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 .
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on October 23, 2025.
Claims 2-10 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Double Patenting
Claims 2, 4-10 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,028,235.
Claims 2, 4-6 and 8 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,290 in view of Kizhakkiniyi et al. US Patent Publication No. 2016/0321147.
Applicant requested that the nonstatutory double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the presence of allowable subject matter is indicated for all claims.
Applicant’s response is not fully responsive. A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. See MPEP 804
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 2 was rejected because there was insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the diagnostics data” in “the diagnostics data of the second CPE device.” The amendment to claim 2 has addressed the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 3 was rejected because the term “proximate” in claim is a relative term which rendered the claim indefinite. Applicant amended claim to recite, “the same household and/or neighborhood as the second CPE device.” The language “the same… neighborhood as the second CPE device” renders the claim indefinite because the boundary of the “same neighborhood” cannot be determined. It is not clear which devices would be encompassed in “the same neighborhood.” The term “neighborhood” is typically defined as a community bound by varying criteria, e.g. same street, block, zip code, etc... Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be clearly established.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voshi et al. US Patent Publication No. 2014/0369208 (“Voshi”) in view of Kizhakkiniyi et al. US Patent Publication No. 2016/0321147 (“Kizhakkiniyi”), McElhinney US Patent Publication No. 2016/0155098 (“McElhinney”), and Maes et al. US Patent Publication No. 2019/0268214 (“Maes”).
Applicant submitted that determining that a cause of a service issue exists at a customer premise is not the same as determining whether a CPE device is defective. Applicant further submitted that a cause of service issue can exist at a customer premise for many reasons, including reasons independent of a CPE device being defective. For example, the quality/condition of network cables at the customer premise may be the source of the service issue, rather than a defective CPE device. Thus, determining that a cause of a service issue exists at a customer premise is not the same as determining whether a CPE device is defective.
In response, the claims disclose that a determination of a defective CPE device is based on a score, which is determined based on a comparison of the diagnostic data of the first CPE device compared to diagnostic data of the second CPE device. The claims do not specify the cause of defect. Voshi is concerned with the functioning of the CPE device and not the quality/condition of network cables. Voshi, on paragraph [0027], discloses initiating a quality check for a CPE device and measure connection properties at the CPE device and making a determination that the quality check at the customer premise has failed. The determination of failure is based on properties at the CPE device, which correlates to “diagnostic data of the first CPE device.” Furthermore, Voshi, on paragraph [0022], states in part, “network monitoring service 145 can collect data from an identified subset of CPE devices 115, and can perform the same quality check on the subset of CPE devices as the quality check performed on the CPE device that is being installed or repaired.” Voshi discloses repairing the CPE device on which the quality check was performed, which indicates an issue with the CPE device that required repair of the CPE device and not the network cables at the customer premise.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 4-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,028,235 (“Patent ‘235”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by claims of Patent ‘235. See below.
Instant Application
Patent ‘235
2. An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
1. An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
determining, based upon information comprising diagnostic data for a first customer premises equipment (CPE) device, a health score for a second CPE device, wherein the first and second CPE devices are both connected to a network corresponding to a particular service provider and the health score is determined using a machine learning system that bases the determination of the health score at least in part on the diagnostics data of the first CPE device compared to diagnostics data of the second CPE device;
determining, based upon information comprising functional parameters and diagnostic data for a first customer premises equipment (CPE) device, a health score for a second CPE device, wherein the first and second CPE devices are both connected to a network corresponding to a particular service provider and the health score is determined using a machine learning system that bases the determination of the health score at least in part on the functional parameters and diagnostics data of the first CPE device compared to the functional parameters and diagnostics data of the second CPE device;
determining whether the health score indicates that the second CPE device is defective;
based upon a comparison between the health score and a threshold, determining whether the health score indicates that the second CPE device is defective;
in response to a determination that the health score indicates that the second CPE device is defective, outputting an indication that the second CPE device is defective; and
in response to a determination that the health score indicates that the second CPE device is defective, outputting second information indicating that the second CPE device is defective and needs to be replaced and returned; and
subsequent to outputting an indication that the second CPE device is defective, updating the machine learning system used to determine the health score for the second CPE device with diagnostic data of the second CPE device.
in response to receiving an indication that the second CPE device was tested and determined not to be defective, updating the machine learning system used to determine the health score with a training example including diagnostic data of the second CPE device and that the second CPE device is not defective.
Claims 4-10 are unpatentable over claims 3-8 and 10 of Patent ‘235.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,028,235 (“Patent ‘235”) in view of Voshi et al. US Patent Publication No. 2014/0369208 (“Voshi”).
Regarding claim 3, claims of Patent ‘235 discloses determining the health score but not based on information about network devices that are in the same household and/or neighborhood as the second CPE device. Voshi teaches determining health based on information about network devices that are in the same household and/or neighborhood as the second CPE device (see fig. 1. see one or more CPE devices at customer premise. para. [0013] receive the services at a customer premise through one or more (CPE) devices. para. [0021] subscriber location elements, e.g. street address, zip code. customer premise 110 at which one or more CPE devices 115 are installed... identify a subset of CPE devices 115... neighboring CPE devices. para. [0022] the network monitoring service 145 can collect data from an identified subset of CPE devices 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Voshi’s disclosure for benefits of determining a source of an issue based on health of a device relative to other devices in the network.
Claims 2, 4-6 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,290 (“Patent ‘290”) in view of Kizhakkiniyi et al. US Patent Publication No. 2016/0321147 (“Kizhakkiniyi”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially disclosed by claims of Patent ‘290 with the differences being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See below.
Instant Application
Patent ‘290
2. An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
1. An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
determining, based upon information comprising diagnostic data for a first customer premises equipment (CPE) device, a health score for a second CPE device, wherein the first and second CPE devices are both connected to a network corresponding to a particular service provider and the health score is determined using a machine learning system that bases the determination of the health score at least in part on the diagnostics data of the first CPE device compared to diagnostics data of the second CPE device;
determining, based upon first information comprising current diagnostic data for a first customer premises equipment (CPE) device, a health score for a second CPE device, wherein the first and second CPE devices are both connected to a network corresponding to a particular service provider and the health score is determined using a machine learning system that bases the determination of the health score at least in part on whether the second CPE device has previously been returned from a user's premises;
determining whether the health score indicates that the second CPE device is defective;
based upon a comparison between the health score and a threshold, determining whether the second CPE device is defective; and
in response to a determination that the health score indicates that the second CPE device is defective, outputting an indication that the second CPE device is defective; and
in response to determining that the second CPE device is defective, outputting second information indicating that the second CPE device is defective; receiving an indication that the second CPE device is determined not to be defective; and
subsequent to outputting an indication that the second CPE device is defective, updating the machine learning system used to determine the health score for the second CPE device with diagnostic data of the second CPE device.
updating the machine learning system used to determine the health score with a training example including the current diagnostic data and the indication that the second CPE device is not defective.
Claim 1 of Patent ‘290 discloses determination of the health score at least in part on the diagnostics data of the first CPE device but not the diagnostic data of the first CPE device compared to the diagnostics data of the second CPE device. Kizhakkiniyi discloses determining health of a second device, the health determined at least in part on diagnostics data of a first device compared to the diagnostics data of the second device (para. [0009] health parameter value of the node is compared to the health parameter values of other nodes within the cluster. para. [0014] health parameters. para. [0026] determine whether node 110 is healthy. FMC 180 makes the health determination by comparing the health parameter values gathered from its own node 110, to health parameter values gathered from the other nodes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Kizhakkiniyi’s disclosure because it would have been beneficial to further compare the data of other nodes to identify and correct underperforming nodes (para. [0003]).
Claims 4-6 and 8 are unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5 of Patent ‘290.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,290 (“Patent ‘290”) in view of Kizhakkiniyi and Voshi et al. US Patent Publication No. 2014/0369208 (“Voshi”).
Regarding claim 3, claims of Patent ‘290 discloses determining the health score but not based on information about network devices that are in the same household and/or neighborhood as the second CPE device. Voshi teaches determining health based on information about network devices that are in the same household and/or neighborhood as the second CPE device (see fig. 1. see one or more CPE devices at customer premise. para. [0013] receive the services at a customer premise through one or more (CPE) devices. para. [0021] subscriber location elements, e.g. street address, zip code. customer premise 110 at which one or more CPE devices 115 are installed... identify a subset of CPE devices 115... neighboring CPE devices. para. [0022] the network monitoring service 145 can collect data from an identified subset of CPE devices 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Voshi’s disclosure for benefits of determining a source of an issue based on health of a device relative to other devices in the network.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,290 (“Patent ‘290”) in view of Kizhakkiniyi and McElhinney US Patent Publication No. 2016/0155098 (“McElhinney”).
Regarding claim 7, claims of Patent ‘290 do not disclose the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the diagnostic data for the second CPE device includes diagnostic data from different times of day. McElhinney discloses diagnostic data from different times of day (para. [0107] transmit operating data for to the analytics system 400 continuously, periodically, and/or in response to triggering events (e.g., fault codes). asset 200 may transmit operating data periodically based on a particular frequency (e.g., daily, hourly, every fifteen minutes, once per minute, once per second, etc. para. [0122] analyze historical operating data for a group of one or more assets to identify past occurrences). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented McElhinney’s disclosure of diagnostic data from different times of day in order to have received updated data to determine health and predict failures.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,290 (“Patent ‘290”) in view of Kizhakkiniyi and Leach et al. US Patent Publication No. 2019/0075035 (“Leach”).
Regarding claim 9, claims of Patent ‘290 do not disclose the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the network is a DOCSIS network. Leach discloses a DOCSIS network (para. [0049] set of performance metrics may be used in a third type of monitored device, such as set-top boxes following the DOCSIS (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification) standard. para. [0065] monitored devices themselves (e.g., the user premises devices, STB/DVR 113, gateway 111, etc.) para. [0066] health monitoring device 118 may determine whether it is time to analyze the overall health of one or more monitored devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Leach’s disclosure of a DOCSIS network in order to have determined health of devices on different networks including health of set-top boxes.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, “the same household and/or neighborhood as the second CPE device.” The language “the same… neighborhood as the second CPE device” renders the claim indefinite because the boundary of the “same neighborhood” cannot be determined. It is not clear which devices would be encompassed in “the same neighborhood.” The term “neighborhood” is typically defined as a community bound by varying criteria, e.g. same street, block, zip code, etc... Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be clearly established.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-3, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voshi et al. US Patent Publication No. 2014/0369208 (“Voshi”) in view of Kizhakkiniyi et al. US Patent Publication No. 2016/0321147 (“Kizhakkiniyi”), McElhinney US Patent Publication No. 2016/0155098 (“McElhinney”), and Maes et al. US Patent Publication No. 2019/0268214 (“Maes”).
Regarding claim 2, Voshi teaches an electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
determining, based upon information comprising diagnostic data for a first customer premises equipment (CPE) device, health for a second CPE device (para. [0022] collect data from an identified subset of CPE devices 115. if the summary of the quality checks on the subset of CPE devices show substantially the same failure(s) as the quality check on the CPE device being installed, repaired… identify the CPE device and neighboring CPE devices as candidates for plant maintenance. para. [0032] quality check of service for the identified neighboring customer premise(s), connection properties can be measured),
wherein the first and second CPE devices are both connected to a network corresponding to a particular service provider (para. [0019] used by a service operator to run service checks at one or more CPE devices 115. para. [0020] identify one or more CPE devices 115 that share one or more network elements with the CPE device 115. identify one or more subscriber location elements in common with a CPE device. subscriber location elements associated with one or more CPE devices 115 can be stored by a service operator and made available);
determining whether the second CPE device is defective (para. [0027] service quality check for a CPE device, measure connection properties at the CPE device. para. [0034] cause of service issue exists at the first customer premise);
in response to a determination that the second CPE device is defective, outputting an indication that the second CPE device is defective (para. [0034] message informing a user that a service issue exists at the first customer premise can be output to the user).
Voshi discloses determining health for a second CPE device but does not expressly teach determining a health score, the health score determined using a machine learning system that bases the determination of the health score at least in part on the diagnostics data of the first CPE device compared to diagnostics data of the second CPE device.
Voshi discloses determining whether the second CPE device is defective but not based on whether the health score indicates that the second CPE device is defective.
Voshi does not teach subsequent to outputting an indication that the second CPE device is defective, updating the machine learning system used to determine the health score for the second CPE device with diagnostic data of the second CPE device.
Kizhakkiniyi discloses determining health of a second device, the health determined at least in part on diagnostics data of a first device compared to diagnostics data of the second device (para. [0009] health parameter value of the node is compared to the health parameter values of other nodes within the cluster. para. [0014] health parameters. para. [0026] determine whether node 110 is healthy. FMC 180 makes the health determination by comparing the health parameter values gathered from its own node 110, to health parameter values gathered from the other nodes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Voshi by applying Kizhakkiniyi’s disclosure of determining health of a second device at least in part on diagnostics data of a first device compared to the diagnostics data of the second device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial to further compare the data of other nodes to identify and correct underperforming nodes (para. [0003]).
While Voshi and Kizhakkiniyi disclose determining health of the device, Voshi and Kizhakkiniyi does not expressly disclose determining a health score of the device. McElhinney teaches determining a health score for a device (para. [0011] health metric, referred to herein as a “health score.” para. [0058] assets… any device configured to perform one or more operations. para. [0122] analyze historical operating data for a group of one or more assets… model. para. [0157] identified set of operating data into the model… convert this likelihood into the health metric), wherein the health score is determined using a machine learning system (para. [0012] model defined in the machine learning phase to determine the "health score"); and determining whether the device is defective (para. [0172] health metric reaches a threshold value. para. [0117] “health score” indicates whether a failure will occur). Voshi, Kizhakkiniyi, and McElhinney come from a similar field of endeavor of managing devices including determining health of devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Voshi and Kizhakkiniyi by applying McElhinney’s disclosure of determining health score using a machine learning system such that a health score for the CPE device of Voshi is determined using the machine learning system based on the comparison of the diagnostic data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because McElhinney would have enabled input of a set of data to provide a single metric to determine overall health of devices. Furthermore, McElhinney’s use of machine learning would have enabled improvements to determining failures based on updated data.
Maes teaches subsequent to outputting an indication that a device is defective, updating the machine learning system with diagnostic data of the CPE device (para. [0014] “issue,” problem, an error. para. [0031] predict issue. para. [0077] receive… feedback regarding whether or not actual issue predictions… (machine learning automated engine 214 predicted an issue based on the monitoring and configuration data and the prediction was wrong). para. [0078] feedback…used by the machine learning automated engine 214 to continually improve (at 326) the predictions). Maes comes from a similar field of endeavor of management of devices including determining health of devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Voshi and McElhinney with Maes’ disclosure of providing feedback to update the machine learning system in response to an incorrect determination, i.e. device is not defective, such that feedback is provided to update the machine learning system of McElhinney that determines the health score. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because McElhinney describes refining the model, and Maes would have provided a benefit of continually improving the machine learning model (para. [0079] continually improve the machine learning automated engine).
Regarding claim 3, Voshi in view of Kizhakkiniyi, McElhinney, and Maes teach the electronic device of claim 2, wherein determining the health is also based on information about network devices that are in the same household and/or neighborhood as the second CPE device (Voshi: see fig. 1. see one or more CPE devices at customer premise. para. [0013] receive the services at a customer premise through one or more (CPE) devices. para. [0021] subscriber location elements, e.g. street address, zip code. customer premise 110 at which one or more CPE devices 115 are installed... identify a subset of CPE devices 115... neighboring CPE devices. para. [0022] the network monitoring service 145 can collect data from an identified subset of CPE devices 115). Voshi does not teach determining the health score.
McElhinney teaches determining a health score for a device (para. [0011] health metric, referred to herein as a “health score.” para. [0058] assets… any device configured to perform one or more operations. para. [0122] analyze historical operating data for a group of one or more assets… model. para. [0157] identified set of operating data into the model… convert this likelihood into the health metric), wherein the health score is determined using a machine learning system (para. [0012] model defined in the machine learning phase to determine the "health score"); and determining whether the device is defective (para. [0172] health metric reaches a threshold value. para. [0117] “health score” indicates whether a failure will occur). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Voshi and Kizhakkiniyi by applying McElhinney’s disclosure of determining health score using a machine learning system such that a health score for the CPE device of Voshi is determined using the machine learning system based on the comparison of the diagnostic data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because McElhinney would have enabled input of a set of data to provide a single metric to determine overall health of devices. Furthermore, McElhinney’s use of machine learning would have enabled improvements to determining failures based on updated data.
Regarding claim 7, Voshi in view of Kizhakkiniyi, McElhinney, and Maes teach the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the diagnostic data for the second CPE device includes diagnostic data from different times of day (McElhinney: para. [0107] transmit operating data for to the analytics system 400 continuously, periodically, and/or in response to triggering events (e.g., fault codes). asset 200 may transmit operating data periodically based on a particular frequency (e.g., daily, hourly, every fifteen minutes, once per minute, once per second, etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Voshi in view of Kizhakkiniyi, McElhinney, and Maes teach electronic device of claim 2, wherein the diagnostic data for the second CPE device is received from and generated by the second CPE device (Voshi: para. [0022] collect data from an identified subset of CPE devices 115. para. [0024] measure properties of a connection, SNR, CER. McElhinney: para. [0107] transmit operating data for to the analytics system 400. asset 200 may transmit operating data. Kizhakkiniyi: para. [0026] health parameter values gathered from the other nodes in the cluster 101).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voshi in view of Kizhakkiniyi, McElhinney, Maes, and Lazar et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0176614 (“Lazar”).
Regarding claim 6, Voshi teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein determination of the health is based on diagnostic data for the second CPE device that includes performance information (Voshi: para. [0024] measure properties of a connection, SNR, CER. measure connection property can be compared to predetermined threshold ranges). Voshi does not teach wherein determination of the health score is based on diagnostic data for the second CPE device that includes configuration information, a fault indication and a log file
Lazar discloses determining health based on diagnostic data for a CPE device that includes configuration information, performance information, a fault indication and a log file (para. [0030] log and configuration data from the CPE devices 105. para. [0035] determine characteristics about a device by querying the device directly. para. [0036] collects and analyzes CPE device activity. bandwidth usage, security settings, etc… para. [0045] status report generally includes information about the operation of the device… error reports). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Voshi with Lazar’s disclosure of determining health based on diagnostic data for a CPE device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to collected various information for analysis to identify health condition of a device and determine an action to fix the CPE device (para. [0052]).
While Voshi and Lazar disclose determining health of the device, Voshi and Lazar do not expressly disclose determining a health score of the device. McElhinney teaches determining a health score for a device (para. [0011] health metric, referred to herein as a “health score.” para. [0058] assets… any device configured to perform one or more operations. para. [0122] analyze historical operating data for a group of one or more assets… model. para. [0157] identified set of operating data into the model… convert this likelihood into the health metric). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Voshi, Kizhakkiniyi, and Lazar by applying McElhinney’s disclosure of determining health score such that the health score is determined using the information disclosed by Voshi and Lazar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because McElhinney would have enabled input of a set of data to provide a single metric to determine overall health of devices.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voshi in view of Kizhakkiniyi, McElhinney, Maes, and Leach et al. US Patent Publication No. 2019/0075035 (“Leach”).
Regarding claim 9, Voshi does not teach the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the network is a DOCSIS network.
Leach discloses a DOCSIS network (para. [0049] set of performance metrics may be used in a third type of monitored device, such as set-top boxes following the DOCSIS (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification) standard. para. [0065] monitored devices themselves (e.g., the user premises devices, STB/DVR 113, gateway 111, etc.) para. [0066] health monitoring device 118 may determine whether it is time to analyze the overall health of one or more monitored devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Voshi, Kizhakkiniyim and Lazar with Leach’s disclosure of a DOCSIS network. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of determining health of devices on different networks including health of set-top boxes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner' s Note
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Blackburn, US Patent Publication No. 2008/0267215 discloses determining a defective CPE device by comparing data from geographically related CPE devices and determining a difference between the data (para. [0026] data is compared from geographically-related CPE devices, such as the first data from the first CPE device and to second data from the other CPE device. para. [0028] if the system determines that a problem exists in only one device, the method advances to 316 and the system notifies the customer of possible customer premises wiring or device problem).
Conclusion
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 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 Joshua Joo whose telephone number is 571 272-3966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-3pm EST.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571 270-1684. 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.
/JOSHUA JOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445