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, 3-7
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1, 4, 6
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: 2
The following claim(s) is/are new: 7
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 is/are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 7/30/2026, 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 § 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, 4 and 7 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 the setting system stores group data that associates a type of group of communication apparatuses with a connection mode indicating which communication apparatuses of the group are to be connected to each other (A type of a group of communication apparatuses will be taught later. para. 55-56, 76; storage of configuration information for how a system should be configured including topology. See also Klein, 6/1-28; pairing specifications with data center topology stored on device.)
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, based on the detected connection, whether the communication apparatus is correctly connected to a predetermined counterpart apparatus (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 a type of group of communication apparatuses (para. 62, 75, 91-102; data on device includes connection state and device type. Fig. 15-16, paras. 126, 131; devices grouped in groups such as bedroom and living room and displayed by icons denoting type.)
That is specified for the communication apparatus by the connection mode associated with the type of the group to which the communication apparatus belongs; (Specifications for connections between devices was already taught. Fig. 15-16, paras. 126, 131; devices grouped in groups such as bedroom and living room and displayed by icons denoting type. Note that Figs. 15-16 display connection state as in Fig. 3d, para. 77.)
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.
With respect to Claim 7, modified Klein teaches the computer system according to claim 1, and Klein also teaches wherein the setting system maps, for each of the plurality of communication apparatuses of the group, which communication apparatus is connected to which port (4/47-5/25; data interface mappings. To the extent that a data interface does not suggest ports, see Shi, paras. 64-65; port connections and port numbers.)
and checks whether the communication apparatus is correctly connected to the predetermined counterpart apparatus based on a product code of each of the plurality of communication apparatuses and a result of the mapping. (4/10-34; Verification by scanner that captures visual codes such as barcodes or a printed serial number. See also Shi, para. 68; bill of materials code to identify the hardware node. To the extent neither of these suggest a product code, Examiner takes official notice of a product code and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to verify a product code to make sure the right type of device is being used.)
And Kandur Raja also teaches and a MAC address (para. 62; identification of device by MAC)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
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, pg. 5 that the amendment to Claims 4 and 6 fixes the 112b in view of f by taking the claims out of step-plus. Examiner agrees and withdraws the rejection.
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 6-7 that the new claim feature is not taught by the cited art. The claims previously related connection information between communication apparatuses, and further included a type of devices. Applicant does not dispute the Kandur Raja device type, but argues “Kandur Raja describes managing connectivity among consumer electronic devices and identifies individual device types…Knadur Raja does not describe a connection mode associated with a type of a group of communication apparatuses.” First, the specification makes clear that groups can include multiple device types, see Spec, para. 35; “For example, the POD may be a set of one TOR and a plurality of servers. The GC type of the GC detailed data is associated in advance with (1) the types and number of the communication apparatuses…” Therefore, the group type embraces any grouping of devices with types. Kandur Raja, Fig. 15 discloses a living room group with multiple devices of multiple types and connections between them. Therefore the living room is group data that associates a type of a group of communication apparatuses (one tv, one smartphone, one speaker, two lightbulbs, etc.) and how they are connected, which teaches the amended claim. Further, even under Applicant’s view, if one only had lightbulbs in the living room, it would be a group data of a living room associating a type of lightbulb with their connections.
New claim 7 is taught above.
All claims are rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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