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 .
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 1.1 14, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1 14. Applicant's submission filed on 01/17/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are presented for further examination.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/17/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose the newly amended limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ramanadham discloses in response to determining that the format of the device information of the network device does not correspond to the allowed device information format and the type of device does not correspond to an allowed device type (only if the device type that is authenticated can make changes to the configuration setting, refer to Col 16, Lines 13-25), output an indication that the network device cannot be erased (alert being generated, Col 17, Lines 5-15) and
Ramanadham discloses in response to determining that the format of the device information of the network device does correspond to the allowed device information format the type of device does correspond to an allowed device type (only if the device type that is authenticated can make changes to the configuration setting, refer to Col 16, Lines 13-25), and
Furthermore, the specification fails to disclose the newly amended limitations, for examination purpose, the newly amended limitation must be interpreted as obvious to ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,405273 hereinafter Chen. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Referring to Claim 1. Chen discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a computer device, whether a format of device information for a network device corresponds to an allowed device information format corresponding to a type of device allowed for erasure (refer to Claim 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9);
in response to determining that the format of the device information of the network device does not correspond to the allowed device information format and the type of device does not correspond to an allowed device type (refer to Claim 1, 4 and 5),
output an indication that the network device cannot be erased (refer to Claim 5); and
in response to determining that the format of the device information of the network device does correspond to the allowed device information format and the type of device does correspond to the allowed device type,
erasing storage locations corresponding to the network device (refer to Claim 1, 6-9).
Referring to Claim 2. Chen disclosed the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the computer device, the device information for the network device by determining the device information by enabling the computer device to connect to the network device via an application (refer to Claim 1 and 9).
Referring to Claim 3. Chen disclosed the method of claim 1, further comprising retrieving a configuration file from a server device via an application on the server device (refer to Claim 1).
Referring to Claim 4, Chen disclosed the method of claim 1, further comprising resetting the network device using a configuration file by performing a factory reset of the network device and backing up firmware of the network device (refer to Claim 1 and 6).
Referring to Claim 5. Chen disclosed the method of claim 1, further comprising resetting the network device using a configuration file by backing up firmware of the network device (refer to Claim 1 and 6).
Referring to Claim 6. Chen disclosed the method of claim 5, wherein resetting the network device using the configuration file further comprises restoring the firmware of the network device after clearing the storage locations of the network device (refer to Claim 1 and 6 and 7).
Referring to Claim 7. Chen disclosed the method of claim 1, further comprising removing a passcode from the network device before determining the device information for the network device (refer to Claim 1 and 2).
Referring to Claim 8. Chen disclosed the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a device type of the network device based on the device information (refer to Claim 1, 4 and 5).
Referring to Claim 9. Chen disclosed the method of claim 8, further comprising outputting an indication of whether the format of the device information corresponds to the allowed device information format (refer to Claim 1 and 4).
Referring to Claim 10. Chen discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the computer device, device information for a second network device communicatively coupled to the computer device (refer to Claim 1 and 9);
retrieving, from the server device, a second configuration file corresponding to the device information as determined (refer to Claim 1 and 9);
resetting the second network device using the configuration file as retrieved (refer to Claim 1 and 9); and
clearing storage locations of the second network device (refer to Claim 1 and 9).
Referring to Claim 11. Chen disclosed the method of claim 10, wherein the second network device and the network device are communicatively coupled to the computer device for processing concurrently (refer to Claim 1, 10 and 11).
Claims 12 – 20, are rejected under similar rational.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to disclose the following claim limitation in the independent claims “..in response to determining that the format of the device information of the network device does not correspond to be allowed device information format and the type of the device does not correspond to an allowed device type”.
The specification [ par 0050] only appears to support either “…determining the the format of the device information of the network does not correspond to the allowed device information format or the type of device that does not correspond to an allowed device type”
and
“…determining the format of the device information of the network does correspond to the allowed device information format or the type of device that does correspond to an allowed device type”
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanadham et al hereinafter Ramanadham (US 10,833,920) in view of Hefley (US 11,422,830).
Referring to Claim 1. Ramanadham discloses a method, comprising: determining, by a computer device, device information for a network device communicatively coupled to the computer device (refer to first device coupled to the second device via the server, refer to Col 15, Lines 15-18); determining, by a computer device, whether a format of device information for a network device corresponds to an allowed device information format corresponded to a type of device allowed for erasure (identify characteristics of the device to be erased, such that the type which can only be reset with password, refer to Col 15, Lines 20-25); in response to determining that the format of the device information of the network device does not corresponded to the allowed device information format and the type of device does not correspond to an allowed device type (only if the device type that is authenticated can make changes to the configuration setting, refer to Col 16, Lines 13-25), output an indication that the network device cannot be erased (alert being generated, Col 17, Lines 5-15); in response to determining that the format of the device information of the network device does correspond to the allowed device information format the type of device does correspond to an allowed device type (only if the device type that is authenticated can make changes to the configuration setting, refer to Col 16, Lines 13-25), erasing storage location corresponding to the network device (refer to Col 16, Lines 13-41, Col 15, Lines 2, Col 4, Lines 50-67, factory reset the second device, refer to Col 15, Lines 13, 25, reset is to remove the storage location to the network device and Col 17, Lines 1-15).
Hefley, in analogous art, further emphasize that it is well known to clear the storage location corresponding to the network device corresponded to the allowed format (refer to reconfigured/restore of the device/wipe the previous data in the storage location, refer to Col 8, Lines 58-63, Col 11, Lines 30-45, the profile obtained, refer to Col 9, Lines 23-30; have allowed serial number type, such as type of data that is allowed : refer to Col 10, Lines 37-67, and depends on data format and characteristics of the device refer to Col 25, Lines 23-25).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ramanadham and Hefley because Hefley’s teaching would allow the system of Ramanadham to ensure the properly authenticate the source of authority before configuring the device.
Referring to Claim 2. Ramanadham and Hefley disclosed the method of claim 1, Ramanadham discloses wherein determining, by the computer device, the device information for the network device by determining device information by enabling the computer device to connect to the network device via an application (first device establish communication with the network, refer to par Col 6, Lines 40-67, Col 13, Lines 9-13, Col 14, Lines 5-10, Col 15, Lines 40-50).
Referring to Claim 3. Ramanadham and Hefley disclosed the method of claim 1, Ramanadham further discloses wherein retrieving a configuration file information from a server device via an application on the server (information obtained from the server, Col 16, Lines 13-40).
Referring to Claim 4. Ramanadham and Hefley disclosed method of claim 1, Hefley discloses wherein resetting the network device using a configuration file by performing a factory reset of the network device and backing up firmware of the network device (refer to reconfigured/restore of the device/wipe the previous data in the storage location, refer to Col 8, Lines 58-63, the profile obtained, refer to Col 9, Lines 23-30 ha serial number type, refer to Col 10, Lines 37-67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ramanadham and Hefley because Hefley’s teaching would allow the system of Ramanadham to ensure the properly authenticate the source of authority before configuring the device.
Referring to Claim 5. Ramanadham and Hefley disclosed the method of claim 1, Hefley discloses wherein resetting the network device using a configuration file backing up firmware of the network device (refer to Col 18, Lines 28-51, Col 10, Lines 40-50).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ramanadham and Hefley because Hefley’s teaching would allow the system of Ramanadham to ensure the properly authenticate the source of authority before configuring the device.
Referring to Claim 6. Ramanadham and Wolverton disclosed the method of claim 5, Hefley further discloses performing factory reset, and clear the storage location corresponding to the network device (refer to reconfigured/restore of the device/wipe the previous data in the storage location, refer to Col 8, Lines 58-63, the profile obtained, refer to Col 9, Lines 23-30 ha serial number type, refer to Col 10, Lines 37-67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ramanadham and Hefley because Hefley’s teaching would allow the system of Ramanadham to ensure the properly authenticate the source of authority before configuring the device.
Referring to Claim 7. Ramanadham and Hefley disclosed the method of claim 1, Ramanadham further discloses removing a passcode from the network device before determining the device information for the network device (refer to Col 14, Lines first level of credential, entering the user name and password).
Referring to Claim 8. Ramanadham and Hefley disclosed the method of claim 1, Hafley further discloses determining a device type of the network device based on the device information (refer to Col 21, Lines 44 – 48)
Referring to Claim 9. Ramanadham and Hefley disclosed method of claim 8, Ramanadham further discloses outputting an indication of whether the format of the device information corresponds to the allowed information (refer to Col 17, Lines 53-60 and Col 15, Lines 35-40, Col 16, Lines 25-30).
Hafley, in analogous art, also indicates outputting an indication of whether the serial number in the configuration file corresponds to the format of allowed serial numbers (refer to Col 17, Lines 10-20 and 24-37, Col 25, Lines 10-15, Col 26, Lines 40-45).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ramanadham and Hefley because Hefley’s teaching would allow the system of Ramanadham to ensure the properly authenticate the source of authority before configuring the device.
Referring to Claim 10. Ramanadham and Hefley disclosed the method of claim 1, Ramanadham further discloses determining, by the computer device, device information for a second network device communicatively coupled to the computer device (there are multiple first and second devices and each can be in different network, refer to Col 6, Lines 40-67, Col 7, Lines Col 9, Lines 15-40, Col 10, Lines 40-55); retrieving, from the server device, a second configuration file corresponding to the device information as determined: resetting the second network device using the configuration file as retrieved (reset the second device, refer to Col 15, Lines 13); and clearing storage locations corresponding to the network device (reset is to remove the storage location to the network device).
Hefley, in analogous art, further emphasize that it is well known to clear the storage location corresponding to the network device (refer to reconfigured/restore of the device/wipe the previous data in the storage location, refer to Col 8, Lines 58-63, the profile obtained, refer to Col 9, Lines 23-30 ha serial number type, refer to Col 10, Lines 37-67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ramanadham and Hefley because Hefley’s teaching would allow the system of Ramanadham to ensure the properly authenticate the source of authority before configuring the device.
Referring to Claim 11. Ramanadham and Wolverton disclosed method of claim 10, Ramanadham further discloses wherein the second network device and the network device are communicatively coupled to the computer device for processing concurrently (connected via network, refer to Col 15, Lines 15-21).
Referring to Claims 12-20, claims are rejected under similar rational as claim 1-11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:30am - 2:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447