DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said third period of time" in in the first limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said period of time" in the first limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1 and 3 references different periods of time so it is not clear which is being referred to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2018/122576 by Chan et al.
As to claim 1, Chan teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: determining, by a device, that accessibility to or via a network is unacceptable in relation to a criterion (paragraph 42); causing, by the device, a power supply to be unavailable or insufficient (paragraph 80); and causing, by the device, the power supply to be available or sufficient (paragraph 80).
As to claim 2, the policy is clearly stored in a device so that it can be evaluated later.
A to claim 3, see paragraphs 42, 74, and 80.
As to claim 4, see claims 5 and 7 of Chan.
As to claim 6, see paragraph 66.
As to claim 7, see paragraph 66, the predetermined time period represents one speed and a time longer than the predetermined time period is another, slower speed.
As to claims 10, the actions of paragraphs 42 and 80 can be performed iteratively any number of times.
As to claim 11, see paragraph 66.
As to claim 15, see paragraph 42 and 80.
As to claim 16, see paragraph 66.
As to claim 18, see paragraph 42.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1. Figure 4A and Figures 1C-1E shows details of a device for implementing a method.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/122576 by Chan et al. in view U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0238444 by John et al
As to claim 5, Chan teaches the subject matter of claim 1 including speed testing (paragraph 66) but Chan does not explicitly teach using percentage information to determine speed.
John teaches determining that accessibility to or via the network is unacceptable comprises determining, by the device, that a download or upload speed to or via the network is lower than another speed, wherein the other speed is determined in relation to percentage information, said percentage information is stored in one or more memories, and the device comprises the one or more memories (paragraphs 9 and 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Chan regarding managing internet connections with the teachings of John regarding considering speed percentages because such information can provide context for testing.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 12, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/122576 by Chan et al. in view of the cited internet article by Aguirre.
As to claim 8, Chan teaches the method of claim 1 including an electric outlet (claim 5 of Chan) and storing a time interval (paragraph 66); however, Chan does not explicitly teach managing the power to a router or modem after determining the internet is not accessible via a Wifi network.
Aguirre teaches a method of determining that accessibility to or via the network is unacceptable comprises determining, by the device, that the Internet is not accessible via a Wi-Fi network (a speed test can be run); wherein a modem or router is plugged into said electrical outlet, and the modem or router enables the device to access the Internet via the Wi-Fi network; wherein causing a power supply to be unavailable or insufficient comprises disabling said electrical outlet; and wherein causing the power supply to be available or sufficient comprises enabling said electrical outlet in relation to a time interval, wherein the time interval is determined in relation to time information (Aguirre discusses how both routers and modems can have their power supplies made unavailable for a time interval).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Chan regarding controlling power to devices with the teachings of Aguirre regarding managing routers and modems for internet connection because, as explained by Aguirre, such equipment is common to internet connections.
As to claim 9, see paragraph 66 of Chan.
As to claims 12 and 14, Agguire teaches turning off a modem/router and Wifi access point separately. It would be obvious to combine Chan with Aggiure for the reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
As to claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the combination of steps and their relation to visual indicators, tactile inputs, and electric outlets used in the manner claimed was not found to be suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454