DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 28 June 2024.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are under examination.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite because the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “information indicating that the confirmation message has to be transmitted after the residential gateway is rebooted and the user plane of the mobile network is re-established.” However, claim 7 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 neither introduces nor defines a “confirmation message.” A confirmation message is introduced in claim 2, which is not incorporated into claim 7. Therefore, it is unclear whether “the confirmation message” refers to the confirmation message recited in claim 2 or to another, undefined message.
For purposes of examination, claim 7 is interpreted as referring to the confirmation message recited in claim 2. Appropriate amendment, such as changing the dependency of claim 7 from claim 1 to claim 2, is required to clarify the scope of the claim.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kerpez et al. (US 2016/0285676 A1), as recited in the IDS, in view of Sikes (US 2024/0292242 A1), and further in view of Shen et al. (US 2012/0278654 A1), as recited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Kerpez teaches a method for restoring a functionality of a broadband controller of a residential gateway, the residential gateway comprising electronic circuitry implementing a modem for connecting the residential gateway to a mobile network via which a broadband network is accessible, the electronic circuitry furthermore implementing the broadband controller to connect the residential gateway to the broadband network, wherein, to remedy a malfunctioning of the broadband controller, the method comprises: Kerpez discloses customer-premises equipment comprising a broadband CPE, modem, or gateway that terminates a broadband connection, wherein the broadband connection may be a fixed wireless network connection (¶¶15, 17). The CPE includes broadband-management and configuration functionality for establishing and maintaining its connection to the broadband network (¶¶25–27, 67–79, 124, 144–159, 175–177).
Kerpez further teaches receiving, by the modem, by means of a user plane of the mobile network, an alert message instructing applying a restoration strategy aimed at restoring the functionality of the broadband controller; and an alternate communication device receives, from a remote broadband-network management device through an alternate communication path, messages containing instructions for diagnosing, configuring, repairing, or restoring malfunctioning broadband CPE and broadband-connection functionality (¶¶25–27, 75–79, 124, 144–148, 175–177). The alternate communication device may be implemented in a modem or residential gateway (¶30), and the alternate communication path may be a cellular radio access network, including a cellular data network (¶¶22, 119, 180).
Kerpez further teaches applying, by the modem, the restoration strategy with regard to the broadband controller, at least to the extent that the modem- or gateway-implemented alternate communication device receives the remediation instructions and automatically reconfigures or repairs the CPE, broadband connection, and associated equipment (¶¶26, 30, 79, 146–159, 176–177).
Kerpez, however, does not expressly disclose a residential gateway having both a broadband-control component and an independently operational cellular modem that receives the restoration instruction through the cellular network’s user plane when the ordinary broadband functionality is unavailable.
Sikes teaches a home gateway comprising a broadband modem and a separate cellular modem in combination with a router (¶34). The broadband modem connects the gateway to a broadband provider network, while the cellular modem connects the gateway to a cellular network when the conventional broadband service is interrupted (¶¶29, 34–35). Sikes teaches that the cellular modem provides Internet and content data to the gateway through the cellular network (¶¶34–35), including through a cellular data connection comprising a radio access network, core network, and gateway to the public Internet (¶56). Sikes further describes the mobile-network platform as supporting packet-switched traffic, including Internet Protocol traffic, through packet-switched gateway nodes (¶88). Sikes therefore teaches a residential gateway comprising electronic circuitry implementing a cellular modem through which a broadband network is accessible and a separate broadband modem or broadband-control component connecting the gateway to the ordinary broadband network, wherein the cellular modem maintains a mobile-network user-plane connection during failure of the ordinary broadband service.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Kerpez’s modem- or gateway-based alternate communication device using the integrated cellular modem and broadband-control architecture taught by Sikes and to transport Kerpez’s restoration messages through Sikes’s cellular packet-data connection. The modification would provide Kerpez’s residential gateway with an independently operational remote-management path when its ordinary broadband functionality is unavailable, eliminate reliance on a separate external alternate communication device, and allow the remote management system to initiate remediation using the cellular network’s conventional user plane.
The combination of Kerpez and Sikes does not expressly disclose that the cellular modem itself applies the received restoration strategy directly to the malfunctioning broadband controller.
Shen teaches remotely restoring one communications component through another operational communications component. Shen discloses that an access point, after failing over to an operational alternate modem, reports failure of a first modem and receives instructions concerning the restoration operation through the alternate connection (¶¶29, 32). The access point then applies a received reset command to restart the failed modem through a wireless or wired internal connection (¶26). Shen also expressly teaches the converse arrangement in which a cable modem receives a remote reboot instruction from a network-management application and applies the instruction to reboot a failed access point (¶41). Thus, Shen teaches an operational modem receiving a remotely generated restoration command and applying the restoration command to another malfunctioning gateway communications component.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the operational cellular modem in the combined system of Kerpez and Sikes to apply the remotely received restoration instruction directly to the malfunctioning broadband-control component, as taught by Shen. Kerpez already seeks automatic remediation of broadband failures through an alternate communication path, Sikes provides an independently operational cellular modem within the same gateway, and Shen teaches direct component-to-component restoration in response to a remotely received command. The modification would predictably permit automatic restoration of the broadband controller without manual intervention while the ordinary broadband-management path remains unavailable.
Regarding claim 5, Kerpez further teaches “wherein the alert message contains information representing the restoration strategy to be applied from a predefined set of restoration strategies.” Kerpez discloses automated configuration messages specifying various predefined remedial operations, including rebooting the CPE; resetting layer-1, layer-2, IP-layer, and login configurations; running connectivity or speed tests; changing Wi-Fi parameters; and otherwise reconfiguring the CPE (Kerpez, ¶¶ 146–147). Thus, the restoration information received from the management device identifies a restoration strategy selected from a predefined set of available restoration strategies.
Regarding claim 6, Kerpez further teaches “wherein the alert message contains a description of a command or of a set of commands to be applied in the restoration strategy.” Kerpez discloses that the alternate-device application may issue management requests to the CPE and receive automated configuration messages that cause the CPE to perform specified remedial operations, including reboot, reset, testing, and reconfiguration operations (Kerpez, ¶¶ 79, 145–147). Kerpez also identifies command-based management protocols, including TL1 commands, TR-69, and a command-line interface (Kerpez, ¶ 16). Accordingly, Kerpez teaches that the restoration message contains one or more commands defining the restoration operations to be performed.
Claim 8 recites a residential-gateway apparatus comprising electronic circuitry configured to perform operations corresponding to the method steps of claim 1. Kerpez, as modified by Sikes and Shen, teaches or suggests such a residential gateway having an operational cellular modem that receives restoration instructions over a cellular packet-data user plane and applies the instructed restoration strategy to a malfunctioning broadband controller. It would have been obvious to embody the method resulting from the combination discussed with respect to claim 1 in the residential-gateway circuitry of claim 8, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the cited references perform their disclosed gateway-management and restoration operations using gateway processors, modems, software agents, and associated electronic circuitry. Accordingly, claim 8 is unpatentable over the same combination.
Claims 2–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kerpez in view of Sikes and Shen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pyers et al. (US 2011/0055434 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kerpez, Sikes, and Shen does not expressly disclose “transmitting, by the modem, by means of the user plane of the mobile network, a confirmation message confirming that the restoration strategy has been applied.” Pyers teaches a wireless modem processor receiving a remote instruction through a cellular network, performing the instructed action, and, after completing the action, transmitting a reply message confirming that the action was performed (Pyers, ¶¶ 202–204). Pyers further teaches transmitting such responsive messages through an established wireless-data connection (Pyers, ¶¶ 210–211). It would have been obvious to configure the cellular modem of the Kerpez-Sikes-Shen gateway to return Pyers’s confirmation message over the same cellular packet-data path used to receive the restoration instruction, thereby informing the remote management system that its commanded restoration operation was completed and permitting the system to determine whether additional remediation was necessary.
Regarding claim 3, Pyers further teaches “wherein the confirmation message takes the form of a service SMS message intended for a dedicated telephone number.” Pyers teaches that the modem’s responsive message may be an SMS message addressed to the sender of the original activation message or to another destination address specified in advance and stored in memory (Pyers, ¶¶ 204, 210–211). It would have been obvious to use a telephone number dedicated to the network-management service as the stored destination for the confirmation SMS so that confirmations from managed gateways would be reliably routed to the appropriate monitoring service.
Regarding claim 4, Pyers further teaches “wherein the alert message takes the form of an SMS message.” In particular, Pyers teaches that a cellular wireless modem receives an SMS message containing a command, parses the message and its payload, identifies the operation or application specified by the message, and initiates the corresponding operation (Pyers, ¶¶ 187–189, 191, 202–204). It would have been obvious to transmit the restoration instruction of the Kerpez-Sikes-Shen system as an SMS message because Pyers teaches SMS as an established mechanism for delivering remotely executable commands to an independently operating cellular modem.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kerpez in view of Sikes, Shen, and Pyers, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of McIntosh et al. (US 2009/0013210 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kerpez, Sikes, Shen, and Pyers does not expressly disclose “wherein, when the restoration strategy consists of rebooting the residential gateway, the modem records in non-volatile memory information indicating that the confirmation message has to be transmitted after the residential gateway is rebooted and the user plane of the mobile network is re-established.” McIntosh teaches a network reset-and-restoration client that stores in volatile or nonvolatile memory information identifying reset or reboot actions and associated status information and, when communications with the monitoring server are disrupted, uploads the stored information as soon as communications are reestablished (McIntosh, ¶¶ 230, 294; claim 3). McIntosh also teaches allowing sufficient time after a reset for the modem to reboot and reestablish network connectivity before further communication occurs (McIntosh, ¶¶ 151–154). It would have been obvious to store an indication that Pyers’s confirmation remains pending in nonvolatile memory before initiating a gateway reboot and to transmit the confirmation after the cellular user-plane connection is reestablished. Such storage predictably preserves the pending-confirmation state across the reboot and ensures that the remote management system receives notice that the commanded restoration operation was performed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights