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 .
Response to Amendment
1. This action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 12 September 2025.
Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 14-26 are presently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 14-26 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.
Applicant employs broad language, which includes the use of word, and phrases, which have broad meanings in the art. In addition, Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim language, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. As the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is forced to interpret the claim limitations as broadly as reasonably possible, in determining patentability of the disclosed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.1993).
Failure for Applicant to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims with scope parallel to the Applicant in the response, and reiterates the need for the Applicant to more clearly and distinctly defines the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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, 7-8,14-17 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0372861 in view of Shahabudeen et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0186437 and further in view of Barnur, U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0356041.
Regarding claim 1, Roy discloses a method of supporting establishing a connection between at least two pairs of physical ports on two network devices, the at least two pairs of physical ports belonging to a same multiport connection (see Roy, fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] and [0013]; physical port connection between network devices is established), the method comprising: determining a service requiring a multiport connection that comprises at least two pairs of physical ports (see Roy, ¶ [0014],[0021] and [0026]; connection and port activation service is provided), obtaining based on the determined service (see Roy, ¶ [0016] and [0027]; identification of the ports is obtained).
Although Roy discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose sending control signals to user interfaces associated with the two network devices to indicate the at least two pairs of physical ports to be connected based on the obtained physical port identifiers.
Shahabudeen teaches sending control signals to user interfaces associated with the two network devices to be connected based on the obtained physical port identifiers (see Shahabudeen, ¶ [0029] and [0032]-[0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Shahabudeen with that of Roy in order to efficiently identify which ports the network devices are currently connected.
Although Roy-Shahabudeen discloses the invention substantially as claimed, they do not explicit disclose an identifier for each physical port of each pair of physical ports in the multiport connected and simultaneously and uniquely indicate each physical port of each pair of physical ports in the multiport connection.
Barnur teaches an identifier for each physical port of each pair of physical ports in the multiport connected and simultaneously and uniquely indicate each physical port of each pair of physical ports in the multiport connection (see Barnur, ¶ [0013], [0015] and [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Barnur with that of Roy-Shahabudeen in order to efficiently guide a technician in establishing multiple physical connections network devices more accurately.
Regarding claim 2, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the user interfaces associated with the two network devices comprise faceplates of the two network devices and the control signals turn on Light Emitting Diodes, LEDs pairwise associated with the at least two pairs of physical ports based on the obtained physical port identifiers (see Roy, fig. 3 item 310 and Shahabudeen, ¶ [0019]). Same motivation utilized in claim 1, equally applies as well to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the user interfaces associated with the two network devices comprise at least one augmented-reality device and the operation of sending comprises sending control signals to the at least one augmented- reality device to generate an augmented reality image by overlaying the at least two pairs of physical ports with a graphical indication (see Roy, ¶ [0019] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the user interfaces associated with the two network devices comprise at least one augmented-reality device and the operation of sending comprises sending control signals to the at least one augmented- reality device to present the at least two pairs of physical ports and a graphical indication if a camera of the at least one augmented-reality device captures the at least two pairs of physical ports (see Roy, ¶ [0019] and [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the control signals assign a same LED color pairwise to the identifiers (see Roy, ¶ [0051] and Shahabudeen, ¶ [0019] and [0033]). Same motivation utilized for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches further comprising showing in a GUI the identifiers and information representing the same LED color (see Roy, ¶ [0051] and Shahabudeen, ¶ [0019] and [0032]). Same motivation utilized for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, Roy discloses a device for supporting a multiport connection, the device comprising a processor and a memory, the memory having stored thereon instructions executable by the processor (see Roy, fig. 3 and ¶ [0013]; network device shown), wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the device to: determine a service requiring a multiport connection that comprises at least two pairs of physical ports (see Roy, ¶ [0014],[0021] and [0026]; connection and port activation service is provided), obtain the multiport connection on two network devices based on the determined service (see Roy, ¶ [0016] and [0027]; identification of the ports is obtained).
Although Roy discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose send control signals to user interfaces associated with the two network devices to be connected based on the obtained physical port identifiers.
Shahabudeen teaches send control signals to user interfaces associated with the two network devices to be connected based on the obtained physical port identifiers (see Shahabudeen, ¶ [0029] and [0032]-[0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Shahabudeen with that of Roy in order to efficiently identify which ports the network devices are currently connected.
Although Roy-Shahabudeen discloses the invention substantially as claimed, they do not explicit disclose an identifier for each physical port of each pair of physical ports in the multiport connected and simultaneously and uniquely indicate each physical port of each pair of physical ports in the multiport connection.
Barnur teaches an identifier for each physical port of each pair of physical ports in the multiport connected and simultaneously and uniquely indicate each physical port of each pair of physical ports in the multiport connection (see Barnur, ¶ [0013], [0015] and [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Barnur with that of Roy-Shahabudeen in order to efficiently guide a technician in establishing multiple physical connections network devices more accurately.
Regarding claim 15, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the user interfaces associated with the two network devices comprise faceplates of the two network devices and the control signals turn on LEDs pairwise associated with the at least two pairs of physical ports based on the obtained physical port identifiers (see Roy, fig. 3 item 310 and Shahabudeen, ¶ [0019]). Same motivation utilized in claim 14, equally applies as well to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the user interfaces associated with the two network devices comprise at least one augmented-reality device and the operation of sending comprises sending control signals to the at least one augmented- reality device to generate an augmented reality image by overlaying the at least two pairs of physical ports with a graphical indication (see Roy, ¶ [0019] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 17, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the user interfaces associated with the two network devices comprise at least one augmented-reality device and the operation of sending comprises sending control signals to the at least one augmented- reality device to present the at least two pairs of physical ports and a graphical indication if a camera of the at least one augmented-reality device captures the at least two pairs of physical ports (see Roy, ¶ [0019] and [0051]).
Regarding claim 19, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the operation of sending the control signals to the two network devices is carried out by a Local Craft Terminal, LCT (see Roy, [0010] and Shahabudeen, ¶ [0019]).
Regarding claim 20, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the control signals assign a same LED color pairwise to the identifiers (see Roy, ¶ [0051] and Shahabudeen, ¶ [0019] and [0033]). Same motivation utilized for claim 14 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the device to show in a GUI the identifiers and information representing the same LED color (see Roy, ¶ [0051] and Shahabudeen, ¶ [0019] and [0032]). Same motivation utilized for claim 14 applies equally as well to claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the control signals assign a same LED blink frequency pairwise to the identifiers (Shahabudeen, ¶ [0019] and [0033]). Same motivation utilized for claim 14 applies equally as well to claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the device to - show in a GUI the identifiers and information representing the same LED blink frequency (see Roy, ¶ [0051] and Shahabudeen, ¶ [0019] and [0032]). Same motivation utilized for claim 14 applies equally as well to claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the device to turn off a first pair of LEDs associated with a first pair of physical ports if the physical ports in the physical ports in the first pair are connected; turn on a further pair of LEDs associated with a further pair of physical ports to be connected (see Roy, [0051] and Shahabudeen, ¶ [0019]). Same motivation utilized for claim 14 equally applies as well to claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the device to showing at a same time at least a first graphical indication for a first pair of physical ports to be connected and a second graphical indication for a second pair of physical ports to be connected (see Roy, ¶ [0046] and [0051]).
Regarding claim 26, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the device to showing a first graphical indication of a first pair of physical ports until the first pair of physical ports is not connected; stop showing the first graphical indication if the first pair of physical ports is connected; showing a second graphical indication of a second pair of physical ports to be connected (see Roy, ¶ [0039] and [0051]).
4. Claim(s) 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy in view of Shahabudeen in view of Barnur as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Howard, U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0052904.
Regarding claim 5, although Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur disclose the invention substantially as claimed, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the connection between the at least two pairs of physical ports forms a Link Aggregation Group, LAG.
Howard teaches wherein the connection between the at least two pairs of physical ports forms a Link Aggregation Group, LAG (see Howard, ¶ [0003] and [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Howard with that of Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur in order to combine multiple physical links into a single logical link thus providing more capacity.
Regarding claim 18, Roy-Shahabudeen-Barnur-Howard teaches wherein the connection between the at least two pairs of physical ports forms a Link Aggregation Group, LAG (see Howard, ¶ [0003] and [0016]). Same motivation utilized for claim 5, equally applies as well to claim 18.
Prior Art of Record
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Conclusion
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 MOHAMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:30AM to 6:00PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/MOHAMED IBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights