DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is in response to application 18640666 filed 4/19/24.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-19 of copending U.S. Patent No. 12,009,936 B2 [hereinafter as ‘936 patent.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming common subject matter as follow:
Taking claim(s) 1 as an exemplary claim, the ‘936 patent contains the subject matter claimed in the instant application. As per claim(s) 1, both applications are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
A method comprising:
receiving ...;
processing …;
initiating a network access policy enforcement action based on the identifying information of the PoE enabled device ….
The claim(s) 1 of the ‘936 patent do not specifically state initiating a network access policy enforcement action based on the device type in the identifying information of the PoE enabled device as described in the claim 1 of instant application but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takenori in view of Sigh so that the system would be able to initiating the activities different types of access point device. One would be able to improve service in the area, mitigate interference between access points (see Singh, page 1, paragraph 9).
As per independent claim(s) 9 & 17, they are also directed to the same subject matter recited in claim 1 above. Accordingly, they are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-16 & 18-20, they are depending on rejected claim(s), they are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,382,215 B2 [hereinafter as ‘215 patent].
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming common subject matter as follow:
Taking claim(s) 1 as an exemplary claim, the ‘215 patent contains the subject matter claimed in the instant application. As per claim(s) 1, both applications are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
A method comprising:
receiving ...;
processing …;
initiating a network access policy enforcement action based on the identifying information of the PoE enabled device ….
The claim(s) 1 of the ‘215 patent do not specifically state initiating a network access policy enforcement action based on the device type in the identifying information of the PoE enabled device as described in the claim 1 of instant application but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takenori in view of Sigh so that the system would be able to initiating the activities different types of access point device. One would be able to improve service in the area, mitigate interference between access points (see Singh, page 1, paragraph 9).
As per independent claim(s) 9 & 17, they are also directed to the same subject matter recited in claim 1 above. Accordingly, they are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-16 & 18-20, they are depending on rejected claim(s), they are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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 of this title, 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, 9 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenori, JP. Pub. No. 2010-62936 A, in view of Singh, U.S. Pub. No. US 2013/0242844 A1.
As to claim 1, Takenori teaches a method comprising:
wherein the PoE enabled device receives electrical power from an Ethernet port (Takenori, page 2, paragraph 11; i.e., Power transmission means, power transmission means for supplying power to the wireless LAN access point using Ethernet);
processing, by a processing device, the communication to determine identifying information of the PoE enabled device from which the communication originates (Takenori, page 4, paragraph 2 & 9; i.e., when the power supply to the wireless LAN access point is stopped by the network control means and the power of the wireless LAN access point is turned off, an alert is transmitted to the administrator. The administrator checks the wireless LAN access point, and repairs or replaces it in the case of a failure or when an unauthorized wireless LAN access point is connected); and
initiating a network access policy enforcement action based on the device type in the identifying information of the PoE enabled device (Takenori, page 2, paragraph 10 – page 3, paragraph 2; page 3, paragraph 9 – page 4, paragraph 2 & 9; i.e., A wireless LAN system further comprising means for stopping power supply to the wireless LAN access point after detecting that access to the access point; According to the invention described in (8), when the power supply to the wireless LAN access point is stopped by the network control means and the power of the wireless LAN access point is turned off, an alert is transmitted to the administrator. The administrator checks the wireless LAN access point, and repairs or replaces it in the case of a failure or when an unauthorized wireless LAN access point is connected (according to the definition in the Detail Description (paragraph 21), the enforcement action: shut down power or stop unauthorized device)).
But Takenori failed to teach the claim limitation wherein receiving a communication that originates from a Power over Ethernet (PoE) enabled device; wherein the identifying information comprises a device type of the PoE enabled device; initiating a network access policy enforcement action based on the device type in the identifying information of the PoE enabled device.
However, Singh teaches the claim limitation wherein receiving a communication that originates from a Power over Ethernet (PoE) enabled device (Singh, page 7, paragraph 92; i.e., [0092] the determination that the first access point is to communicate with the second access point comprises identifying a type of information to be communicated. the first access point may determine that is needs to transmit one or more of the types of information listed herein to the second access point ( e.g., to cause the second access point to invoke an action or actions corresponding to the information type(s))); wherein the identifying information comprises a device type of the PoE enabled device (Singh, page 7, paragraph 92; i.e., [0092] the determination that the first access point is to communicate with the second access point comprises identifying a type of information to be communicated. the identified type of information may comprise one or more of: a cell identifier of the first access point, at least one operating condition of the first access point); initiating a network access policy enforcement action based on the device type in the identifying information of the PoE enabled device(Singh, page 7, paragraph 92; i.e., [0092] the determination that the first access point is to communicate with the second access point comprises identifying a type of information to be communicated. the first access point may determine that is needs to transmit one or more of the types of information listed herein to the second access point ( e.g., to cause the second access point to invoke an action or actions corresponding to the information type(s)). the identified type of information may comprise one or more of: a cell identifier of the first access point, at least one operating condition of the first access point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takenori in view of Sigh so that the system would be able to initiating the activities different types of access point device. One would be able to improve service in the area, mitigate interference between access points (see Singh, page 1, paragraph 9).
As to claim 2, Takenori-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the identifying information comprises an indication of an amount of power to be consumed by the device (Takenori, page 2, paragraph 10 – page 3, paragraph 2; page 3, paragraph 9 – page 4, paragraph 2 & 9; i.e., A wireless LAN system further comprising means for stopping power supply to the wireless LAN access point; According to the invention described in (8), when the power supply to the wireless LAN access point is stopped by the network control means and the power of the wireless LAN access point is turned off, an alert is transmitted to the administrator. The administrator checks the wireless LAN access point, and repairs or replaces it in the case of a failure or when an unauthorized wireless LAN access point is connected (according to the definition in the Detail Description (paragraph 21), the enforcement action: shut down power or stop unauthorized device)).
As to claim 3, Takenori-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 2, wherein initiating the action comprises initiating the action based on the amount of power to be consumed by the PoE enabled device (Takenori, page 2, paragraph 10 – page 3, paragraph 2; page 3, paragraph 9 – page 4, paragraph 2 & 9; i.e., A wireless LAN system further comprising means for stopping power supply to the wireless LAN access point; According to the invention described in (8), when the power supply to the wireless LAN access point is stopped by the network control means and the power of the wireless LAN access point is turned off, an alert is transmitted to the administrator. The administrator checks the wireless LAN access point, and repairs or replaces it in the case of a failure or when an unauthorized wireless LAN access point is connected (according to the definition in the Detail Description (paragraph 21), the enforcement action: shut down power or stop unauthorized device)).
As to claim 4, Takenori-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 2. But Takenori-Singh failed to teach the claim limitation wherein initiating the action comprises initiating the action based on the device type of the PoE enabled device.
However, Singh teaches the claim limitation wherein initiating the action comprises initiating the action based on the device type of the PoE enabled device (Singh, page 7, paragraph 92; i.e., [0092] the determination that the first access point is to communicate with the second access point comprises identifying a type of information to be communicated. the first access point may determine that is needs to transmit one or more of the types of information listed herein to the second access point ( e.g., to cause the second access point to invoke an action or actions corresponding to the information type(s)). the identified type of information may comprise one or more of: a cell identifier of the first access point, at least one operating condition of the first access point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takenori in view of Sigh so that the system would be able to initiating the activities different types of access point device. One would be able to improve service in the area, mitigate interference between access points (see Singh, page 1, paragraph 9).
Claim(s) 9 & 17 is/are directed to a system and non-transitory computer readable medium claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 9 & 17 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are directed to a system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 2-4. Therefore, claim(s) 10-12 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 2-4.
Claim(s) 18, 19 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 2, 4. Therefore, claim(s) 18, 19 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 2, 4.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 13, 16 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenori, JP. Pub. No. 2010-62936 A, in view of Singh, Pub. No. US 2013/0242844 A1, and further in view of Vavilala, U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0205471 A1.
As to claim 5, Takenori-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Takenori-Singh failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the communication comprises a Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) communication.
However, Vavilala teaches the claim limitation wherein the communication comprises a Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) communication (Vavilala, page 6, paragraph 60; i.e., SNMP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takenori-Singh in view of Vavilala so that the system would be able to control the access of the network devices. One would be able to control power consumption for cost saving (see Vavilala, page 1, paragraph 2).
As to claim 8, Takenori-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Takenori-Singh failed to teach the claim limitation wherein initiating the action comprises blocking power transmission directed to the PoE enabled device via a network connection.
However, Vavilala teaches the claim limitation wherein initiating the action comprises restricting access to a network resource (Vavilala, page 1, paragraph 2 & 17-19; page 2, paragraph 24; page 6, paragraph 57; i.e., denying the device accessing the network (equivalent to blocking) for the consuming of power (equivalent to power transmission)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takenori-Singh in view of Vavilala so that the system would be able to control the access of the network devices. One would be able to control power consumption for cost saving (see Vavilala, page 1, paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 13, 16 & 20 is/are directed to a system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 5, 8. Therefore, claim(s) 13, 16 & 20 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 5, 8.
Claim(s) 6-7, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenori, JP. Pub. No. 2010-62936 A, in view of Singh, Pub. No. US 2013/0242844 A1, and further in view of Randall, U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0149978 A1.
As to claim 6, Takenori-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein determining a deviation from the expected power consumption associated with the PoE enabled device (Takenori, page 2, paragraph 10 – page 3, paragraph 2; page 3, paragraph 9 - page 4, paragraph 2 & 9; i.e., A wireless LAN system further comprising means for stopping power supply to the wireless LAN access point after detecting that access to the access point; According to the invention described in (8), when the power supply to the wireless LAN access point is stopped by the network control means and the power of the wireless LAN access point is turned off, an alert is transmitted to the administrator. The administrator checks the wireless LAN access point, and repairs or replaces it in the case of a failure or when an unauthorized wireless LAN access point is connected (according to the definition in the Detail Description (paragraph 21), the enforcement action: shut down power or stop unauthorized device)).
But Takenori-Singh failed to teach the claim limitation wherein identifying an expected power consumption of the PoE enabled device from the communication.
However, Randall teaches the claim limitation wherein identifying an expected power consumption of the PoE enabled device from the communication (Randall, page 1, paragraph 5; page 2, paragraph 23; page 3, paragraph 31-32; i.e., [0005] The method also includes, in response to the providing of power, determining the amount of power utilized by each of at least one of the at least one of the plurality of devices and determining that the amount of power exceeds the power limit for the device; [0023] Programable power monitors 20 measure the amount of power supplied to the respective ones of power over Ethernet powered devices 22. If it is determined that a particular one of the power over Ethernet devices 22 exceeds its specified power limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takenori-Singh in view of Randall so that the system would be able to determination that a particular power over Ethernet device 22 is exceeding its power limit. One would be able to all the power supply from being utilized to its full capability due to the coarse granularity in class (see Randall, page 1, paragraph 3).
As to claim 7, Takenori-Singh-Randall teaches the method as recited in claim 6, wherein initiating the network access policy enforcement action comprises initiating the action based on the deviation from expected power consumption associated with the PoE enabled device (Takenori, page 2, paragraph 10 – page 3, paragraph 2; page 3, paragraph 9 – page 4, paragraph 2 & 9; i.e., A wireless LAN system further comprising means for stopping power supply to the wireless LAN access point after detecting that access to the access point; According to the invention described in (8), when the power supply to the wireless LAN access point is stopped by the network control means and the power of the wireless LAN access point is turned off, an alert is transmitted to the administrator. The administrator checks the wireless LAN access point, and repairs or replaces it in the case of a failure or when an unauthorized wireless LAN access point is connected (according to the definition in the Detail Description (paragraph 21), the enforcement action: shut down power or stop unauthorized device)).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are directed to a system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 6-7. Therefore, claim(s) 14-15 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 6-7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument(s) filed 3/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance that: A) with respect to claims 1-20; Applicant has amended the independent claims to recite additional features that have not been addressed in the double patenting rejections. Accordingly, Applicant the claim limitations are overcome the rejections (page 6); B) with respect to claims *claims # *; *reference* does not teach the claimed limitation of “claim limitation” (page ***).
In response to A); Claim(s) 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-19 of copending U.S. Patent No. 12,009,936 B2 [hereinafter as ‘936 patent.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming common subject matter as follow:
Taking claim(s) 1 as an exemplary claim, the ‘936 patent contains the subject matter claimed in the instant application. As per claim(s) 1, both applications are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
A method comprising:
receiving ...;
processing …;
initiating a network access policy enforcement action based on the identifying information of the PoE enabled device ….
The claim(s) 1 of the ‘936 patent do not specifically state initiating a network access policy enforcement action based on the device type in the identifying information of the PoE enabled device as described in the claim 1 of instant application but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takenori in view of Sigh so that the system would be able to initiating the activities different types of access point device. One would be able to improve service in the area, mitigate interference between access points (see Singh, page 1, paragraph 9).
As per independent claim(s) 9 & 17, they are also directed to the same subject matter recited in claim 1 above. Accordingly, they are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-16 & 18-20, they are depending on rejected claim(s), they are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,382,215 B2 [hereinafter as ‘215 patent].
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming common subject matter as follow:
Taking claim(s) 1 as an exemplary claim, the ‘215 patent contains the subject matter claimed in the instant application. As per claim(s) 1, both applications are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
A method comprising:
receiving ...;
processing …;
initiating a network access policy enforcement action based on the identifying information of the PoE enabled device ….
The claim(s) 1 of the ‘215 patent do not specifically state initiating a network access policy enforcement action based on the device type in the identifying information of the PoE enabled device as described in the claim 1 of instant application but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takenori in view of Sigh so that the system would be able to initiating the activities different types of access point device. One would be able to improve service in the area, mitigate interference between access points (see Singh, page 1, paragraph 9).
As per independent claim(s) 9 & 17, they are also directed to the same subject matter recited in claim 1 above. Accordingly, they are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-16 & 18-20, they are depending on rejected claim(s), they are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Iwamura U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20130294396 A1 discloses access point of the originating call in the cell is notified or not depending on type specific access.
Geiger, U.S. Patent/Pub. US 20100031066 A1 discloses activating an alert based on the class of power deliver utilizing PoE.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights