication apparatus is correctly connected to a predetermined counterpart” by pointing to the specification stating that “the OSS-FS 46 checks whether or not each of the communication apparatuses of the GC 16 is correctly connected to a predetermined counterpart apparatus.” That is not a statement describing the algorithm, that is a restatement of the function. The language “whether or not the connection state is suitable…based on [features]” similarly does not provide an algorithm for performing the function because “suitable” is just a restatement of “correctly connected.” Paragraph 44 does not explain what algorithm a computer uses to determine whether something is “suitable” or “correctly connected,” it simply states that an undescribed algorithm, when run, would make such a determination. It describes a starting input that includes product code and MAC address, and an ending output that a connection is suitable or correct, and leaves entirely undescribed the actual algorithm that translates from input to output.
Examiner finds the argument as to any of the features unpersuasive and maintains the rejection.
At Remarks, pgs. 25-27, Applicant argues Klein and Shi do not teach the amended feature of the independent claims. Examiner agrees and cites additional art.
All claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights