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 .
The claims filed on 10/27/2023 are entered and acknowledge. Claims 1-9 have been amended. Claim 10 has been cancelled. Claims 1-9 are currently pending in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/27/2023 have been considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/27/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 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.
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 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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colliaux et al Pub. No.: (US 2021/0068032 A1) (hereinafter “Colliaux”) in view of Klein et al Pub. No.: (US 2013/0301553 A1) (hereinafter "Klein”).
With respect to claim 1: Colliaux discloses a method for managing messages broadcast in a local area network comprising nodes allowing an extension of wireless communication coverage and stations, the nodes allowing an extension of coverage being connected together by a backhaul subnetwork (a plurality of node interconnected by means of backhaul subnetwork in a local area network [0002-0003], [0008], [0030], [0051]), at least one node allowing an extension of wireless communication coverage sending at least one wireless network, referred to as fronthaul network, to which the stations are connected, the local area network comprising a primary subnetwork and a secondary subnetwork, the primary subnetwork being a subnetwork to which the links of the backhaul network and the nodes belong (the nodes are connected in a LAN and a master node is chosen among the plurality of nodes, usually the closest to the internet access gateway. Typically each node of the plurality of nodes in the backhaul subnetwork functions as a access point of the wireless LAN [0004-0005], [0009-0011], [0030], [0051-0052]), the secondary subnetwork being a subnetwork composed of at least one station and which is isolated from the rest of the local area, wherein the method comprises the steps, performed by a node able to apply filtering rules, of (nodes N2 is connected to N3 and N4 distinctly from the wireless LAN itself [0053-0054]. The master nodes of each branch can control the traffic associated with them, therefore can implement certain specific functionalities, e.g. Firewall or parental control [0062-0063], [0066-0069], [0071]):
demanding an analysis of the topology of the local area network (the current auxiliary master nodes determines the number of nodes present in its branch and also receives the information from other auxiliary master nodes [0104-0105]. Additionally, a principal master node may be selected from the plurality of auxiliary nodes based on the topology [0106]),
determining from the topology of the local area network, filtering rules to be applied (based on the determination of a principal master node from the topology, filtering data streams are configured into the principal master node [0066]),
applying the filtering rules determined to the broadcast packets (filtering applied to the packets [0066-0067]);
However, Colliaux does not explicitly disclose a subnetwork composed of at least one station and which is isolated from the rest of the local area network by a virtual network;
the filtering rules determined to the broadcast packets comprising at least one item of information identifying the virtual network;
Klein discloses a subnetwork composed of at least one station and which is isolated from the rest of the local area network by a virtual network (virtual distributed bridge and wireless stations functions as ports of the virtual distributed bridge [0053]);
the filtering rules determined to the broadcast packets comprising at least one item of information identifying the virtual network (performing active topology enforcement and control port filtering and multicasting handling of the virtual network [0191-0195], [Fig. 16], [Fig. 17]);
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 modify Colliaux in view of Klein in order to have a station isolated from the LAN by a virtual network and information identifying the virtual network;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide a quality of service function to reserve bandwidth for certain traffic flows [Klein: 0074].
With respect to claim 8, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1, respectively. Therefore claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1, respectively. Therefore claim 9 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colliaux et al Pub. No.: (US 2021/0068032 A1) (hereinafter “Colliaux”) in view of Klein et al Pub. No.: (US 2013/0301553 A1) (hereinafter "Klein”) as applied to claims 1 above, further in view of Iyer et al Pub. No.: (US 2013/0201979 A1) (hereinafter "Iyer”).
With respect to claim 2: Colliaux-Klein discloses the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Colliaux-Klein does not explicitly disclose wherein analyzing the topology of the network comprises determining the presence of a node unable to apply the filtering rules and/or the presence of a switch connected to the backhaul subnetwork;
Iyer discloses wherein analyzing the topology of the network comprises determining the presence of a node unable to apply the filtering rules and/or the presence of a switch connected to the backhaul subnetwork (switch connected on a subnetwork includes a plurality of ports [0050-0051], [0056-0058]);
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 modify Colliaux-Klein in view of Iyer in order to analyze a topology comprises determining a presence of a switch connected to the backhaul network;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide security and performance goals [Iyer: 0052].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colliaux et al Pub. No.: (US 2021/0068032 A1) (hereinafter “Colliaux”) in view of Klein et al Pub. No.: (US 2013/0301553 A1) (hereinafter "Klein”) and Iyer et al Pub. No.: (US 2013/0201979 A1) (hereinafter "Iyer”) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Liang et al Pub. No.: (US 2016/0094400 A1) (hereinafter "Liang”).
With respect to claim 4: Colliaux-Klein-Iyer discloses the method according to claim 2 as set forth above,
Colliaux discloses wherein, if the local area network comprises only nodes able to apply the filtering rules and no switch (auxiliary and principal master nodes are capable of applying filters [0066], [0072]);
However, Colliaux-Klein-Iyer does not explicitly disclose each compatible node deletes the broadcast packets possessing information identifying a secondary subnetwork on the primary interfaces of the backhaul subnetwork;
Liang discloses deletes the broadcast packets possessing information identifying a secondary subnetwork (transmitting broadcast packet with ID7 and port41 removed [0084-0085]);
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 modify Colliaux-Klein-Iyer in view of Liang in order to deletes the broadcast packets possessing information identifying a secondary subnetwork;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide secure transmission [Liang: abstract]
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colliaux et al Pub. No.: (US 2021/0068032 A1) (hereinafter “Colliaux”) in view of Klein et al Pub. No.: (US 2013/0301553 A1) (hereinafter "Klein”) and Iyer et al Pub. No.: (US 2013/0201979 A1) (hereinafter "Iyer”) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Liu et al Pub. No.: (US 2021/0119815 A1) (hereinafter "Liu”).
With respect to claim 5: Colliaux-Klein-Iyer discloses the method according to claim 2 as set forth above, wherein applying the filtering rules to be applied is broken down into a substep of:
However, Colliaux-Klein-Iyer does not explicitly disclose transforming the broadcast messages sent in the secondary subnetworks into unicast messages at each compatible node;
Liu discloses transforming the broadcast messages sent in the secondary subnetworks into unicast messages at each compatible node (transforming the broadcast message into a set or unicast messages, the unicast message are sent directly to the one or more WGBs [0053], [0070]);
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 modify Colliaux-Klein-Iyer in view of Liu in order to transforming the broadcast messages sent in the secondary subnetworks into unicast messages at each compatible node;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would convert the multicast message for the client stations including necessary address information required [Liu: 0053].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colliaux et al Pub. No.: (US 2021/0068032 A1) (hereinafter “Colliaux”) in view of Klein et al Pub. No.: (US 2013/0301553 A1) (hereinafter "Klein”) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hotta et al Pub. No.: (US 2021/0006470 A1) (hereinafter "Hotta”).
With respect to claim 6: Colliaux-Klein discloses the method according to claim 1 as set forth above, wherein determining the topology of the network is broken down into substeps of:
Colliaux discloses generating a list of equipment in the local area network (nodes, gateways, terminals [0053-0054], [Fig. 1]);
type of each item of equipment in the local area network (nodes, gateways, terminals [0053-0054], [Fig. 1]);
whether it belongs to the backhaul subnetwork or to the fronthaul subnetwork (local network nodes and terminals [0053-0054], [Fig. 1]);
whether it is physically connected to an interface of the fronthaul network (cable connections [0052], [Fig. 1])
generating a table describing, for each station, whether it is physically connected to an interface of a node (cable connections [0052], [Fig. 1])
However, Colliaux does not explicitly disclose generating a table representing the subnetwork to which each interface and each bridge of a node belongs,
generating a table for determining the connection interface of each item of equipment in the local area network,
Klein discloses generating a table representing the subnetwork to which each interface and each bridge of a node belongs (Bridging table [Fig. 7], [Fig. 8]);
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 modify Colliaux in view of Klein in order to generating a table representing the subnetwork to which each interface and each bridge of a node belongs;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide a quality of service [Klein: 0043];
However, However, Colliaux-Klein does not explicitly disclose generating a table for determining the connection interface of each item of equipment in the local area network,
Hotta discloses generating a table for a list of equipment in the local area network (table for list of nodes on network [Fig. 10]);
generating a table for type of each item of equipment in the local area network (table for node type on network [Fig. 10]);
generating a table for whether it belongs to the backhaul subnetwork or to the fronthaul subnetwork (location of node [Fig. 10]);
generating a table for determining the connection interface of each item of equipment in the local area network (connection port for node [Fig. 10]);
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 modify Colliaux-Klein in view of Hotta in order to generate tables for identifying nodes and equipment on the network;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to compare topology may information for each node to determine whether or not a configuration of the ring network is according to design [Hotta: Abstract];
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colliaux et al Pub. No.: (US 2021/0068032 A1) (hereinafter “Colliaux”) in view of Klein et al Pub. No.: (US 2013/0301553 A1) (hereinafter "Klein”) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Boucadair et al Pub. No.: (US 2020/0092729 A1) (hereinafter "Boucadair”).
With respect to claim 7: Colliaux-Klein discloses the method according to claim 1 as set forth above,
However, Colliaux-Klein does not explicitly disclose wherein the method is implemented by a node called a residential gateway that provides access to the internet;
Boucadair discloses wherein the method is implemented by a node called a residential gateway that provides access to the internet (residential gateway implementing rules and a control method according to the invention [0007], [0048], [0059] and allowing access to the internet [0004], [0005]);
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 modify Colliaux-Klein in view of Boucadair in order to implement by a residential gateway that provides access to the internet;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide security for subzones [Boucadair: 0087].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Salem et al. Pub. No.: (US 2018/0013662 A1). The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-9 (e.g., Method and apparatus for mapping network data models).
Ou et al. Pub. No.: (US 2012/0278845 A1). The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-9 (e.g., Method and device for ensuring quality of service of internet protocol television live broadcast service).
Jasper et al. Pub. No.: (US 2024/0077852 A1). The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-9 (e.g., Industrial automation system topology with point to point representation paths).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO DUC DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2350. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Gillis can be reached on (571)272-7952. 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.
/T. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/BRIAN J. GILLIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446