DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 2/9/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8-11 and 18-19 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.
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 (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 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, 3-7, 12-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian et al. (2015/0229561) in view of Lakshman et al. (6,078,564).
As per claim 1, Bastian et al. teaches a router, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory includes processor-executable instructions, which on execution, cause the processor to: monitor data packets communicated between a wide area network (WAN) and a plurality of customer premise equipment during an upstream transmission and a downstream transmission [Bastian et al., paragraph 0019];
determine a plurality of packet parameters associated with the monitored data packets and a plurality of device parameters associated with the plurality of customer premise equipment based on the monitored data packets [Bastian et al., paragraph 0004]; a plurality of device parameters comprising at least one of a round-trip latency, and a Media Access Control (MAC) address and a device network connectivity [Bastian et al., paragraphs 0036 and 0042];
validate the plurality of packet parameters and the plurality of device parameters based on predefined device match rules [Bastian et al., paragraphs 0042-0043]; and
identify a customer premise equipment along with a plurality of characteristics from the plurality of customer premise equipment based on results of validation, wherein the plurality of characteristics comprise a device type, a device name, and a device description [Bastian et al., paragraphs 0036-0037].
But Bastian et al. fails to explicitly teach, however, Lakshman et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the plurality of packet parameters comprise at least one of an acknowledgement (ACK) time of a downstream transmission control protocol (TCP) data packet, an upstream packet loss and a downstream packet loss [Lakshman et al., col. 1, ll. 38-col. 2, ll. 13].
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 Bastian et al. with Lakshman et al. in order to provide a data transmission control arrangement for an asymmetric communication system having a fast downstream link enabling communication of information packets from a service provider to one or more subscriber terminal connected through a common network terminal, and a slow upstream link including transmitting packets from a subscriber terminal through the network terminal to the service provider.
As per claim 3, Bastian-Lakshman teaches the router of claim 1, wherein in monitoring the data packets communicated between the WAN and the plurality of customer premise equipment during the upstream transmission and the downstream transmission, the router is to: receive an upstream data packet corresponding to the plurality of customer premise equipment; extract a source MAC address, and an IP address associated with the received upstream data packet; map the extracted source MAC address and the IP address with a pre-stored MAC address and a pre-stored IP address; determine a manufacturer name associated with the plurality of customer premise equipment based on the mapping; extract a server domain and a server domain name from the received upstream data packet based on a type of the upstream data packet; update a device upstream traffic information with a packet size in a device traffic history table; and update each device table entry for each of the plurality of customer premise equipment by applying the predefined device match rules [Bastian et al., paragraphs 0031-0034].
As per claim 4, Bastian-Lakshman teaches the router of claim 1, wherein in monitoring the data packets communicated between the WAN and the plurality of customer premise equipment during the upstream transmission and the downstream transmission, the router is to: receive a downstream data packet to be transmitted to the plurality of customer premise equipment from the WAN; extract an IP address associated with the received downstream data packet; update a device downstream traffic information with a packet size in a device traffic history table; and update each device table entry for each of the plurality of customer premise equipment by applying the predefined device match rules [Bastian et al., paragraph 0029].
As per claim 5, Bastian-Lakshman teaches the router of claim 1, wherein in validating the plurality of packet parameters and the plurality of device parameters based on the predefined device match rules, the router is to: compare at least one of the plurality of packet parameters and the plurality of device parameters with the predefined device match rules; determine at least one matching rule with a highest resulting score based on comparison, wherein the at least one matching rule is configured as a comma-separated value list of comprising key-value pairs; and identify at least one of the MAC address, a vendor value and a hostname corresponding to the determined at least one matching rule [Bastian et al., paragraph 0048].
As per claim 6, Bastian-Lakshman teaches the router of claim 1, wherein in identifying the customer premise equipment along with the plurality of characteristics from the plurality of customer premise equipment based on the results of validation, the router is to: identify a type of the customer premise equipment based on at least one matching rule, wherein the at least one matching rule comprises pre-stored device parameters and pre-stored packet parameters matching the plurality of packet parameters and the plurality of device parameters; determine a device name and a device description associated with the identified type of customer premise equipment based on the at least one matching rule; and determine at least one of an operating system hosted on the customer premise equipment and at least one latest applications used by the customer premise equipment [Bastian et al., paragraphs 0025-0026].
As per claim 7, Bastian-Lakshman teaches the router of claim 1, wherein the router is to: determine a status information and a performance information associated with the customer premise equipment based on the plurality of characteristics and the predefined device match rules, wherein the performance information comprises a device network latency measurement and packet loss measurements; determine at least one issue associated with the identified customer premise equipment based on the status information and the performance information; generate a plurality of recommendations corresponding to the at least one issue based on pre-stored rules, wherein the plurality of recommendations comprise a plurality of troubleshooting solutions for the determined at least one issue; and transmit the generated plurality of recommendations to at least one of plurality of user devices and a server managing the router [Bastian et al., paragraph 0034].
Claims 12-17 and 20 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
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 extension fee 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 RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 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, John Follansbee can be reached on (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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444