Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Application 18/754,108 filed 06/25/2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. 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 § 102
2. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1, 6-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perreault et al. (US 2016/0182691 A1), hereinafter “Perreault”.
4. As to claim 1, Perreault teaches an un-provisioned network device configured to perform device self-provisioning, the un-provisioned network device comprising:
memory circuitry (Fig. 7, processor 715); and
processing circuitry (Fig. 7, memory 730) coupled to the memory circuitry and configured to:
transmit a plurality of requests for facilitating at least first and second types of device provisioning ([0031] and [0084]: a dual stack device may request configuration from both a DHCPv4 server using a DHCPv4 request message and a DHCPv6 using a DHCPv6 request message);
receive a reply for facilitating the first type of device provisioning in response to a given request of the plurality of requests ([0079] and [0084]: the DHCPv6 server may send a DHCPv6 response message back to an originator of the DHCPv6 request message, where the DHCPv6 response message includes an option 300 indicating a level of IPv4 functionality supported); and
restrict one or more subsequent attempts for device provisioning to the first type of device provisioning based on the received reply ([0038] and [0084]: adjust (i.e., restrict) IPv4 functionality of communications device 700 in accordance with the level of IPv4 functionality supported including: IPv4 fully enabled; no IPv4 upstream; no IPV4 upstream with local IPv4 restricted; and no IPv4 at all).
5. As to claim 6, Perreault teaches the un-provisioned network device defined in claim 1, wherein the plurality of requests are destined for one or more address assignment servers ([0031] and [0084]: a dual stack device may request configuration from both a DHCPv4 server using a DHCPv4 request message and a DHCPv6 using a DHCPv6 request message) and wherein the reply is received from one of the one or more address assignment servers ([0079] and [0084]: the DHCPv6 server may send a DHCPv6 response message back to an originator of the DHCPv6 request message).
6. As to claim 7, Perreault teaches the un-provisioned network device defined in claim 6, wherein the plurality of requests comprise one or more Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) requests for facilitating the first type of device provisioning and one or more DHCP requests for facilitating the second type of device provisioning ([0031] and [0084]: a dual stack device may request configuration from both a DHCPv4 server using a DHCPv4 request message and a DHCPv6 using a DHCPv6 request message).
7. As to claim 8, Perreault teaches the un-provisioned network device defined in claim 7, wherein the one or more Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) requests for facilitating the first type of device provisioning comprise a first DHCP version 4 (DHCPv4) request and a first DHCP version 6 (DHCPv6) request and wherein the one or more Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) requests for facilitating the second type of device provisioning comprise a second DHCPv4 request and a second DHCPv6 request and one or more DHCP requests for facilitating the second type of device provisioning ([0031] and [0084]: a dual stack device may request configuration from both a DHCPv4 server using a DHCPv4 request message and a DHCPv6 using a DHCPv6 request message).
8. As to claims 17-20, claims 17-20 are corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage media claims that recite similar limitations as of un-provisioned network device claims 1, 6-7 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 2-5, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perreault, in view of VISWANATHAN et al. (US 2016/0080889 A1), hereinafter “VISWANATHAN”.
11. As to claim 2, Perreault teaches the un-provisioned network device defined in claim 1, wherein the first type of device provisioning comprises secure device provisioning (request provisioning from a DHCPv6 server), but does not explicitly disclose “the second type of device provisioning comprises non-secure device provisioning”.
In an analogous art, VISWANATHAN teaches “the second type of device provisioning comprises non-secure device provisioning” ([0040]: pressing of button 151 sets AP 150 to a ‘group provisioning’ mode, in which AP 150 is responsive to non-secure provisioning requests from compatible wireless devices such as wireless devices 110 and 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Perreault and VISWANATHAN to achieve the claimed invention to allow wireless devices be provisioned automatically and without the need for any provisioning agent ([0056]).
12. As to claim 3, Perreault-VISWANATHAN teaches the un-provisioned network device defined in claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to maintain a provisioning restriction flag and is configured to set the provisioning restriction flag in response to the received reply for facilitating the first type of device provisioning (Perreault, [0039]: an option 300 included in a DHCPv6 response message to indicate a level of IPv4 functionality supported including an indication field 315 that includes the indicator of the level of IPv4 functionality supported).
13. As to claim 4, Perreault-VISWANATHAN teaches the un-provisioned network device defined in claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to restrict the one or more subsequent attempts for device provisioning to the first type of device provisioning in response to the provisioning restriction flag being set (Perreault, [0050]: indicator field value (i.e., restriction flag) set 1—No IPv4 upstream: any attempts to provision IPv4 by a host or to use IPv4 in any fashion, on that link, will be useless. IPv4 may be dropped, blocked, or otherwise ignored on that link).
14. As to claim 5, Perreault-VISWANATHAN teaches the un-provisioned network device defined in claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to restrict the one or more subsequent attempts for device provisioning to the first type of device provisioning by transmitting additional requests for the one or more subsequent attempts for facilitating the first type of device provisioning and not the second type of device provisioning (Perreault, [0075]: If the DHCPv6 response message includes an option indicating the level of IPv4 functionality supported, the dual-stack device may adjust its IPv4 functionality in accordance with the option; [0077]: the dual-stack device may configure its IPv4 protocol stack to refrain from sending DHCPv4 messages when the option indicates that IPv4 is not supported).
15. As to claim 9, Perreault-VISWANATHAN teaches the un-provisioned network device defined in claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to allow for a close-proximity device (i.e., access point AP 150) provisioning operation without the restriction to the first type of device provisioning (Perreault, [0038-0040]: pressing of button 151 sets AP 150 to a ‘group provisioning’ mode, in which AP 150 is responsive to non-secure provisioning requests from compatible wireless devices such as wireless devices 110 and 120).
16. As to claim 10, Perreault-VISWANATHAN teaches the un-provisioned network device defined in claim 9, wherein the close-proximity device provisioning operation comprises a device provisioning operation performed at least in part by the un-provisioned network device receiving a removably coupled storage device (VISWANATHAN, [0033]: access point 150 receives a command to accept provisioning requests from multiple wireless devices. The command can be received in any of multiple forms, as suitable in corresponding environments… an external packet/signal according to a suitable convention may represent such command. Here, to one skill in the art, the command/external packet/signal can be stored in and provided by a removable storage device).
17. As to claim 11, Perreault-VISWANATHAN teaches the un-provisioned network device defined in claim 9, wherein the close-proximity device provisioning operation comprises a device provisioning operation performed at least in part by the un-provisioned network device establishing a wireless communication link with an external device (Perreault, [0038-0040]: pressing of button 151 sets AP 150 to a ‘group provisioning’ mode, in which AP 150 is responsive to non-secure provisioning requests from compatible wireless devices such as wireless devices 110 and 120).
18. As to claims 13-15, claims 13-15 are network device claims that recites similar limitations as of un-provisioned network device claims 1, 3 and 5-6 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
19. Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perreault, in view of Lai et al. (US 2013/0094444 A1), hereinafter “Lai”.
20. As to claim 12, Perreault teaches the un-provisioned network device defined in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “perform a reboot of the un-provisioned network device after failing to provision the un-provisioned network device on the one or more subsequent attempts for device provisioning and wherein the restriction to the first type of device provisioning is removed after the reboot of the un-provisioned network device”.
In an analogous art, Lai teaches that when the device 302 is rebooted to default factory setting (e.g., due to power failure), the automatic re-provisioning procedure of FIG> 5 is repeated. In one embodiment, an automatic re-provisioning procedure is the same as the automatic initial provisioning procedure (i.e., the restriction to the first type of device provisioning is removed after the reboot of the un-provisioned network device), since all of the steps in the procedure are idempotent ([0041]).
It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lai and Perreault to achieve the claimed invention to enable automatic provisioning of a network device with no or a minimum human interface/interaction by rebooting the network device to automatically repeat the automatic re-provisioning procedure using the automatic initial provisioning procedure (i.e., without any applied provisioning restriction) ([0041]).
20. As to claim 16, claim 16 is a network device claim that recites similar limitations as of un-provisioned network device claim 12 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
21. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action.
22. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization 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.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441