DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Application Number 18620879 received on 03/28/2024.
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Claims 5-9 and 14-18 are withdrawn from consideration.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 § 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 Schallich et al. (US 20160226707).
Regarding claim 1, Claes disclosed an apparatus (Claes, Fig. 2 or Fig. 3, Internet Gateway 1), comprising:
a plurality of network connection ports (Claes, Fig. 2 or Fig. 3, ETH1, ETH3, ETH3, ETH4), wherein each network connection port is configured to provide an internet connection or a local area network (LAN) connection (Claes, [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 processor configured to:
detect a change in an operating environment of the apparatus (Claes, [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 detects a change to the operating environment based on the type of device connected to its port), and
in response to the change, self-reconfigure a network connection port of the plurality of network connection ports to a second state, different from the first state
(Claes, [0053], Claes disclosed, “The gateway is preconfigured with all Ethernet ports belonging to VLAN-WAN. This means the gateway considers all Ethernet ports as being WAN-side interface over which Internet connectivity can be established.”; [0054], “As soon as a LAN device is connected to a port of the gateway, the LAN device initiates a DHCP-discover message to request an IP address.” DHCP-relay module determines a LAN device is connected and changes the bridge configuration to have the Ethernet interface to belong to VLAN-LAN; See [0031], Claes disclosed detecting of both LAN devices and WAN devices connected, and therefore configures accordingly; Claes, [0058] “In order to configure its ports, the gateway comprises detecting means for detecting LAN traffic”).
While Claes disclosed Ethernet ports (Claes, Fig. 2 or Fig. 3, ETH1, ETH3, ETH3, ETH4) configured to provide an internet connection or a local area network (LAN) connection, Claes did not explicitly disclose wherein each network connection port, upon being connected to a network, automatically determines its own state, as claimed.
In an analogous art, Schallich disclosed a router (Schallich, Fig. 4, [0021]) including processor and memory and an ethernet interface comprising a plurality of network connection ports (Schallich, [0032]), each network connection port, upon being connected to a network, automatically determines its own state (Schallich, [0031]-[0034], Schallich explicitly disclosed, “Ports of the Ethernet interface 113 preferably auto-detect whether a given connection is a WAN connection or a LAN connection”; That is, the port itself auto-detects its connection type, which amounts to auto-detecting its own state, as claimed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Claes and Schallich 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 port functionality of Schallich within the teachings of Claes in order to remove the problem in home-networking where users may “mistakenly connect a WAN connection to a LAN designated port” (Schallich, [0033]).
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 Schallich disclosed the steps, as shown above, as well as a computer-readable medium comprising instructions to perform such limitations (Claes, [0024], Schallich, [0097]). 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 recited 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 and Schallich disclosed the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, when the processor detects the change in state, the processor is configured to detect that a state of the network connection port has changed from inactive to active (Claes, [0031], Claes disclosed the device includes an identifying module 14 for detecting when a LAN device connected to an interface and for identifying a WAN connection at an interface; Such reasonably amount to a detection that a state of the port has changed from inactive to active per Applicant’s Specification at [0037] which defines the status of the port goes from down to up (active) in response to a new device being connected to the Ethernet port), when the processor self-reconfigures the network connection port, the processor is configured to: enable a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) client for the network connection port and determine a link state of the network connection port (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; Claes therefore disclosed establishing a DHCP client and detecting a state of the connection port has changed; See [0068] for 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]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, 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 Internet connection (Claes, [0068] Cleas 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).
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 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, as it does not allow for the DHCP client to be used).
Response to Arguments
It is noted that there is a minor typographical error with respect to the claim set submitted on 11/05/2025, to which claim 9 is identified as “(Original)”. However, per Applicant’s Remarks, claim 9 has been withdrawn [Remarks, page 1, first paragraph].
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 10-13, 19-20 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.
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)
Hardison et al. (US 20160337185) disclosed dynamic router configuration including detecting network configuration S110, and in response, configuring Router DHCP and NAT settings S130, which includes configuring the router to serve as a DHCP client and/or as a NAT server (Hardison, [0051]).
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 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