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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims received on 2/6/2026.
Communications via email (MPEP 502.03)
In order to advance prosecution of the instant application, the Applicants are invited to file a form PTO/SB/439 "Internet Communications Authorized", and to include, in their response, the Applicants’ contact telephone number and e-mail address:
http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
Examiner's Recommendations
The following are suggestions for the Applicants to overcome the rejections in the current office action; however, an additional search would be required in order to determine allowability:
1. (Amended) A communication network device, comprising:
an interface circuit;
a processor; and
memory that stores program instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, causes the communication network device to perform operations comprising:
broadcasting, by the communication network device, a first beacon comprising a first selective service set identifier (SSID);
determining, by the communication network device, that an error within the communication network device has occurred;
generating, by the communication network device, a second SSID with an error message that indicates the error in human-readable form comprising plain English; and
broadcasting, by the communication network device, a second beacon comprising the second SSID.
2. (Original) The communication network device of claim 1, wherein the error occurs when an electronic device attempts to associate with the communication network device or when the communication network device attempts to communicate with a service in a network that includes the communication network device.
3. (Original) The communication network device of claim 1, wherein the communication network device comprises: an access point, a switch or a router.
4. (Original) The communication network device of claim 1, wherein the feedback information is included in or associated with a selective service set identifier (SSID) associated with the communication network device.
5. (Original) The communication network device of claim 4, wherein, when the error occurs, the operations comprise dynamically changing the SSID of a wireless local area network (WLAN) provided by the communication network device to include the feedback information.
6. (Original) The communication network device of claim 1, wherein the feedback information is included in a secondary attribute associated with the communication network device.
7. (Original) The communication network device of claim 6, wherein the feedback information is included in Passpoint® information associated with a wireless local area network (WLAN) provided by the communication network device.
8. (Original) The communication network device of claim 7, wherein the Passpoint® information identifies the communication network device that is associated with the error.
9. (Original) The communication network device of claim 1, wherein the feedback information comprises an image associated with the error.
10. (Original) The communication network device of claim 9, wherein image comprises a barcode or a quick response (QR) code.
11. (Original) The communication network device of claim 1, wherein the feedback information comprises information about a remedial action to perform to address the error.
12. (Original) The communication network device of claim 1, wherein the feedback information comprises a communication performance metric of a network that includes the communication network device and that is impacted by the error.
13. (Original) The communication network device of claim 1, wherein the feedback information is provided without requiring that a user login to the communication network device or a network that includes the communication network device.
14. (Original) The communication network device of claim 1, wherein, when the error occurs, the operations comprise changing a property of a service associated with a network that includes the communication network device.
15. (Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with a communication network device, the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions, wherein, when executed by the communication network device, cause the communication network device to perform one or more operations comprising:
broadcasting, by the communication network device, a first beacon comprising a first selective service set identifier (SSID);
determining, by the communication network device, that an error within the communication network device has occurred;
generating, by the communication network device, a second SSID with an error message that indicates the error in human-readable form comprising plain English; and
broadcasting, by the communication network device, a second beacon comprising the second SSID.
16. (Original) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the feedback information is included in Passpoint® information associated with a wireless local area network (WLAN) provided by the communication network device.
17. (Original) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the feedback information is included in or associated with a selective service set identifier (SSID) of the communication network device.
18. (Amended) A method for selectively providing dynamic feedback information, comprising:
by a communication network device:
broadcasting, by the communication network device, a first beacon comprising a first selective service set identifier (SSID);
determining, by the communication network device, that an error within the communication network device has occurred;
generating, by the communication network device, a second SSID with an error message that indicates the error in human-readable form comprising plain English; and
broadcasting, by the communication network device, a second beacon comprising the second SSID.
19. (Original) The method of claim 18, wherein the feedback information is included in Passpoint® information associated with a wireless local area network (WLAN) provided by the communication network device
20. (Original) The method of claim 18, wherein the feedback information is included in or associated with a selective service set identifier (SSID) of the communication network device.
Claim Interpretation
Plain Meaning (MPEP 2111.01): MPEP 2111.01 states: The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification. An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case:
"Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium": Claims 15-17 recite a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium". The specification never mentions "non-transitory", and therefore it has its original meaning. The specification mentions claimed "computer-readable storage medium" in par. 18 without redefining it; the specification mentions a similar term in par. 94, which is not the same as the claims require. Therefore, "computer-readable storage medium" also has its original meaning. Therefore, claimed "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" is interpreted as a memory device, which isn’t a nonce word or a replacement for “means” as explained in MPEP 2181. Claimed "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" also excludes transitory embodiments, and therefore, is eligible under 35 USC 101.
"Or": The Examiner consulted the specification to verify whether there is a definition for "or", but there is no such definition. MPEP 2143.03 explains that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional, but does not require that feature or step, does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. When a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In the instant case, a claim using the term "or" is interpreted as a claim which requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, which are separated by the term “or”, as described by MPEP 2117, 2143.03, and 2173.05(h).
A is “associated with” B: A consultation was made to the specification to verify whether there is a definition for "associated with"; the specification mentions "associated with" in par. 9, 28, without providing a definition. Therefore, claimed "associated with" is very broad, and can be met by any type of association in a reference; for example, A can be associated with B merely because A and B are both mentioned in a same reference.
MPEP 2111.04: "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby" clauses in method claims: MPEP 2111.04 explains that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. The determination of whether an "adapted to", "adapted for", "wherein", or a "whereby" clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Likewise, in this case, regarding independent claims 1, 15, 18, they recite the following “wherein” clauses: "wherein the feedback information comprises an error message that indicates the error in human-readable form"; "wherein the human-readable form comprises plain English". Like the Hoffer case, these "wherein" clauses are not given weight because they simply express the intended result of a process step positively recited of "providing a beacon with feedback information". In order to have patentable weight, it would be necessary to replace the “wherein” clauses with positively recited method steps as shown in the suggested amendment at the beginning of this office action.
Computer Implemented Inventions: MPEP 2161.01 explains that when examining computer-implemented functional claims for the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, Examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Even if a claim is not construed as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), computer-implemented functional claim language must still be evaluated for sufficient disclosure under the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or the second paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 must be made in addition to the written description rejection. In this case, claims 1-17 recite computer-implemented functional language as follows: “memory that stores program instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, causes the communication network device to perform operations comprising: when an error associated with the communication network device occurs, providing a beacon with...”. This limitation doesn’t invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) because the functions are implemented by a computer, which is not a replacement for "means". The disclosure describes the computer in Fig. 6; the disclosure also describes the algorithm in Figs. 2, 3; the specification explains how the computer implements the algorithm in par. 55-66. Therefore, the Examiner understands that the Inventors possessed the claimed invention, and these computer-implemented limitations don’t raise issues under 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112(b). See also MPEP 2181, 2185.
The independent claims are interpreted as follows:
1. A communication network device, comprising:
an interface circuit;
a processor; and
memory that stores program instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, causes the communication network device to perform operations comprising:
when an error associated with the communication network device occurs (claimed "associated with" is very broad; the error may have occurred in any device of the network), providing a beacon with feedback information associated with the error (the claim doesn't require feedback about the error, because "associated with" is very broad), wherein (this "wherein" clause doesn't have patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04) the feedback information comprises an error message that indicates the error in human-readable form, and
wherein (this "wherein" clause doesn't have patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04) the human-readable form comprises plain English.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (interpreted as a memory device) for use in conjunction with a communication network device, the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions, wherein, when executed by the communication network device, cause the communication network device to perform one or more operations comprising:
determining or receiving (the prior art needs to meet either "determining" or "receiving", not both) information indicating that an error associated with the communication network device (claimed "associated with" is very broad; the error may have occurred in any device of the network) has occurred; and
providing a beacon with feedback information associated with the error (the claim doesn't require feedback about the error, because "associated with" is very broad), wherein (this "wherein" clause doesn't have patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04) the feedback information comprises an error message that indicates the error in human-readable form, and
wherein (this "wherein" clause doesn't have patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04) the human-readable form comprises plain English.
18. A method for selectively providing dynamic feedback information, comprising:
by a communication network device:
determining or receiving (the prior art needs to meet either "determining" or "receiving", not both) information indicating that an error associated with the communication network device (claimed "associated with" is very broad; the error may have occurred in any device of the network) has occurred; and
providing a beacon with feedback information associated with the error (the claim doesn't require feedback about the error, because "associated with" is very broad), wherein (this "wherein" clause doesn't have patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04) the feedback information comprises an error message that indicates the error in human-readable form, and
wherein (this "wherein" clause doesn't have patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04) the human-readable form comprises plain English.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with regards to claims and rejection analysis have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicants argue, on page 13, 4th par., that while the error codes disclosed in para. 66 and FIG. 7 of Singh may be human readable, the sequence of blinking lights is not plain English. Therefore, Singh does not disclose or suggest these claim elements.
Examiner’s response to Argument 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Liu teaches an error message that indicates the error (Liu col. 8 lines 15-20, 60-65 in reference to Fig. 5: In Step S16, an information transmitting module transmits the abnormality information to the client devices of the group of assigned related people and presents the information on the client devices in a push notification in the form of text, in a way to guarantee that the persons responsible for the external apparatus receive the information) in human-readable form, wherein the human-readable form comprises plain English (Liu col. 8 lines 20-50 in reference to Fig. 5: The user can set the desired language in the client device, the setting is stored in the server 12. The information transmitted to the user will be presented on the user's client device via push notification in the form of text in the specified language. For example, if External Apparatus A is located in the USA, English is assigned to External Apparatus A, and the language of the text is set in the client device, which will probably be English).
Argument 2: Applicants argue, on page 14, 1st par., that as evidenced and argued previously in the present response, Singh does not disclose or suggest all the claim elements of the independent claims. This deficiency is not corrected by the inclusion of Xu in the cited combination, either individually or in combination with Singh. Notably, Xu does not disclose or suggest the claim elements that the human-readable form comprises plain English.
Examiner’s response to Argument 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Liu teaches an error message that indicates the error (Liu col. 8 lines 15-20, 60-65 in reference to Fig. 5: In Step S16, an information transmitting module transmits the abnormality information to the client devices of the group of assigned related people and presents the information on the client devices in a push notification in the form of text, in a way to guarantee that the persons responsible for the external apparatus receive the information) in human-readable form, wherein the human-readable form comprises plain English (Liu col. 8 lines 20-50 in reference to Fig. 5: The user can set the desired language in the client device, the setting is stored in the server 12. The information transmitted to the user will be presented on the user's client device via push notification in the form of text in the specified language. For example, if External Apparatus A is located in the USA, English is assigned to External Apparatus A, and the language of the text is set in the client device, which will probably be English).
Argument 3: Applicants argue, on page 14, 5th par., that as evidenced and argued previously in the present response, Singh does not disclose or suggest all the claim elements of the independent claims. This deficiency is not corrected by the inclusion of Hodroj in the cited combination, either individually or in combination with Singh. Notably, Hodroj does not disclose or suggest the claim elements that the human-readable form comprises plain English.
Examiner’s response to Argument 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Liu teaches an error message that indicates the error (Liu col. 8 lines 15-20, 60-65 in reference to Fig. 5: In Step S16, an information transmitting module transmits the abnormality information to the client devices of the group of assigned related people and presents the information on the client devices in a push notification in the form of text, in a way to guarantee that the persons responsible for the external apparatus receive the information) in human-readable form, wherein the human-readable form comprises plain English (Liu col. 8 lines 20-50 in reference to Fig. 5: The user can set the desired language in the client device, the setting is stored in the server 12. The information transmitted to the user will be presented on the user's client device via push notification in the form of text in the specified language. For example, if External Apparatus A is located in the USA, English is assigned to External Apparatus A, and the language of the text is set in the client device, which will probably be English).
Argument 4: Applicants argue, on page 14, 9th par., that and argued previously in the present response, Singh does not disclose or suggest all the claim elements of the independent claims. This deficiency is not corrected by the inclusion of Dugan et al. in the cited combination, either individually or in combination with Singh. Notably, Dugan et al. does not disclose or suggest the claim elements that the human-readable form comprises plain English.
Examiner’s response to Argument 4: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Liu teaches an error message that indicates the error (Liu col. 8 lines 15-20, 60-65 in reference to Fig. 5: In Step S16, an information transmitting module transmits the abnormality information to the client devices of the group of assigned related people and presents the information on the client devices in a push notification in the form of text, in a way to guarantee that the persons responsible for the external apparatus receive the information) in human-readable form, wherein the human-readable form comprises plain English (Liu col. 8 lines 20-50 in reference to Fig. 5: The user can set the desired language in the client device, the setting is stored in the server 12. The information transmitted to the user will be presented on the user's client device via push notification in the form of text in the specified language. For example, if External Apparatus A is located in the USA, English is assigned to External Apparatus A, and the language of the text is set in the client device, which will probably be English).
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 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.
7.20.02.aia Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-15, 17, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (publication number 2020/0287782), hereinafter Singh, and further in view of Liu et al (patent number 10,049,509), hereinafter Liu.
Singh uses the following terminology (please refer to Singh Fig. 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
766
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wireless terminal (WT) is the same as "user equipment" (UE), see Singh par. 48.
Access Point (AP), see Singh par. 2.
"Error" is used interchangeably with "fault", see Singh par. 14, 15.
Error Reporting Module (ERM) 226 explained in par. 20 in reference to Fig. 2: When an AP detects that it cannot connect to the backhaul network and/or to the cloud, the error reporting module (ERM) examines the internal log and creates a message that could facilitate identifying the root cause of the fault.
Regarding claim 1, Singh teaches a communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52), comprising:
an interface circuit (claimed "interface circuit" equates to first wireless interface 236 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 50);
a processor (claimed "processor" equates to processor 206 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 50); and
memory (claimed "memory" equates to memory 212 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 50) that stores program instructions (Singh par. 83, 87), wherein, when executed by the processor (processor 206 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 50; see also par. 85-87), causes the communication network device (AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52) to perform operations (please refer to Singh Fig. 6, 7) comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
680
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
552
670
media_image3.png
Greyscale
when an error associated with the communication network device occurs (Singh par. 14: when a component experiences an issue, the component sends an error message to the monitoring service. The error message contains information, e.g., internal log information, which can help a technician in the process of determining the root cause of the fault. Par. 52 in reference to Fig. 1, 2: ERM 226 monitors connectivity of the AP to the cloud 150. Upon detecting that the AP cannot connect to the cloud, the AP, and in particular the ERM 226, formulates an error message to be sent to the monitoring system 136 of FIG. 1), providing a beacon with feedback information (claimed "feedback information" equates to Singh's error message in par. 14, 52) associated with the error, wherein the feedback information comprises an error message that indicates the error (Singh par. 52 in reference to Fig. 1, 2: Upon detecting that the AP cannot connect to the cloud, the ERM 226 of the AP formulates an error message to be sent to the monitoring system 136 of FIG. 1; the error message is then conveyed to a beacon and broadcast via beacon transmitter 246. Par. 14: The error message contains information, e.g., internal log information, which can help a technician in the process of determining the root cause of the fault. Par. 48: Wireless terminals UE 1, UE Z, UE 1′, and UE Z′ receive the beacon signals transmitted by the AP's) in human-readable form (Singh par. 62: Fig. 6 is a process inside the AP. Par. 65: the ERM of the isolated AP generates an error message; in step 640, the error message is displayed by the LED(s) informing observers in the vicinity of the isolated AP about the nature of the failure. Par. 66: FIG. 7 is an illustrative example of error codes and corresponding LED sequences 700 shown in table form).
Singh does not explicitly teach claimed "wherein the human-readable form comprises plain English".
Liu teaches a system represented in Fig. 1 and described in in col. 3 line 55 – col 4 line 15, which monitors operations of various external apparatuses 16 for abnormalities, and informs maintenance personnel in real time when an apparatus suffers an abnormality, so as to repair the apparatus timely and prevent work from being delayed. The numerals in Fig. 1 are as follows: 10, External apparatus. 16: Client devices. Liu's Table 3 provides examples of abnormalities, which are the same as "errors".
PNG
media_image4.png
937
593
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
308
501
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Liu teaches (please refer to Liu Fig. 1, 5):
PNG
media_image6.png
688
557
media_image6.png
Greyscale
an error message that indicates the error (Liu col. 8 lines 15-20, 60-65 in reference to Fig. 5: In Step S16, an information transmitting module transmits the abnormality information to the client devices of the group of assigned related people and presents the information on the client devices in a push notification in the form of text, in a way to guarantee that the persons responsible for the external apparatus receive the information) in human-readable form, wherein the human-readable form comprises plain English (Liu col. 8 lines 20-50 in reference to Fig. 5: The user can set the desired language in the client device, the setting is stored in the server 12. The information transmitted to the user will be presented on the user's client device via push notification in the form of text in the specified language. For example, if External Apparatus A is located in the USA, English is assigned to External Apparatus A, and the language of the text is set in the client device, which will probably be English).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Singh, by transmitting abnormality information to the client devices of the group of assigned related people and presenting the information on the client devices in a push notification in the form of text, using a language which has been set by the user, such as English, as suggested by Liu, in order to provide a system for transmitting apparatus-related information in real time, which uses a simple and instantaneous way to inform the administrator of the abnormality of an external apparatus, whereby the administrator can promptly learn and deal with the abnormality; also to assign related persons for each external apparatus and establish a notification group for the related persons, which transmits information to the client devices of the notification group while an abnormality occurs; also so as to repair the apparatus timely and prevent work from being delayed (Liu col. 1 lines 50-67 and col. 3 lines 55-67). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 2, Singh teaches wherein the error occurs when an electronic device attempts to associate with the communication network device or when the communication network device attempts to communicate with a service in a network that includes the communication network device (Singh par. 52 in reference to Fig. 1, 2: Upon detecting that the AP cannot connect to the cloud, the ERM 226 of the AP formulates an error message to be sent to the monitoring system 136 of FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Singh teaches wherein the communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52) comprises: an access point (Access Point (AP), see Singh par. 2), a switch or a router.
Regarding claim 4, Singh teaches wherein the feedback information (Singh par. 52 in reference to Fig. 1, 2: Upon detecting that the AP cannot connect to the cloud, the ERM 226 of the AP formulates an error message to be sent to the monitoring system 136 of FIG. 1; the error message is then conveyed to a beacon and broadcast via beacon transmitter 246. Singh par. 14: The error message contains information, e.g., internal log information, which can help a technician in the process of determining the root cause of the fault) is included in or associated with a selective service set identifier (SSID, Singh par. 53: SSID) associated with the communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52).
Regarding claim 6, Singh teaches wherein the feedback information (claimed "feedback information" equates to Singh's error message in par. 14, 52) is included in a secondary attribute (Singh par. 65: in step 640, the error message is displayed by the LED(s) informing observers in the vicinity of the isolated AP about the nature of the failure. Claimed "secondary attribute" equates, for example, with the colors of the LEDs as explained in par. 18, 19) associated with the communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52).
Regarding claim 9, Singh teaches wherein the feedback information (claimed "feedback information" equates to Singh's error message in par. 14, 52) comprises an image associated with the error (Singh par. 65: "the error message is optionally displayed by the LED(s) informing observers in the vicinity of the isolated AP about the nature of the failure" – therefore, the observers would see an image associated with the error. Singh par. 30: displaying detailed information about the root cause of the issue on a screen of an IT technician).
Regarding claim 11, Singh teaches wherein the feedback information (claimed "feedback information" equates to Singh's error message in par. 14, 52) comprises information about a remedial action to perform to address the error (Singh par. 81: FIG. 10 is an illustration of an exemplary table 1000 which provides examples of automated corrective measures associated with error codes).
Regarding claim 12, Singh teaches wherein the feedback information (claimed "feedback information" equates to Singh's error message in par. 14, 52) comprises a communication performance metric of a network (Singh par. 48: Wireless terminals UE 1, UE Z, UE 1′, and UE Z′ receive the beacon signals, measure the RSSI and report the RSSI via the Wi-Fi link and routers R1, RY, R1′, and RY′, to the location server 134) that includes the communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52) and that is impacted by the error (Singh par. 52 in reference to Fig. 1, 2: Upon detecting that the AP cannot connect to the cloud, the AP, and in particular the ERM 226, formulates an error message to be sent to the monitoring system 136 of FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Singh teaches wherein the feedback information (claimed "feedback information" equates to Singh's error message in par. 14, 52) is provided without requiring that a user login (Singh par. 65: in step 640, the error message is displayed by the LED(s) informing observers in the vicinity of the isolated AP about the nature of the failure. Therefore, the users don't need to login in order to visualize the error codes) to the communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52) or a network that includes the communication network device.
Regarding claim 14, Singh teaches wherein, when the error occurs, the operations comprise changing a property of a service (Singh par. 80: reconfiguring a firewall or reconfiguring a server would imply a change in properties of the firewall service, or the services provided by the server) associated with a network that includes the communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52).
Regarding claim 15, Singh teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claimed "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" equates to memory 212 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 50; see also "non-transitory computer readable information storage media" in par. 210) for use in conjunction with a communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52), the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions (Singh par. 83, 87), wherein, when executed by the communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52), cause the communication network device to perform one or more operations (please refer to Singh Fig. 6, 7) comprising:
determining or receiving (Singh teaches "receiving" in par. 14: when a component experiences an issue, the component sends an error message to the monitoring service) information indicating that an error associated with the communication network device has occurred (Singh par. 14: when a component experiences an issue, the component sends an error message to the monitoring service. The error message contains information, e.g., internal log information, which can help a technician in the process of determining the root cause of the fault. Par. 52 in reference to Fig. 1, 2: ERM 226 monitors connectivity of the AP to the cloud 150. Upon detecting that the AP cannot connect to the cloud, the AP, and in particular the ERM 226, formulates an error message to be sent to the monitoring system 136 of FIG. 1); and
providing a beacon with feedback information (claimed "feedback information" equates to Singh's error message in par. 14, 52) associated with the error, wherein the feedback information comprises an error message that indicates the error (Singh par. 52 in reference to Fig. 1, 2: Upon detecting that the AP cannot connect to the cloud, the ERM 226 of the AP formulates an error message to be sent to the monitoring system 136 of FIG. 1; the error message is then conveyed to a beacon and broadcast via beacon transmitter 246. Par. 14: The error message contains information, e.g., internal log information, which can help a technician in the process of determining the root cause of the fault. Par. 48: Wireless terminals UE 1, UE Z, UE 1′, and UE Z′ receive the beacon signals transmitted by the AP's), wherein the feedback information comprises an error message that indicates the error in human-readable form (Singh par. 62: Fig. 6 is a process inside the AP. Par. 65: the ERM of the isolated AP generates an error message; in step 640, the error message is displayed by the LED(s) informing observers in the vicinity of the isolated AP about the nature of the failure. Par. 66: FIG. 7 is an illustrative example of error codes and corresponding LED sequences 700 shown in table form).
Singh does not explicitly teach claimed "wherein the human-readable form comprises plain English".
Liu teaches a system represented in Fig. 1 and described in in col. 3 line 55 – col 4 line 15, which monitors operations of various external apparatuses 16 for abnormalities, and informs maintenance personnel in real time when an apparatus suffers an abnormality, so as to repair the apparatus timely and prevent work from being delayed. The numerals in Fig. 1 are as follows: 10, External apparatus. 16: Client devices. Liu's Table 3 provides examples of abnormalities, which are the same as "errors". Liu teaches (please refer to Liu Fig. 1, 5):
an error message that indicates the error (Liu col. 8 lines 15-20, 60-65 in reference to Fig. 5: In Step S16, an information transmitting module transmits the abnormality information to the client devices of the group of assigned related people and presents the information on the client devices in a push notification in the form of text, in a way to guarantee that the persons responsible for the external apparatus receive the information) in human-readable form, wherein the human-readable form comprises plain English (Liu col. 8 lines 20-50 in reference to Fig. 5: The user can set the desired language in the client device, the setting is stored in the server 12. The information transmitted to the user will be presented on the user's client device via push notification in the form of text in the specified language. For example, if External Apparatus A is located in the USA, English is assigned to External Apparatus A, and the language of the text is set in the client device, which will probably be English).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Singh, by transmitting abnormality information to the client devices of the group of assigned related people and presenting the information on the client devices in a push notification in the form of text, using a language which has been set by the user, such as English, as suggested by Liu, in order to provide a system for transmitting apparatus-related information in real time, which uses a simple and instantaneous way to inform the administrator of the abnormality of an external apparatus, whereby the administrator can promptly learn and deal with the abnormality; also to assign related persons for each external apparatus and establish a notification group for the related persons, which transmits information to the client devices of the notification group while an abnormality occurs; also so as to repair the apparatus timely and prevent work from being delayed (Liu col. 1 lines 50-67 and col. 3 lines 55-67). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 17, Singh teaches wherein the feedback information (Singh par. 52 in reference to Fig. 1, 2: Upon detecting that the AP cannot connect to the cloud, the ERM 226 of the AP formulates an error message to be sent to the monitoring system 136 of FIG. 1; the error message is then conveyed to a beacon and broadcast via beacon transmitter 246. Singh par. 14: The error message contains information, e.g., internal log information, which can help a technician in the process of determining the root cause of the fault) is included in or associated with a selective service set identifier (SSID, Singh par. 53: SSID) of the communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52).
Regarding claim 18, Singh teaches a method ("method" in Singh par. 19, 31) for selectively providing dynamic feedback information (claimed "feedback information" equates to Singh's error message in par. 14, 52), comprising:
by a communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52):
determining or receiving (Singh teaches "receiving" in par. 14: when a component experiences an issue, the component sends an error message to the monitoring service) information indicating that an error associated with the communication network device has occurred (Singh par. 14: when a component experiences an issue, the component sends an error message to the monitoring service. The error message contains information, e.g., internal log information, which can help a technician in the process of determining the root cause of the fault. Par. 52 in reference to Fig. 1, 2: ERM 226 monitors connectivity of the AP to the cloud 150. Upon detecting that the AP cannot connect to the cloud, the AP, and in particular the ERM 226, formulates an error message to be sent to the monitoring system 136 of FIG. 1); and
providing a beacon with feedback information (claimed "feedback information" equates to Singh's error message in par. 14, 52) associated with the error, wherein the feedback information comprises an error message that indicates the error (Singh par. 52 in reference to Fig. 1, 2: Upon detecting that the AP cannot connect to the cloud, the ERM 226 of the AP formulates an error message to be sent to the monitoring system 136 of FIG. 1; the error message is then conveyed to a beacon and broadcast via beacon transmitter 246. Par. 14: The error message contains information, e.g., internal log information, which can help a technician in the process of determining the root cause of the fault. Par. 48: Wireless terminals UE 1, UE Z, UE 1′, and UE Z′ receive the beacon signals transmitted by the AP's), wherein the feedback information comprises an error message that indicates the error in human-readable form (Singh par. 62: Fig. 6 is a process inside the AP. Par. 65: the ERM of the isolated AP generates an error message; in step 640, the error message is displayed by the LED(s) informing observers in the vicinity of the isolated AP about the nature of the failure. Par. 66: FIG. 7 is an illustrative example of error codes and corresponding LED sequences 700 shown in table form).
Singh does not explicitly teach claimed "wherein the human-readable form comprises plain English".
Liu teaches a system represented in Fig. 1 and described in in col. 3 line 55 – col 4 line 15, which monitors operations of various external apparatuses 16 for abnormalities, and informs maintenance personnel in real time when an apparatus suffers an abnormality, so as to repair the apparatus timely and prevent work from being delayed. The numerals in Fig. 1 are as follows: 10, External apparatus. 16: Client devices. Liu's Table 3 provides examples of abnormalities, which are the same as "errors". Liu teaches (please refer to Liu Fig. 1, 5):
an error message that indicates the error (Liu col. 8 lines 15-20, 60-65 in reference to Fig. 5: In Step S16, an information transmitting module transmits the abnormality information to the client devices of the group of assigned related people and presents the information on the client devices in a push notification in the form of text, in a way to guarantee that the persons responsible for the external apparatus receive the information) in human-readable form, wherein the human-readable form comprises plain English (Liu col. 8 lines 20-50 in reference to Fig. 5: The user can set the desired language in the client device, the setting is stored in the server 12. The information transmitted to the user will be presented on the user's client device via push notification in the form of text in the specified language. For example, if External Apparatus A is located in the USA, English is assigned to External Apparatus A, and the language of the text is set in the client device, which will probably be English).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Singh, by transmitting abnormality information to the client devices of the group of assigned related people and presenting the information on the client devices in a push notification in the form of text, using a language which has been set by the user, such as English, as suggested by Liu, in order to provide a system for transmitting apparatus-related information in real time, which uses a simple and instantaneous way to inform the administrator of the abnormality of an external apparatus, whereby the administrator can promptly learn and deal with the abnormality; also to assign related persons for each external apparatus and establish a notification group for the related persons, which transmits information to the client devices of the notification group while an abnormality occurs; also so as to repair the apparatus timely and prevent work from being delayed (Liu col. 1 lines 50-67 and col. 3 lines 55-67). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 20, Singh teaches wherein the feedback information (Singh par. 52 in reference to Fig. 1, 2: Upon detecting that the AP cannot connect to the cloud, the ERM 226 of the AP formulates an error message to be sent to the monitoring system 136 of FIG. 1; the error message is then conveyed to a beacon and broadcast via beacon transmitter 246. Singh par. 14: The error message contains information, e.g., internal log information, which can help a technician in the process of determining the root cause of the fault) is included in or associated with a selective service set identifier (SSID, Singh par. 53: SSID) of the communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, in view of Liu, and further in view of Xu et al (publication number 2018/0049063), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 5, Singh as modified does not explicitly teach wherein, when the error occurs, the operations comprise dynamically changing the SSID of a wireless local area network (WLAN) provided by the communication network device to include the feedback information.
Xu teaches wherein, when the error occurs (Xu par. 115: the load situation of WLAN is not good), the operations comprise dynamically changing the SSID (Xu par. 115: the WT triggers a parameters change, e.g. mobility set change of SSID serving the UE) of a wireless local area network (WLAN, Xu par. 116: The WT change indication includes security key/parameters change, or mobility set change (WLAN IDs, e.g. SSID/BSSID)) provided by the communication network device to include the feedback information (Xu par. 116: the WT transmits a WT Modification Required message to the eNB; it would have been obvious to include Singh's error message in Xu's modification required message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Singh as modified, by deploying Xu's WT which transmits a WT Modification Required message to the eNB, including a SSID change, as suggested by Xu, in order to perform offloading procedures for wireless local area network (WLAN)-long term evolution (LTE) integration and interworking in a wireless communication system (Xu par. 7). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claims 7, 8, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, in view of Liu, and further in view of Hodroj (publication number 2019/0253960), hereinafter Hodroj.
Regarding claim 7, 16, 19, Singh teaches wherein the feedback information (claimed "feedback information" equates to Singh's error message in par. 14, 52) is associated with a wireless local area network (WLAN, Singh par. 94, WLAN) provided by the communication network device (claimed "communication network device" equates to AP 200 represented in Singh Fig. 2 and described in par. 49-52).
Singh as modified does not explicitly teach claimed " Passpoint® information".
Hodroj teaches wherein the feedback information is included in Passpoint® information (claimed "PASSPOINT information" equate to PASSPOINT parameters 120 described in Hodroj par. 17 in reference to Fig. 1: PASSPOINT parameters 120. The PASSPOINT WI-FI hotspots 111-115 are broadcasting PASSPOINT parameters 120. It would have been obvious to add Singh's error message to Hodroj's PASSPOINT parameters) associated with a wireless local area network (WLAN, Hodroj par. 17: WLAN) provided by the communication network device (Hodroj's PASSPOINT WI-FI hotspots 111-115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Singh as modified, by deploying Hodroj's PASSPOINT WI-FI hotspots 111-115 which are broadcasting PASSPOINT parameters 120, and by adding Singh's error message to Hodroj's PASSPOINT parameters, as suggested by Hodroj, because Passpoint® is an industry solution to streamline network access in hotspots and eliminate the need for users to find and authenticate to WiFi networks. Authentication is performed automatically and silently by the compliant mobile device and hotspot without user actions. This enables a more cellular-like experience when connecting to WiFi networks (Hodroj par. 2). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 8, Singh teaches wherein the Passpoint® information identifies the communication network device that is associated with the error (Singh par. 26: the ERM of the receiving AP forms a message that includes the ID(s) of the respective neighboring isolated AP(s) which also cannot connect to the cloud/network. Par. 68 in reference to Fig. 7: The neighboring AP forms a message to be sent over a LAN/WAN to the network management server. The payload in this message includes the ID of the isolated AP and the trouble code received from that AP).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, in view of Liu, and further in view of Dugan et al (publication number 2012/0131416), hereinafter Dugan.
Regarding claim 10, Singh as modified does not explicitly teach claimed "wherein image comprises a barcode or a quick response (QR) code".
Dugan teaches wherein image comprises a barcode or a quick response (QR) code (Dugan par. 33 in reference to Fig. 3A: the television detects an error condition because the television receiver is not receiving a signal from the programming provider. The television then displays an error message in the form of a QR code 306A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Singh as modified, by deploying the feature of Dugan's television which detects an error condition and then displays an error message in the form of a QR code 306A, as suggested by Dugan, in order to facilitate user support of an electronic device, and to present to a user a set of additional information related to resolution of an error condition (Dugan par. 18, 49). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RONALD EISNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644