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 7 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 7 recites the limitation "the detected disruptive device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed that claim 7 is intended to depend on claim 4 and not claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The subject matter of claim 11 is a device and claim 12 fails to further limit the device. The recitation of the device being within a gateway does not limit the subject matter of the device because it is the same whether or not it is within a gateway. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0309164 by Xu et al.
As to claim 1, Xu teaches a method for monitoring a local area network administered by an access point of the network comprising a plurality of terminals, the method being implemented by a monitoring device and comprising :acquiring at least one status parameter, called global parameter, comprising at least one datum representing an operation of the network (paragraph 70 and 71); detecting a malfunction of the network as a function of said at least one global parameter (paragraph 73); and triggering at least one countermeasure action in the event of a malfunction (steps 312 or 314).
As to claim 2, see paragraph 70.
As to claim 3, see paragraph 73.
As to claim 4, see paragraph 73, the mobile device requesting too many resources is considered “disruptive”.
As to claim 5, step 312 in Figure 3.
As to claim 6, see step 310 in Figure 3.
As to claim 7, see paragraph 73, the actions taken on mobile devices depend on tier.
As to claim 8, Figure 3 shows an iterative process.
As to claim 9, steps 312 and 314 show notifications.
As to claims 11-13, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 11,424,993 to Chaoji et al.
As to claim 1, Choaji teaches a method for monitoring a local area network administered by an access point of the network comprising a plurality of terminals, the method being implemented by a monitoring device and comprising :acquiring at least one status parameter, called global parameter, comprising at least one datum representing an operation of the network (col. 16, lines 41-49); detecting a malfunction of the network as a function of said at least one global parameter (col. 16, lines 50-53); and triggering at least one countermeasure action in the event of a malfunction (col. 16, lines 54-61).
As to claim 2, see col. 12, lines 37-46 read on throughput.
As to claim 3, see col. 16, lines 55 and 56.
As to claims 4, 5, 9, and 10, see col. 16, lines 54-61, a suspect device is identified and disconnected or notified.
As to claim 6, see col. 15, lines 38-47.
As to claim 7, see col. 4, lines 45-58.
As to claim 8, see col. 11, lines 1-25, the training model is continually updated based on monitored data.
As to claims 11-13, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
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, William Trost can be reached at 571-272-7872. 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 2442