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 .
General Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to Applicant’s application filed 08/11/2026.
Application filed: 04/04/2024
Applicant’s PgPUB: 2024/0339017
Claims:
Claims 1-18 and 54-56 are pending.
Claim 1 is independent.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-18 are elected.
Claims 19-29 are not elected.
Claims 30-53 are canceled.
Continuity/Priority Data
The Application claims priority to Provisional Application No. 63/494,227 filed 04/04/2023.
IDS:
Previous IDS:
IDS filed 12/10/2024 has been considered.
IDS filed 08/23/2024 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/07/2024 has been considered.
Oral Election of Claims:
Examiner contacted Attorney on 01/14/2026 to discuss an election between claim sets 1 (1-18) and 2 (19-29). Attorney, after consultation with Applicant, elected claim set 1 which includes claims 1-18.
Examiner will examine elected claims 1-18
Examiner will not examine non-elected claims 19-29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the light source as described in the prior art (i.e., Goergen) does not teach the newly amended claim language.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions.
Applicant argues the light source as described in the prior art is an indirect lighting of the internal port cavity whereas the light source of the claim is a direct lighting of the internal port cavity.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive or convincing. Goergen shows usage of a light source (see Fig. 1, Fig. 1B, Fig. 1C, Fig. 3A) that uses a light pipe to direct light into the interior port cavity.
The amended claim language states:
Illuminating an interior region of the least one ethernet port with a light source emitting a colored light directly into the interior region …
Examiner finds the terms “interior region” and “light source” to be broad in nature.
First, even if Examiner agrees with Applicant’s assertion that usage of the “light pipe” constitutes “indirect” lighting, the light pipe would still be a part of the interior region of the port and the illumination of the light pipe (i.e., interior region) would teach the language of the claims.
Second, even if Examiner assumes the receptacle of the ethernet port is determined to be the “interior region” of the port, the light source would be the end of the light pipe because that is where the light is emitted into the port cavity.
Given this, the teachings of the prior art (i.e., Goergen) still teach/cover the language of the claims as they are currently stated.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18 and 54-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0384979 A1 to Dahlfort (“Dahlfort”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,930,763 to Trickler et al. (“Trickler”) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 9,958,622 B1 to Goergen et al. (“Goergen”).
As to claim 1, Dahlfort discloses:
a method for indicating ethernet link information through RJ45 jacks of a device (Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 2 of Dahlfort), the method comprising:
determining, by the device, at least one ethernet link characteristic associated with at least one ethernet port of the device (Fig. 1, 120, 110B (indicator light), Fig. 2 of Dahlfort – Dahlfort shows how the light indicates mode and description); and
Trickler discloses what Dahlfort does not expressly disclose.
Trickler discloses:
receiving a configuration database (Figs. 2A-B, 4A-B, Intelligent Backlight Rules Database) that assigns colors to different ethernet link characteristics (Fig. 2A-B, Fig. 4A-B, Fig. 6, Intelligent Backlight Rules Database (242, 442), col. 1 ll. 35-56, col. 20 ll. 12-38 – Trickler teaches quering other devices for the intelligent backlight rules (i.e, IBR) (i.e., receiving a configuration database) and the IBR is used to alter color, blinking, intensity, etc);
wherein the color is determined by the at least one ethernet link characteristic and the configuration database (col. 1 ll. 35-56 – Trickler teaches determining of the next selectable lighting state available includes comparing the current lighting state and the sensor state to a set of intelligent backlighting rules. Examiner Note: while Trickler discussed backlighting other electronic devices, its teachings are applicable to the ethernet system as discussed in Dahlfort.).
Dahlfort and Trickler are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to indicator lighting systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate lighting rules as discussed in Trickler with ethernet system as discussed in Dahlfort by adding the functionality of Trickler to the system/method of Dahlfort in order to determine the lighting state available based on set of intelligent backlighting rules (Trickler, col. 1 ll. 35-56).
Goergen discloses what Dahlfort and Trickler do not expressly disclose.
Goergen discloses:
illuminating an interior region of the least one ethernet port with a light source emitting a colored light directly into the interior region (Fig. 1A, 19 (light pipe), 21 (light generating devices (LED)), col. 4 ll. 21-46 - Goergen shows a LED with light pipe at the back of a RJ45 jack (See Response to Argument above))
, and the interior region of the at least one ethernet port that receives an RJ45 plug (Fig. 1A, 19 (light pipe), 21 (light generating devices (LED)), col. 4 ll. 21-46 - Goergen shows a LED with light pipe at the back of a RJ45 jack).
Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to indicator lighting systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate plug backlighting as discussed in Goergen with lighting rules as discussed in Trickler with ethernet system as discussed in Dahlfort by adding the functionality of Goergen to the system/method of Dahlfort and Trickler in order to emit from the plug to provide a visual indication of compatibility between the cable and the port based on a power setting of the port and the power capacity of the cable when the plug is inserted into the port. (Goergen, col. 1 ll. 12-22).
As to claim 2, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 1, and
Trickler discloses:
wherein the configuration database is provided by a controller separate from the device (Fig. 2A-B, Fig. 4A-B, Fig. 6, Intelligent Backlight Rules Database (242, 442), col. 1 ll. 35-56, col. 20 ll. 12-38 – Trickler teaches quering other devices for the intelligent backlight rules (i.e, IBR) (i.e., receiving a configuration database) and the IBR is used to alter color, blinking, intensity, etc). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 4, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 1, and
Trickler discloses:
wherein the configuration database is provided by a controller collocated within the device (Fig. 2A-B, Fig. 4A-B, Fig. 6, Intelligent Backlight Rules Database (242, 442), col. 1 ll. 35-56, col. 20 ll. 12-38 – Trickler teaches quering other devices for the intelligent backlight rules (i.e, IBR) (i.e., receiving a configuration database) and the IBR is used to alter color, blinking, intensity, etc; Trickler shows that the IBR is collocated in multiple devices (see Figs. 2A-B, 4A-B)). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 6, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 4, and
Trickler discloses:
wherein the configuration database is a default color assignment stored within the device (Fig. 6, col. 1 ll. 35-56, col. 20 ll. 12-38 – Trickler teaches the intelligent backlight rules (i.e, IBR) has default settings (i.e., default color assignments). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 10, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 9, and
Dahlfort discloses:
wherein the type of device includes at least one of an ethernet switch, a wired access point, a wireless access point, a server, or an intermediate node (¶0072 – Dahlfort teaches a network device being a swtich).
As to claim 14, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 1, and
Dahlfort discloses:
wherein the color of the back light is further determined, at least in part, by at least one of cable quality or cable length of cable coupled to the at least one ethernet port (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, ¶0046 – Dahlfort teaches detecting that the operational indicator light is in the “on” state, that one or more external (i.e., cable quality) or internal faults have been detected in the node).
As to claim 15, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 1, and
Trickler discloses:
wherein the color of the back light is further determined, at least in part, by a temperature of the at least one ethernet port (col. 12 ll. 56-67 – Trickler teaches a lighting state is a general state or evaluation of the light output or intensity of a single or number of luminaires. The lighting state can be used to aggregate the state of multiple light fixtures and their intensities (including color, or color temperature, among other parameters of fixture)). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 18, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 17, and
Trickler discloses:
wherein the command causes a cavity of the at least one ethernet port to blink or pulsate (Fig. 2A-B, Fig. 4A-B, Fig. 6, Intelligent Backlight Rules Database (242, 442), col. 1 ll. 35-56, col. 20 ll. 12-38 – Trickler teaches quering other devices for the intelligent backlight rules (i.e, IBR) (i.e., receiving a configuration database) and the IBR is used to alter color, blinking, intensity, etc; Trickler shows that the IBR is collocated in multiple devices (see Figs. 2A-B, 4A-B)). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 54, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 1, and
Goergen discloses:
wherein the back lighting further comprises illuminating the interior region of the at least one ethernet port with a light guide (Fig. 1A, 19 (light pipe), 21 (light generating devices (LED)), col. 4 ll. 21-46 - Goergen shows a LED with light pipe at the back of a RJ45 jack). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 55, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 54, and
Goergen discloses:
wherein the light guide is disposed between a light emitting diode (LED) and the interior region of the at least one ethernet port (Fig. 1A, 19 (light pipe), 21 (light generating devices (LED)), col. 4 ll. 21-46 - Goergen shows a LED with light pipe at the back of a RJ45 jack). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 56, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 54, and
Goergen discloses:
wherein the light guide is disposed completely within a housing of the RJ45 jacks (Fig. 1A, 19 (light pipe), 21 (light generating devices (LED)), col. 4 ll. 21-46 - Goergen shows a LED with light pipe at the back of a RJ45 jack). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection the same as in claim 1.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0384979 A1 to Dahlfort (“Dahlfort”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,930,763 to Trickler et al. (“Trickler”) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 9,958,622 B1 to Goergen et al. (“Goergen”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0015165 to Engelen et al. (“Engelen”).
As to claim 3, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 2,
Engelen discloses what Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen do not expressly disclose.
Engelen discloses:
wherein the configuration database is provided to the controller by a user (¶0048 – Engelen teaches that supplier configuration databased can replace a local configuration database (i.e., provided by user)).
Dahlfort, Trickler, Goergen and Engelen are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to indicator lighting systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate configuration database as discussed in Engelen with plug backlighting as discussed in Goergen with lighting rules as discussed in Trickler with ethernet system as discussed in Dahlfort by adding the functionality of Engelen to the system/method of Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen in order to demonstrate how usage of a configuration database is used to store configuration information (Engelen, ¶0056).
As to claim 5, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 4,
Engelen discloses what Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen do not expressly disclose.
Engelen discloses:
wherein the configuration database is uploaded to the device by a user (¶0048 – Engelen teaches that supplier configuration databased can replace a local configuration database (i.e., provided by user)). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection the same as in claim 3.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0384979 A1 to Dahlfort (“Dahlfort”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,930,763 to Trickler et al. (“Trickler”) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 9,958,622 B1 to Goergen et al. (“Goergen”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0188757 to Bhogal et al. (“Bhogal”).
As to claim 7, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 1,
Bhogal discloses what Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen do not expressly disclose.
Bhogal discloses:
wherein the ethernet link characteristic is an amount of power provided by the ethernet port for power-over-ethernet (POE) equipment coupled to the at least one ethernet port (¶0130 – Bhogal teaches the external platform can directly or indirectly communicate with the control system to send cook programs, receive data (e.g., sensor data, grill states, etc.), send control instructions, send updates, and/or communicate other information. In a first variant, the external platform can communicate directly with the control system via a wired connection (e.g., LAN, power over ethernet, etc.) or a wireless connection (e.g., WIFI, cellular, etc.)).
Dahlfort, Trickler, Goergen and Bhogal are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to networking systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate PoE as discussed in Bhogal with plug backlighting as discussed in Goergen with lighting rules as discussed in Trickler with ethernet system as discussed in Dahlfort by adding the functionality of Bhogal to the system/method of Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen in order to demonstrate usage of power of ethernet (Bhogal, ¶0130).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0384979 A1 to Dahlfort (“Dahlfort”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,930,763 to Trickler et al. (“Trickler”) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 9,958,622 B1 to Goergen et al. (“Goergen”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0188757 to Bhogal et al. (“Bhogal”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0032890 to Stack (“Stack”).
As to claim 8, Dahlfort, Trickler, Goergen and Engelen discloses:
method of claim 7,
Stack discloses what Dahlfort, Trickler, Goergen and Engelen do not expressly disclose.
Stack discloses:
wherein the color of the back light changes in response to changing amounts of power provided by the at least one ethernet port (Fig. 1, ¶0014 – Stack teaches how LED colors are changed based on power levels).
Dahlfort, Trickler, Goergen, Bhogal and Stack are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to networking systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate LED color with power level dependence as discussed in Stack with PoE as discussed in Bhogal with plug backlighting as discussed in Goergen with lighting rules as discussed in Trickler with ethernet system as discussed in Dahlfort by adding the functionality of Stack to the system/method of Dahlfort, Trickler, Goergen and Bhogal in order to demonstrate how power can effect color (Bhogal, ¶0014).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0384979 A1 to Dahlfort (“Dahlfort”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,930,763 to Trickler et al. (“Trickler”) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 9,958,622 B1 to Goergen et al. (“Goergen”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0275876 A1 to Ohno et al. (“Ohno”).
As to claim 9, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 1,
Ohno discloses Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen do not expressly disclose.
Ohno discloses:
wherein the ethernet link characteristic is based, at least in part, by a type of device coupled to the at least one ethernet port (Fig. 3, Computer ID/SW_ID of Ohno).
Dahlfort, Trickler, Goergen and Ohno are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to indicator lighting systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate configuration tables as discussed in Ohno plug backlighting as discussed in Goergen with with lighting rules as discussed in Trickler with ethernet system as discussed in Dahlfort by adding the functionality of Ohno to the system/method of Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen in order to demonstrate how device types can be stored within a table (Ohno, ¶0075).
As to claim 13, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 1,
Ohno discloses Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen do not expressly disclose.
Ohno discloses:
wherein the ethernet link characteristic is based, at least in part, by a virtual local area network (VLAN) packet type included in ethernet data passing through the at least one ethernet port (Fig. 3, VLAN_ID of Ohno). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection the same as in claim 9.
Claims 11, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0384979 A1 to Dahlfort (“Dahlfort”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,930,763 to Trickler et al. (“Trickler”) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 9,958,622 B1 to Goergen et al. (“Goergen”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0275876 A1 to Ohno et al. (“Ohno”).
As to claim 11, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 1,
Jain discloses what Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen do not expressly disclose.
Jain discloses:
wherein the ethernet link characteristic is based, at least in part, on a data throughput of the at least one ethernet port (Fig. 4 of Jain).
Dahlfort, Trickler, Goergen and Jain are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to indicator lighting systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate port information table as discussed in Jain with plug backlighting as discussed in Goergen with lighting rules as discussed in Trickler with ethernet system as discussed in Dahlfort by adding the functionality of Ohno to the system/method of Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen in order to demonstrate how to a table can store a variety of port information (Jain, ¶0008).
As to claim 12, Dahlfort, Trickler, Goergen and Jain discloses:
method of claim 11, and
Jain discloses:
wherein the data throughput is at least one of a real-time data throughput or a data throughput over a predetermined period of time (Fig. 4 of Jain). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection the same as in claim 11.
As to claim 16, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 1, and
Jain discloses what Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen do not expressly disclose.
Jain discloses:
wherein the ethernet link characteristic is based, at least in part, on a data link speed of the at least one ethernet port (Fig. 4 of Jain). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection the same as in claim 11.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0384979 A1 to Dahlfort (“Dahlfort”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,930,763 to Trickler et al. (“Trickler”) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 9,958,622 B1 to Goergen et al. (“Goergen”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0075297 A1 to Boulter (“Boulter”).
As to claim 17, Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen discloses:
method of claim 1,
Boulter discloses what Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen do not expressly disclose.
Boulter discloses:
wherein back lighting the at least one ethernet port is based, at least in part, on receiving a command to locate the at least one ethernet port (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, ¶0103 – Boulter shows an image of a ethernet switch and locating ports (i.e., ports 3 and 24)).
Dahlfort, Trickler, Goergen and Boulter are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to indicator lighting systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate ethernet port GUI as discussed in Boulter with plug backlighting as discussed in Goergen with lighting rules as discussed in Trickler with ethernet system as discussed in Dahlfort by adding the functionality of Boulter to the system/method of Dahlfort, Trickler and Goergen in order to demonstrate how to present port data to a user (Boulter, ¶0103).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR A ELFERVIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (10:00 AM CST) - Friday (4:00 PM CST).
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
/TAYLOR A ELFERVIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights