DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 11/11/25.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
The examiner notes that the claim objections of claims 1 and 7 were not addressed by the applicant, and as such, the claim objections of claims 1 and 7 have been maintained.
Argument A) – The applicant argues, in regards to the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 7, that none of Choi, Hassan and He disclose Feature A, i.e. the claimed limitation “a network interface which is in network connection with an external server”, Feature B, i.e. the claimed limitation “a storage unit for storing an abnormal log file”, Feature C, i.e. the claimed limitation “generate the abnormal log file according to the abnormal status”, and Feature D, i.e. the claimed limitation “in a case that the network gateway is in a booting state…detect whether the abnormal log file exists in the storage unit or not, and transmit the abnormal log file to the external server” (see applicant’s remarks; pages 6 and 7).
Response to argument A) – The examiner notes that Hassan was not relied upon to disclose the Features A, B, C or D, as shown in the rejection below.
Further, the examiner submits that the applicant’s arguments do not constitute a complete reply to the office action, and therefore do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111 (b) and (c) because they do not specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references and do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references.
In particular, the applicant merely recites the limitations, i.e. refers to them as features A, B, C and D, of the claims and then states that the references Choi and He do not disclose the limitations without specifically pointing out the differences between the claim limitations and the references. In other words, the applicant does not point out how the limitations patentably distinguishes them from the references Choi and He. As such, the rejection has been maintained.
Argument B) – The applicant argues, in regards to the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 7, that Hassan does not disclose Feature C, i.e. the claimed limitation “generate the abnormal log file according to the abnormal status”, and Feature D, i.e. the claimed limitation “in a booting state…and transmit the abnormal log file to the external server” (see applicant’s remarks; page 8).
Response to argument B) - The examiner notes that Hassan was not relied upon to disclose Features C or D of claims 1 and 7, as stated above and as shown in the rejection below. As such, the rejection has been maintained.
Argument C) – The applicant argues, in regards to the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 7, that neither Choi nor He disclose the limitations “monitoring operation resources of the network gateway” or “detect the abnormal operations which cause an abnormal status in an operation resources” (see applicant’s remarks; page 8).
Response to argument C) - The examiner notes that Choi and He were not relied upon to disclose the limitations “monitoring operation resources of the network gateway” or “detect the abnormal operations which cause an abnormal status in an operation resources” of claims 1 and 7, as shown in the rejection below. As such, the rejection has been maintained.
Further, the applicant states that claims 2 and 6 are directly or indirectly dependent upon claim 1 (see applicant’s remarks; page 9). As such, the same rationale discussed above regarding claim 1, applies equally to claims 2 and 6, and the rejection has been maintained.
Argument D) – The applicant argues, in regards to the 103 rejection of claims 3, 4, 5 and 8-10 that none of the references Hsieh, Gautam and Srivastava disclose the Features A, B, C and D, i.e. the limitations of claims 1 and 7, and that claims 3, 4, 5 and 8-10 are patentable due to their dependencies on claims 1 and 7 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 9-12).
Response to argument D) – The examiner notes that Hsieh, Gautam and Srivastava were not relied upon to disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 7. As such, the same rationale discussed above regarding claims 1 and 7, applies equally as well to claims 3, 4, 5 and 8-10.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 2 and 5, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “or”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: There are grammatical errors. In particular, claim 1 recites “monitor an operation resources…” and “detect an abnormal operations which cause an abnormal status in an operation resources”. And Claim 7 recites “detecting an abnormal operations which cause an abnormal status in an operation resources” (emphasis added). The term “an” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (U.S. 2005/0038526 A1) in view of Hassan et al. (U.S. 2005/0190776 A1) and further in view of HE (U.S. 2018/0191520 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a network gateway, comprising:
a network interface which is in network connection with an external server (see Choi; paragraph 0046 and Figure 3; Choi discloses a gateway communication unit, i.e. “a network interface”, used to communicate with a server, i.e. “…connection with an external server”, via a pc communication unit. The examiner notes that the claim language does not specify what type of network connection is used. That is, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art, a network connection can be a direct or non-direct connection, e.g. via another device);
a storage unit for storing an abnormal log file (see Choi; paragraphs 0042 and 0045 and Figure 3; Choi discloses the gateway stores the error message, i.e. “abnormal log file”, corresponding to a connection status into an error message DB, i.e. “storage unit”); and
a processing unit, connected with the storage unit and the network interface (see Choi; paragraphs 0042 and 0045; Choi discloses a processing unit is connected to the error message DB, i.e. “storage unit”, and gateway communication unit, i.e. “a network interface”) and configured to:
detect an abnormal status and generate the abnormal log file according to the abnormal status (see Choi; paragraphs 0042, 0045 and Figure 3; Choi discloses the processing unit stores the error message, i.e. “abnormal log file”, corresponding to the connection status, i.e. “abnormal status”, into the error message DB and controls the gateway communication unit. In other words, “generates the abnormal log file” by generating the error message, based on the connection status, to store in the error message DB); and
in a case that the network gateway is in a booting state, the processing unit is further configured to detect whether the abnormal log file exists in the storage unit or not (see Choi; paragraphs 0035 and 0045; Choi discloses upon booting, i.e. “in a case that the network gateway is in a booting state”, the gateway processing unit determines whether there is an error with respect to the connection status that is stored in the error message DB, i.e. “whether the abnormal log file exists in the storage unit or not”).
While Choi discloses “a processing unit, connected with the storage unit and the network interface and configured to: detect an abnormal status and generate the abnormal log file according to the abnormal status”, as discussed above, Choi does not explicitly disclose monitor an operation resources of the network gateway; receive an abnormal operations; and detect the abnormal operations which cause an abnormal status in an operation resources.
In analogous art, Hassan discloses monitor an operation resources of the network gateway (see Hassan; paragraph 0018; Hassan discloses a gateway includes a controller that monitors the operation of the components, i.e. “monitor an operation resources”, of the gateway by periodically polling the components for current state information);
receive an abnormal operations (see Hassan; paragraph 0018; Hassan discloses the controller monitors the operation of the components to detect failure or pending failure. In other words, the controller would have to receive “abnormal operations” in order to monitor the operation of the components and detect the failure or pending failure);
detect the abnormal operations which cause an abnormal status in an operation resources (see Hassan; paragraph 0018; Hassan discloses the controller detects the failure or pending failure, i.e. “an abnormal operations which cause an abnormal status”, of components, i.e. “operation resources”, within the gateway to coordinate functions for the failed components, i.e. “abnormal status”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choi and Hassan because they both disclose features of gateway management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Hassan’s monitoring the operation of components of a gateway into the system of Choi in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing the gateway to send not only an error code and error message that includes a connection status (see Choi; paragraphs 0045 and 0050) but to also include information about the failure or pending failure of the operation of the gateway’s components (see Hassan; paragraph 0018).
While Choi discloses “the abnormal log file exists in the storage unit”, as discussed above, and transmitting an error code corresponding to the error message and the error message to the PC communication unit (see Choi; paragraphs 0045 and 0050), the combination of Choi and Hassan does not explicitly disclose transmit the abnormal log file to the external server through the network interface in a case that the abnormal log file exists in the storage unit.
In analogous art, HE discloses transmit the abnormal log file to the external server through the network interface in a case that the abnormal log file exists in the storage unit (see HE; paragraphs 0061-0063; HE discloses a gateway identifies abnormal behavior, within itself, i.e. “in a case that the abnormal log file exists”, and transmits a notification message that comprises the abnormal behavior, i.e. “abnormal log file”, to a managing server, i.e. “external server”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choi, Hassan and HE because they all disclose features of gateway management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate HE’s transmission of a notification message indicating abnormal behavior into the combined system of Choi and Hassan in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the error code and error message sent by the gateway to the PC and from the PC to a remote server (see Choi; paragraphs 0045 and 0050) to be sent directly to the server (see HE; paragraph 0063), thereby reducing the resources being used.
Regarding claim 2, Choi, Hassan and HE discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Choi, Hassan and HE clearly discloses wherein the abnormal log file comprises an information recording structure (see HE; paragraph 0063; HE discloses the notification message comprising elements, as such, a “recording structure”); the information recording structure comprises device information and abnormal code information (see HE; paragraphs 0063 and 0064; HE discloses the notification message comprises an indication of the abnormal behavior, i.e. “abnormal code information” and destination information that includes identification of the gateway, i.e. “device information”); and the device information comprises a serial number (see HE; paragraph 0064; HE discloses the destination information including identification of the gateway which may be a unique serial number allocated by the manufacture of the gateway), manufacturer code information, device model information, media access control information, device firmware information, device software information or a combination thereof (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “serial number” alternative).
Regarding claim 6, Choi, Hassan and HE discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Choi, Hassan and HE clearly discloses wherein an abnormal log partition is defined in the storage unit, and the abnormal log file is stored in the abnormal log partition (see Choi; paragraphs 0045, 0056 and 0063; Choi discloses that the gateway stores the error message, i.e. “abnormal log file”, corresponding to a connection status into an error message DB, for each error in the gateway. The examiner notes, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art, that a database is a systematic organized collection of data, and as such, the database would be divided into parts, i.e. “partition”, for storage of the different error messages).
Regarding claim 7, Choi discloses a processing method for an abnormal status of a network gateway, comprising the following steps:
detecting whether an abnormal log file exists or not through the network gateway in a case that the network gateway is in a booting state (see Choi; paragraphs 0035 and 0045; Choi discloses upon booting, i.e. “in a case that the network gateway is in a booting state”, the gateway processing unit determines, i.e. “detecting”, whether there is an error with respect to the connection status that is stored in the error message DB, i.e. “whether the abnormal log file exists or not”);
completing booting and entering a working state through the network gateway in a case that the abnormal log file does not exist (see Choi; paragraphs 0061-0063; Choi discloses during booting, the gateway determines whether access network is normally connected. If so, that is if no error, i.e. “the abnormal log file does not exist”, the gateway is connected, i.e. “completing booting and entering a working state” since the booting would be completed in order to connect, to the network and provided the services); and
executing a log recording program through the network gateway in the working state, comprising: generating and storing the abnormal log file corresponding to the abnormal status through the network gateway in a case that the operating status of the network gateway is an abnormal status (see Choi; paragraphs 0042, 0045 and Figure 3; Choi discloses a processing unit is connected to an error message DB in which the processing unit stores, i.e. “executing a log recording program”, the error message, i.e. “abnormal log file”, corresponding to the connection status, i.e. “abnormal status”, into the error message DB. In other words, “generating and storing the abnormal log file corresponding to the abnormal status” by generating the error message, based on the connection status, to store in the error message DB).
While Choi discloses “generating and storing the abnormal log file corresponding to the abnormal status…”, as discussed above, Choi does not explicitly disclose monitoring operation resources of the network gateway; receiving an abnormal operations; and detecting the abnormal operations which cause the abnormal status in an operation resources.
In analogous art, Hassan discloses monitoring operation resources of the network gateway (see Hassan; paragraph 0018; Hassan discloses a gateway includes a controller that monitors the operation of the components, i.e. “monitor an operation resources”, of the gateway by periodically polling the components for current state information);
receiving an abnormal operations (see Hassan; paragraph 0018; Hassan discloses the controller monitors the operation of the components to detect failure or pending failure. In other words, the controller would have to receive “abnormal operations” in order to monitor the operation of the components and detect the failure or pending failure); and
detecting the abnormal operations which cause the abnormal status in an operation resources (see Hassan; paragraph 0018; Hassan discloses the controller detects the failure or pending failure, i.e. “an abnormal operations which cause an abnormal status”, of components, i.e. “operation resources”, within the gateway to coordinate functions for the failed components, i.e. “abnormal status”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choi and Hassan because they both disclose features of gateway management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Hassan’s monitoring the operation of components of a gateway into the system of Choi in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing the gateway to send not only an error code and error message that includes a connection status (see Choi; paragraphs 0045 and 0050) but to also include information about the failure or pending failure of the operation of the gateway’s components (see Hassan; paragraph 0018).
While Choi discloses “an abnormal log file exists”, as discussed above, and transmitting an error code corresponding to the error message and the error message to the PC communication unit (see Choi; paragraphs 0045 and 0050), the combination of Choi and Hassan does not explicitly disclose transmitting the abnormal log file to an external server through the network gateway in a case that the abnormal log file exists.
In analogous art, HE discloses transmitting the abnormal log file to an external server through the network gateway in a case that the abnormal log file exists (see HE; paragraphs 0061-0063; HE discloses a gateway identifies abnormal behavior, within itself, i.e. “in a case that the abnormal log file exists”, and transmits a notification message that comprises the abnormal behavior, i.e. “abnormal log file”, to a managing server, i.e. “external server”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choi, Hassan and HE because they all disclose features of gateway management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate HE’s transmission of a notification message indicating abnormal behavior into the combined system of Choi and Hassan in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the error code and error message sent by the gateway to the PC and from the PC to a remote server (see Choi; paragraphs 0045 and 0050) to be sent directly to the server (see HE; paragraph 0063), thereby reducing the resources being used.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (U.S. 2005/0038526 A1) in view of Hassan et al. (U.S. 2005/0190776 A1) and HE (U.S. 2018/0191520 A1), as applied to claims 2 and 7 above, and further in view of Hsieh (U.S. 2011/0055822 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Choi, Hassan and HE discloses all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. While Choi discloses “the abnormal log file does not exist”, as discussed above, the combination of Choi, Hassan and HE does not explicitly disclose wherein in a case of no abnormal status detected by the processing unit, the processing unit is configured to generate a system log file according to the normal status and store the system log file in the storage unit; and the abnormal log file is composed of the information recording structure and the information recording structure of the system log file.
In analogous art, Hsieh discloses wherein in a case of no abnormal status detected by the processing unit, the processing unit is configured to generate a system log file according to the normal status and store the system log file in the storage unit (see Hsieh; paragraphs 0010 and 0011; Hsieh discloses a gateway generates a status log, i.e. “a system log file”, showing normal status, i.e. “according to the normal status”, that is acquired by, therefore sent to, a management device); and
the abnormal log file is composed of the information recording structure and the information recording structure of the system log file (see Hsieh; paragraphs 0010 and 0015; Hsieh discloses information of an abnormal status, i.e. “the abnormal log file”, can be stored in the status log, i.e. “system log file”, and therefore “information recording structure of the system log file”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choi, Hassan, HE and Hsieh because they all disclose features of gateway management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Hsieh’s status logs into the combined system of Choi, Hassan and HE in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the gateway to show both error messages (see Choi; paragraphs 0045 and 0050) and normal status, for instance, in regards to an upgrade (see Hsieh; paragraph 0010) which would benefit the remote management (see Choi; paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 8, Choi, Hassan and HE discloses all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. While Choi discloses “completing booting and entering a working state through the network gateway in a case that the abnormal log file does not exist”, as discussed above, the combination of Choi, Hassan and HE does not explicitly disclose wherein the executing a log recording program through the network gateway further comprises: generating and storing a system log file corresponding to the normal status through the network gateway in a case that the operating status of the network gateway is a normal status.
In analogous art, Hsieh discloses wherein the executing a log recording program through the network gateway further comprises: generating and storing a system log file corresponding to the normal status through the network gateway in a case that the operating status of the network gateway is a normal status (see Hsieh; paragraphs 0010 and 0011; Hsieh discloses a gateway generates a status log, i.e. “a system log file”, showing normal status, i.e. “the normal status through the network gateway”, that is acquired by, therefore sent to, a management device).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choi, Hassan, HE and Hsieh because they all disclose features of gateway management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Hsieh’s status logs into the combined system of Choi, Hassan and HE in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the gateway to show both error messages (see Choi; paragraphs 0045 and 0050) and normal status, for instance, in regards to an upgrade (see Hsieh; paragraph 0010) which would benefit the remote management (see Choi; paragraph 0034).
Claims 4, 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (U.S. 2005/0038526 A1) in view of Hassan et al. (U.S. 2005/0190776 A1) and HE (U.S. 2018/0191520 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Gautam et al. (U.S. 2024/0137297 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Choi, Hassan and HE discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Choi and HE disclose the “abnormal file” and “transmit the abnormal file to the external server”, as discussed above, the combination of Choi, Hassan and HE does not explicitly disclose wherein after the abnormal log file is transmitted to the external server, the processing unit can clear the abnormal log file in the storage unit.
In analogous art, Gautam discloses wherein after the abnormal log file is transmitted to the external server, the processing unit can clear the abnormal log file in the storage unit (see Gautam; paragraphs 0038, 0055 and 0106; Gautam discloses fault management in which faults, i.e. “abnormal”, are recorded in a log record, i.e. “log file”, and sent to a server. An action may be taken that deletes the log record, i.e. “clear the abnormal log file in the storage unit”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choi, Hassan, HE and Gautam because they all disclose features of gateway management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Gautam’s fault management and log records into the combined system of Choi, Hassan and HE in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing for the error messages (see Choi; paragraphs 0045 and 0050) to be deleted thereby freeing resources for logging of new records (see Gautam; paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 5, Choi, Hassan and HE discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Choi and HE disclose the “abnormal file” and “transmit the abnormal file to the external server”, as discussed above, the combination of Choi, Hassan and HE does not explicitly disclose discloses wherein the processing unit can transmit the abnormal log file to the external server according to a file transfer protocol, a hypertext transfer protocol or a hypertext transfer protocol secure.
In analogous art, Gautam discloses wherein the processing unit can transmit the abnormal log file to the external server according to a file transfer protocol, a hypertext transfer protocol (see Gautam; paragraphs 0038, 0055 and 0106l; Gautam discloses a log record including faults, i.e. “abnormal”, is sent to a server via HTTP) or a hypertext transfer protocol secure (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “a hypertext transfer protocol” alternative).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choi, Hassan, HE and Gautam because they all disclose features of gateway management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Gautam’s fault management and log records into the combined system of Choi, Hassan and HE in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing for the error messages (see Choi; paragraphs 0045 and 0050) to be deleted thereby freeing resources for logging of new records (see Gautam; paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 10, Choi, Hassan and HE discloses all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, further the combination of Choi, Hassan and HE discloses wherein the step of the transmitting the abnormal log file to an external server through the network gateway comprises: checking a connection status with the external server through the network gateway (see Choi; paragraph 0069; Choi discloses determination of the connection, i.e. “checking a connection”);
reading and uploading the stored abnormal log file to the external server through the network gateway (see Choi; paragraph 0070; Choi discloses uploading the error message, i.e. “abnormal log file”, to the server);
confirming whether the abnormal log file is uploaded through the network gateway (see Choi; paragraphs 0072-0075; Choi discloses determining if the error message, i.e. “abnormal log file”, is uploaded according to whether it is possible or impossible to connect to the server, i.e. “whether the abnormal log file is uploaded through the network gateway”).
While Choi discloses “reading and uploading the stored abnormal log file”, as discussed above, the combination of Choi, Hassan and HE does not explicitly disclose and clearing the uploaded abnormal log file through the network gateway after the abnormal log file is uploaded.
In analogous art, Gautam discloses and clearing the uploaded abnormal log file through the network gateway after the abnormal log file is uploaded (see Gautam; paragraphs 0038, 0055 and 0106; Gautam discloses fault management in which faults, i.e. “abnormal”, are recorded in a log record, i.e. “log file”, and sent to a server, i.e. “uploaded” to the server. An action may be taken that deletes the log record, i.e. “clearing the uploaded abnormal log file”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choi, Hassan, HE and Gautam because they all disclose features of gateway management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Gautam’s fault management and log records into the combined system of Choi, Hassan and HE in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing for the error messages (see Choi; paragraphs 0045 and 0050) to be deleted thereby freeing resources for logging of new records (see Gautam; paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 11, Choi, Hassan, HE and Gautam disclose all the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above, and further the combination of Choi, HE and Gautam clearly discloses wherein the step of the transmitting the abnormal log file to an external server through the network gateway further comprises: retransmitting the abnormal log file by the network gateway in a case that the abnormal log file is failed to upload (see Choi; paragraphs 0070, 0072 and 0075; Choi discloses if the connection between the gateway and the server failed then the error message is uploaded again).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (U.S. 2005/0038526 A1) in view of Hassan et al. (U.S. 2005/0190776 A1) and HE (U.S. 2018/0191520 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hsieh (U.S. 2011/0055822 A1) and Srivastava (U.S. 2023/0089836 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Choi, Hassan and HE discloses all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. While the combination of Choi, Hassan and HE disclose discloses “a case that the abnormal log file exists” and an “abnormal status”, as discussed above, the combination of Choi, Hassan and HE does not explicitly disclose further comprising: generating and storing a system log file corresponding to the abnormal status through the network gateway in a case that the operating status of the network gateway is the abnormal status.
In analogous art, Hsieh discloses further comprising: generating and storing a system log file corresponding to the abnormal status through the network gateway in a case that the operating status of the network gateway is the abnormal status (see Hsieh; paragraph 0015; Hsieh discloses determining a gateway in abnormal status, and storing information from the status logs, i.e. “system log file”, and stops the software upgrade of the gateways in abnormal status, i.e. “in a case that the operating status of the network gateway is the abnormal status”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choi, Hassan, HE and Hsieh because they all disclose features of gateway management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Hsieh’s status logs into the combined system of Choi, Hassan and HE in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the gateway to show both error messages (see Choi; paragraphs 0045 and 0050) and normal status, for instance, in regards to an upgrade (see Hsieh; paragraph 0010) which would benefit the remote management (see Choi; paragraph 0034).
While the combination of Choi, Hassan, HE and Hsieh discloses “in a case that the operating status of the network gateway is the abnormal status”, as discussed above, the combination of Choi, Hassan, HE and Hsieh does not explicitly disclose and executing a rebooting operation through the network gateway in a case that the abnormal log file is generated and stored.
In analogous art, Srivastava discloses and executing a rebooting operation through the network gateway in a case that the abnormal log file is generated and stored (see Srivastava; paragraph 0066; Srivastava discloses error detection module can perform an error correction action by generating a notification that includes one or more instructions that can be executed by the gateway device to correct the error condition. For example, if the detected error, i.e. “abnormal log file”, indicates that the gateway device should be restarted (e.g., rebooted), error detection module 237 can generate a notification to be sent to the gateway device that includes instructions, that when executed by the gateway device, cause the gateway device to restart itself).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choi, Hassan, HE, Hsieh and Srivastava because they all disclose features of gateway management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Srivastava’s error correction into the combined system of Choi, Hassan, HE and Hsieh in order to provide the benefit a gateway that is corrupted or eventually impacted to be restart itself (see Srivastava; paragraph 0064) thereby allowing for services to be implemented, such as an upgrade (see Hsieh; paragraph 0010) during remote management (see Choi; paragraph 0034).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vangapalli et al. (U.S. 2022/0182278 A1) discloses a gateway device and/or monitoring service can detect an event indicating whether an error occurred or a failure occurred.
Teshome et al. (U.S. 2019/0334929 A1) discloses once a failed device, e.g. gateway, is in a boot state, a near peer or other device within range may re-image the failed device to bring it back to an operational state.
Pan et al. (U.S. 2018/0123917 A1) discloses monitoring whether a monitoring network is in an abnormal state according to the log file.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 12/04/25
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458