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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/10/2025 has overcome the rejections made based on 35 USC sections 112(b) and (d) and 102 in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-3, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0199458 by Fukuhara.
As to claim 1, Fukuhara teaches a method for monitoring a local area network administered by an access point of the local area network comprising a plurality of terminals (paragraphs 22 and 23), the method being implemented by a monitoring device (access point 10 is a monitoring device) and comprising: acquiring at least one status parameter, called global parameter, comprising at least one datum representing an operation of the local area network (paragraphs 31 and 32); detecting a malfunction of the local area network as a function of said at least one global parameter (paragraph 33, the RSSI value being lower than the threshold is considered a malfunction); and responsive to the detection of the malfunction of the local area network, triggering at least one countermeasure action (paragraph 35, the action of no permitting a connection is a countermeasure).
As to claim 2, see paragraph 32, the measured RSSI value is a signal quality parameter.
As to claim 3, see paragraph 33.
As to claims 11 and 13, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0409690 by Rouland et al.
As to claim 1, Rouland teaches a method for monitoring a local area network administered by an access point (management system 103) of the local area network (paragraphs 43 and 124, network 109 may be LAN) comprising a plurality of terminals (110A-G), the method being implemented by a monitoring device (controller 115) and comprising: acquiring at least one status parameter, called global parameter, comprising at least one datum representing an operation of the local area network (paragraph 49); detecting a malfunction of the local area network as a function of said at least one global parameter (paragraphs 32 and 49, the security vulnerabilities are considered “malfunctions”); and responsive to the detection of the malfunction of the local area network, triggering at least one countermeasure action (paragraphs 33 and 49).
As to claim 4, see paragraphs 32 and 33.
As to claim 5, see paragraphs 33 and 49.
As to claim 6, paragraph 33 shows different counter measures dependent upon detected malfunctions.
As to claim 7, see paragraph 49.
As to claim 9, the final line of paragraph 50 shows “transmitting a notification message” in the broad context claimed.
As to claim 10, see paragraph 33, the disabling of WIFI on device 110G reads on the broad context of “disconnecting the disruptive terminal”.
As to claims 11 and 13, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0222531 by Lin et al.
As to claim 1, Lin teaches a method for monitoring a local area network administered by an access point of the local area network (paragraph 11) comprising a plurality of terminals (paragraph 39, IoT endpoints), the method being implemented by a monitoring device (paragraph 39-41 describe the monitoring system) and comprising: acquiring at least one status parameter, called global parameter, comprising at least one datum representing an operation of the local area network (Paragraph 21); detecting a malfunction of the local area network as a function of said at least one global parameter (paragraph 22, the exceeding of the threshold is considered a malfunction); and responsive to the detection of the malfunction of the local area network, triggering at least one countermeasure action (paragraph 22, the flow-limit process is triggered).
As to claim 2, paragraph 21 shows throughput.
As to claim 3, see paragraph 22.
As to claim 8, see paragraph 28, flow limit is re-evaluated periodically and flow-limit process can be withdrawn.
As to claims 11 and 13, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights