DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the RCE filed on March 12th 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/12/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant points to the amendment and states the claims require displaying ONU configuration information through a human-machine interface of the user terminal and acquiring adjustment information from a user via the same interface of the user terminal (pg. 9-10). Examiner agrees that the claims are clear in this regard. Applicant then states this means that with the method of claim 1, a user can participate in managing the home network and “the user is a human” such that the adjustment information is acquired from a human, so the adjustment information can be based on the will of the human (pg. 10-11). Examiner disagrees with this characterization of the claim’s scope. First, the claim is clearly silent regarding the adjustment information being based on “the will of the human”. Therefore is argument is entirely irrelevant and unpersuasive to overcome the rejection because applicant is relying on features not in the claims. Second, regarding the user being a human, the claims nor specification seem to contemplate this. Examiner reviewed the specification and could not find a single teaching that “a user is a human”. While a reasonable interpretation of the word “user” would certainly include a human, the term “user” cannot be limited to just “a human” even when interpreted in light of the specification.
Applicant then argues (pg. 11-12) that the references fail to disclose the amended features because Shi only teaches fiber-to-home which is not in a home network. This is not persuasive. As previously explained in the prior response to arguments, and in the detailed rejection below, Shi explicitly teaches a user terminal making a request to adjust bandwidth for an optical network serving a home (paragraphs 5, 21, 85, Fig. 1). Thus, Shi teaches the amended feature of a human-machine interface of the user terminal, and acquiring adjustment information form a user through said interface of the user terminal. Applicant also argues that the user of Shi is a user terminal as opposed to a human (pg. 12). This is not persuasive for the reasons given above (i.e. the claim is not limited to “human”). Furthermore, Shi explicitly discloses “a user” and not just “a user terminal” as suggested by applicant (see paragraphs 5 and 21). So even assuming arguendo, there is nothing in Shi to suggest the user is not human. Thus the user of Shi would read on a human user if the claims were interpreted as such.
Applicant also states (pg. 12) the messages of Shi are cannot be based on “the will of the human”. This is not persuasive for the same reason given above (i.e. applicant is relying on features not in the claims).
Applicant briefly discusses Sanjeev (pg. 13) but these remarks are not persuasive because Sanjeev was not relied upon for teaching any of those claim elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. US 2008/0205443 A1 in view of Sanjeev US 9,008,673 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Shi discloses, a home network bandwidth management method performed by a user terminal (abstract, paragraphs 20-21, 53, Figs. 1, 17) comprising:
acquiring configuration information of each ONU in a home network through a communication connection established with an optical transmission device in the home network to which the user terminal belongs, wherein the optical transmission device comprises an optical line terminal or the ONU (paragraphs 19-23, 53-54, Figs. 1-2);
the configuration information of each optical network unit (ONU) in a home network (optical network has ONU – abstract, paragraph 53, Fig. 1; users can be home users – paragraph 85), to which the user terminal belongs, through a human-machine interaction interface of the user terminal (user terminal/interface – Figs. 1-2, paragraph 53; “user interface” – see Fig. 4), wherein the configuration information comprises at least one of a bandwidth and a time delay (configuration is explicitly directed to bandwidth allocation – abstract, paragraphs 19-21, 54-57 and Figs. 1-4);
acquiring adjustment information from a user through the human-machine interaction interface of the user terminal (user request for bandwidth allocation – see Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 57-58),
transmitting the adjustment information to the optical transmission device (OLT in communication – Figs. 1-4, paragraph 20
wherein the adjustment information is configured for the OLT adjusting the configuration information of the ONU (note: “the OLT” is not required under BRI because the claim previously recites the term in the alternative: “an OLT or the ONU”, perform bandwidth adjustment in ONU based on user request for bandwidth allocation and message from OLT – see Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 20-21, 56-58).
Shi does not explicitly disclose displaying configuration information but this is taught by Sanjeev (user interface displays bandwidth allocations in a home network, and provides for user to make adjustments to configuration/bandwidth – see abstract, Figs. 2-4, col. 5 ln. 18-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shi to display the configuration/bandwidth on a user interface as taught by Sanjeev for the purpose of making adjustments or allocations. Sanjeev teaches this helps the user solve problems, control applications and provides a better experience (see col. 1 ln. 23-65).
Regarding claim 3, Shi discloses:
in response to that the optical transmission device comprises the OLT, and before acquiring the configuration information of the ONU in the home network, to which the user terminal belongs, through the communication connection established with the optical transmission device in the home network to which the user terminal belongs, establishing a communication connection with the OLT (communication between OLT and ONU – abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 53-54),
wherein the transmitting the adjustment information to the optical transmission device comprises: transmitting the adjustment information to the OLT through a transparent transmission of the ONU via the communication connection, so that the OLT adjusts the configuration information according to the adjustment information (send adjustment/bandwidth allocation request to OLT, OLT then adjusts/allocates bandwidth – Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 20-21).
Regarding claim 4, Shi discloses:
the acquiring the configuration information of the ONU in the home network through a communication connection established with an optical transmission device in the home network to which the user terminal belongs comprises (ONU in home connected to user terminal – Figs. 1-4):
transmitting a request message for acquiring the configuration information to the ONU, so that the ONU forwards the request message to the OLT in the home network; and receiving the configuration information fed back by the OLT and forwarded by the ONU, wherein the transmitting the adjustment information to the optical transmission device comprises: transmitting the adjustment information to the ONU, so that the ONU forwards the adjustment information to the OLT (bandwidth allocation request is sent from ONU to OLT and back – see Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 20, 29 and 54).
Regarding claim 5, Shi discloses receiving a bandwidth configured for a target ONU through the human-machine interaction interface of the user terminal (user bandwidth allocation request – Figs. 1-4), wherein in bandwidths of ONUs … the bandwidths of other ONUs except the target ONU are changed along with a change of the bandwidth configured for the target ONU (the bandwidth for a plurality of ONUs is adjusted/allocated – see Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 28, 53).
Shi does not explicitly disclose bandwidths are displayed on the interface of the user terminal but this is taught by Sanjeev (Figs. 2-4) as discussed above, the motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claim 6, Shi discloses:
wherein the acquiring adjustment information from a user through the human-machine interaction interface of the user terminal comprises: after a confirmation instruction for confirming the adjustment information … taking the adjustment information that has been confirmed as the adjustment information acquired from the user (adjust allocation after request – Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 20-21, 53-56).
Shi does not explicitly disclose displaying the configuration/bandwidth/adjustment information but this is taught by Sanjeev (Figs. 2-4) as discussed above. The motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claim 7, Shi discloses the adjustment information comprises one or any combination of followings: a bandwidth adjustment amount of the ONU, a bandwidth configuration amount of the ONU, or a time delay parameter of the ONU (bandwidth adjustment/allocation amounts – Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 20-21).
Regarding claim 8, Shi discloses in response to that the configuration information comprises the bandwidth, a sum of bandwidth adjustment amounts of ONUs is less than a preset bandwidth adjustment amount, and the preset adjustment bandwidth amount is less than an upstream bandwidth of the OLT (compare sum of bandwidth allocation to bandwidth limitation – see paragraph 27 and Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 9, Shi discloses:
before … the configuration information of the ONU in the home network, to which the user terminal belongs, through the human-machine interaction interface of the user terminal, initiating an access request to the optical transmission device through a network address, a network link, or an application program installed in the user terminal (user request via network link – paragraph 29; also see paragraph 67 and Fig. 13 which teach a user request to join a group).
Shi does not explicitly disclose displaying the configuration information but this is taught by Sanjeev as discussed above, the motivation to combine is the same.
The combination of Shi and Sanjeev does not explicitly disclose, and transmitting authentication information for identity verification to the optical transmission device. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on the teachings of Shi and Sanjeev. Sending or transmitting authentication information is extremely well-known in the art and commonplace in networks. Sanjeev teaches the user is using applications (Figs. 2-4) that require user login (e.g. Netflix). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Shi and Sanjeev to transmit authentication information for identity verification if they were not already doing so.
Regrading claim 10, it is a method claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1 but is directed to the OLT instead of the user terminal. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons because Shi discloses the OLT performing the claimed steps as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, it is a method claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1 but is directed to the ONU instead of the user terminal. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons because Shi discloses the ONU performing the claimed steps as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, it is a device claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1. Shi and Sanjeev disclose a device for performing the method as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, it is a device claim that corresponds to the method of claim 10; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, it is a device claim that corresponds to the method of claim 11; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, it is a computer readable medium that corresponds to the method of claim 10; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, it is a computer readable medium that corresponds to the method of claim 11; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. US 2010/0098413 A1 discloses an optical network (abstract) that has a GUI that allows a user to configure (paragraph 49, Fig. 3).
Mizutani et al. US 2010/0272436 A1 discloses an optical network for home subscribers that has an OLT and ONUs and performing bandwidth control (paragraphs 3, 6 and Fig. 1).
Takemoto et al. US 2016/0080208 A1 discloses an optical communication system with dynamic bandwidth allocation (paragraphs 2-3, 23 and Fig. 1).
Bhaskara et al. US 2015/0095787 A1 discloses a user interface for configuring bandwidth (abstract, paragraph 38, Figs. 1, 14).
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights