DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to the RCE Amendment for Application Number 18620879 received on 05/11/2026.
Claims 1-4, 10-13, 19-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 5-9 and 14-18 are withdrawn from consideration.
The effective filing date for this application is 3/28/2024.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-13, 19-20 are 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite the limitation, “launch a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) client for the network connection port to self-reconfigure the network connection port to a second state, different from the first state”, which is indefinite as it is not clear if the function of the DHCP client is required by the scope of the claim. Specifically, the limitation “for the network connection port to self-reconfigure the network connection port to a second state, different from the first state” is drafted in a manner to which it is unclear as to whether this function of “self-reconfigur[ing]” is required by the scope of the claim, or if the limitation is intended to merely describe the purpose/intended use of launching the DHCP client. For examination, the limitation, “for the network connection port to self-reconfigure the network connection port to a second state, different from the first state”, is interpreted as a limitation of intended use, describing the intended purpose of the positively recited function of “launch a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) client” and therefore not accorded patentable weight. Claims 2-4, 11-13, and 20 are rejected for the same reasons by virtue of their dependencies to claims 1, 10, and 19.
Claims 10 and 19 recite the limitation "the first state" in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each claim. Claims 11-13 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons by virtue of their dependencies to claims 10 and 19.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 1-4, 10-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claes et al. (US 20100121946) in view of Hardison et al. (US 20160337185) and further in view of Tan (CN 110838934 – See English Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Claes disclosed an apparatus (Claes, Fig. 2 or Fig. 3, Internet Gateway 1), comprising:
a plurality of network connection ports configured in a first state, wherein each network connection port is configured to provide an internet connection or a local area network (LAN) connection (Claes, Fig. 2 or Fig. 3, ETH1, ETH3, ETH3, ETH4, [0006], Claes disclosed the interfaces may be utilized for accessing a first or second network type; See also [0031], the user may connect any interface to either LAN or WAN, and “the gateway comprises an identifying module 14 for detecting when a LAN device connected to an interface and for identifying a WAN connection at an interface. The device may have several WAN connections. A WAN connection may be used to connect the device to a third network (19), which is the Internet.”); and
a router configured to:
detect that a state of a network connection port, of the plurality of network connection ports, has changed from an inactive state to an active state (Claes, Fig. 3, Internet Gateway 1 comprising a router, [0031] Claes, [0006], Claes disclosed the interfaces may be utilized for accessing a first or second network type; [0031], the user may connect any interface to either LAN or WAN, and “the gateway comprises an identifying module 14 for detecting when a LAN device connected to an interface and for identifying a WAN connection at an interface.”; The detection of connecting of a device to one of the ports amounts to a detection of a change in state of that port from inactive to active; Such is consistent with Applicant's specification, at [0037], which explicitly recites, "the Ethernet port 311 goes from down to up (active) in response to a new device being connected to the Ethernet port 311"); and
a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) client for the network connection port to self-reconfigure the network connection port to a second state, different from the first state (Claes, [0068], “At each connection establishment, the DHCP client of the gateway sends out a DHCP-discover message with IP and Ethernet destination being broadcast and IP protocol being UDP, destination port number 67” and “When receiving one or more DHCP-offer messages, the DHCP client has to take a decision on which offered IP address to request. This decision can be based either on offered IP address and/or the WAN port on which the DHCP-offer has been received”; [0049], “The DHCP client is used to dynamically and automatically request an IP address to a DHCP server located on the Internet”).
While Claes disclosed a router, Claes did not explicitly disclose the router comprising a “processor” configured to perform the detection, as claimed.
Hardison disclosed, a router including a processor (Hardison, [0021]) configured to, in response to detecting the network connection port having changed to the active state (Hardison, Fig. 1, S110 Detecting Network Configuration, which is defined at [0027] to include detecting of network changes such as detection of changes to internet connectivity; See Fig. 4 and [0031] which further define S110 to include: “Step S111 preferably includes attempting to establish an internet connection via an Ethernet port of the router”), utilize a DHCP client to self-reconfigure the network connection port to a second state, different from the first state (Hardison, [0030], Step S111, Hardison explicitly disclosed, requesting a DHCP-assigned IP address, obtaining the IP address and performing network path analysis and determining a link state of the network connection port after requesting the DHCP-assigned IP address; The requesting of a DHCP-assigned IP address amounts to utilizing a DHCP client for such requesting).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Claes and Hardison as they are both with respect to self-configuring devices, and as such they are within similar environments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the Router/Processor/Port configuring functionality of Hardison within the teachings of Claes in order to provide new and useful methods for dynamic router configurations for a user's needs without requiring extensive computer networking knowledge or hassle (Hardison, [0018]).
While Claes in view of Hardison disclosed the utilization of a DHCP client for requesting a DHCP-assigned IP address and self-reconfiguring, as shown above, Claes and Hardison did not explicitly disclose, in response to the network connection port having changed to the active state, launching the DHCP client, as claimed.
In an analogous art, Tan (CN 110838934) disclosed in response to the network connection port having changed to the active state, launching the DHCP client (Tan, See English Translation; p2, “the network device comprises at least one processor”; p3, “network device” may include a “router”; p5, “When the network device 120 detects the state of one or both of the two kinds of port from closing to opening, the network device 120 may determine is connected to the network 100. In this case, the network device port may open 120 of starting dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) client to obtain an Internet Protocol (IP) address”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Claes and Hardison with Tan as they are both with respect to self-configuring devices, and as such they are within similar environments. Additionally, as Claes and Hardison clearly utilize DHCP for obtaining an IP address, the incorporation of Tan’s starting of a DHCP client would not require extensive implementation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the DHCP client launching functionality of Tan within the combined teachings of Claes and Hardison, as doing so would obtain predictable results of allowing for the initiating of Claes and Hardison’s already disclosed DHCP functionality to provide additional ways for dynamic router configurations for a user's needs without requiring extensive computer networking knowledge or hassle (Hardison, [0018]).
Claim 10 recites a method with limitations that are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 1. Claim 19 recites a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which when executed by a computer cause a processor to perform limitations that are substantially similar to the limitation of claim 1. Claes and Hardison disclosed the steps, as shown above, as well as a computer-readable medium comprising instructions to perform such limitations (Claes, [0024], Hardison, [0080]). Claims 10 and 19 additionally recite the step of “establishing a connection with a network via an apparatus”, which is covered by the above recitations regarding the user connecting the Ethernet ports to the LAN and WAN networks as shown in Figures 2 and 3, and the above cited portions including detecting such connections.
Claims 10 and 19 are therefore rejected under the same rationale applied above.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Claes, Hardison and Tan disclosed the apparatus of claim 1, including wherein, when the processor detects that the state has changed, the processor is configured to determine a link state of the network connection port after it has been self-reconfigured (Claes, [0049], Claes disclosed when using DHCP to establish Internet connectivity (link state), a DHCP client module is configured on top of an IP interface of an IP router, and the DHCP client is used to dynamically and automatically request an IP address to a DHCP server located on the Internet; See [0068] for connection establishment and receiving a DHCP offer with an offered IP address and in [0072] Internet connectivity is established; See also Hardison, S130 configuring Router DHCP and NAT settings; The teachings of Claes and Hardison in view of Tan’s DHCP client launching, p5, amounts to determining the link state after the port has been self-reconfigured; See Applicant’s specification, [0058]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Claes, Hardison and Tan disclosed the apparatus of claim 2, wherein, when the processor determines the link state, the processor is configured to determine that the link state is the Internet connection (Claes, [0068] Claes disclosed connection establishment and receiving a DHCP offer with an offered IP address and in [0072] Internet connectivity is established; Such corresponds to the link state being an internet connection in Applicant’s specification, [0058]), and when the processor self-reconfigures the network connection port, the processor is configured to enable one or more of Network Address Translation (NAT), address resolution protocol (ARP) scanning, Internet connection monitoring, and route announcement (Claes, [0063], Claes disclosed Internet connection monitoring, by disclosing once an internet connection is established, the gateway monitors for a trigger of a loss of connection, to which it attempts the connection establishment again; See also Hardison, [0021], [0027], and [0031] as explained above with respect to the citations for claim 1, and Hardison S130 of Fig. 1, configuring Router DHCP and NAT settings).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Claes disclosed the apparatus of claim 2, wherein when the processor determines the link state, the processor is configured to determine that the link state is the LAN connection, and when the processor self-reconfigures the network connection port, the processor is configured to disable the DHCP client for the network connection port and enable a DHCP server for the network connection port (Claes, [0051], Claes disclosed the gateway acts as a DHCP server for the local network, automatically assigning local IP addresses out of a pre-configured DHCP pool, a range of addresses; The detection of a local network device as shown above results in the utilization of the DHCP server to assign a local IP address; See [0056] The relay detects that the DHCP message is coming from the IP-LAN interface, and therefore forwards it to the DHCP server, thereby enabling the DHCP server for the port; The controlling of DHCP message sent to the DHCP server amounts to disabling the DHCP client for the port, because the relay does not allow the DHCP client functionality for the port).
Response to Arguments
It is noted that there is a minor typographical error with respect to the claim set submitted on 4/13/2026, to which claim 9 is identified as “(Currently Amended)”. However, per the prosecution history and Applicant’s Remarks, claim 9 has been withdrawn [Remarks, 4/13/2026, page 1, first paragraph]. The status identifier is interpreted to recite “(withdrawn – currently amended)“. See MPEP 714, II, Section C.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 with respect to the “detecting” limitation have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, “Claes does not disclose or suggest detecting that a state of a network connection port has changed from an inactive state to an active state”. Applicant states, “All network connection ports are already active and operational from the outset” and “the Claes network connection ports (ETH 1 through ETH4) do not transition from an inactive to an active state; rather all network connection ports start as active members of VLAN-WAN” [Remarks, 9].
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's specification, at [0037] explicitly recites, "the Ethernet port 311 goes from down to up (active) in response to a new device being connected to the Ethernet port 311." That is, Applicant's specification defines the inactive/active status of a port as based on when a device is connected to the port, i.e. down to up, which does not appear to have anything to do with the way the port may be configured. The only requirement for detecting that a port changes from inactive to active is a detection of that port going “from down to up (active) in response to a new device being connected”.
Claes explicitly disclosed detecting that a state of a network connection port, of the plurality of network connection ports, has changed from an inactive state to an active state, based on Applicant’s specification. Claes, at [0031], disclosed that a user may connect any interface to either LAN or WAN, and “the gateway comprises an identifying module 14 for detecting when a LAN device [is] connected to an interface and for identifying a WAN connection at an interface.”; The detection of connecting of a device to one of the ports reasonably amounts to a detection of a change in state of that port from inactive to active, as such appears consistent with Applicant's specification, at [0037], which explicitly recites, "the Ethernet port 311 goes from down to up (active) in response to a new device being connected to the Ethernet port 311").
It is also noted that the rejection also points out that Hardison explicitly disclosed Step S110 may be performed upon detection of network changes including changes to internet connectivity, and can be performed automatically (e.g., conditioned on a particular feature or changes to a particular feature of the network) (Hardison, [0027]), and Tan disclosed detecting when a port state changes from closed to open (Tan, p5).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the newly added limitation(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 10-13, 19-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection applied above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Venkatesan et al. (US 9531594) disclosed a self-configuring port system for an IHS system, such as a router (Venkatesan, col. 2, lines 32-40, col. 4, lines 43-67) in which each port is configured to operate in a plurality of modes that may be automatically selected (col. 5, lines 5-20)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY B DENNISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:50.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/JERRY B DENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights