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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs), submitted on 15 November 2024 and 11 June 2025, were filed after the mailing date of the patent applications on 15 November 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 15 November 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “when the Wi-Fi client connects to the access point of the gateway”, which is a contingent limitation. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitation, (i.e. “when the Wi-Fi client connects to the access point of the gateway”) is not a condition that is required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. Examiner respectfully suggests amending “when the Wi-Fi client connects to the access point of the gateway” to “in response to the Wi-Fi client connecting to the access point of the gateway”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “the detected change broadband status” which is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the detected change of the subscribed broadband status” in accordance with Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “a shortcut or hyperlink”. Here, the term, “hyperlink”, should be preceded by “a”. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “a shortcut or a hyperlink”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “the detection of the change of the subscribed broadband status” which is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the detected change of the subscribed broadband status” in accordance with claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 and Claim 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “broadband connectivity” which is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the broadband connectivity” in accordance with claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “the date processing apparatus” which is an inadvertent misspelling of “A data processing apparatus”. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the data processing apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “the Wi-Fi clients” which is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the one or more Wi-Fi clients”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 and Claim 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “broadband connectivity” which is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the broadband connectivity” in accordance with claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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 1 and Claim 12, said claims recite “the steps”, however, there is not an explicit recitation of “steps” prior to reciting “the steps” as required by antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to remove “the steps”. With regard to Claim 1, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “the method comprising the steps of:” to “the method comprising:”. With regard to Claim 12, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “to perform the steps of:” to “to perform:”.
Regarding Claims 2-11, Claims 2-11 are likewise rejected for depending upon rejected Claim 1.
Claims 3-5 are 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 Claims 3-5, said claims recite “the step”, however, there is not an explicit recitation of “a step” prior to reciting “the step” as required by antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to remove “the steps”.
Claims 6 and 8 are 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 Claims 6 and 8, said claims recite “the step of the application”, however, there is not an explicit recitation of “a step of the application” prior to reciting “the step of the application” as required by antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to remove “the step of the application”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright et al. (US 20210250763 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Wright”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 3, Wright discloses the method of claim 1.
Wright further discloses [the method] further comprising
the step of the Wi-Fi client passing the detected changed broadband status to an application of the Wi-Fi client (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3525), Wright discloses generating, in response to receipt of the connectivity lost message, a notification to the user via an application on the mobile device 3400).
Regarding Claim 4, Wright discloses the method of claim 3.
Wright further discloses [the method] further comprising the step of:
the application disconnecting the Wi-Fi client from the Wi-Fi network (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3550->3560), Wright discloses disconnecting, by the mobile device 3400, a backhaul connection to the router 3200. Examiner correlates an intent to use a back-up backhaul connection to communicate control and configuration data with the service provider system to a "disconnection" because no data is transmitted on the path between the router and the service provider system).
Regarding Claim 5, Wright discloses the method of claim 4.
Wright further discloses [the method] further comprising
the step of the Wi-Fi client connecting to a cellular data network (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3545) & ¶43, Wright discloses connecting, by the mobile device 3400, a diagnostic backhaul connection, such as a back-up communication channel or back-up backhaul connection, where the back-up backhaul connection may be a wireless connection such as a cellular wireless network).
Regarding Claim 6, Wright discloses the method of claim 5.
Wright further discloses [the method] further comprising the step of the application:
logging on to an external server using user credentials of a user of the Wi-Fi client (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3535) & ¶45, Wright discloses requesting, by the mobile device 3400, to log into a service provider system 3100 using the authentication information or credentials of the mobile device 3400 used by the user 3300. Examiner correlates the service provider system including the configuration management server to "an external server"),
wherein the external server includes broadband connectivity reinstatement functionality (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3555), Wright discloses that the configuration management server 1120 of the service provider system 3100/1100 includes updated router configuration to re-establish connectivity).
Regarding Claim 7, Wright discloses the method of claim 6.
Wright further discloses wherein the external server is accessed by the application of the Wi-Fi client using the cellular data network (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3550 & 3555) & ¶45 & ¶43, Wright discloses that the service provider system 3100 is accessed by the mobile device 3400 using the back-up backhaul connection where the back-up backhaul connection can be any form of wireless communication such as a cellular wireless network).
Regarding Claim 8, Wright discloses the method of claim 3.
Wright further discloses [the method] further comprising the step of the application:
presenting a user of the Wi-Fi client with a shortcut or hyperlink to an external server requesting assistance with broadband connectivity (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3525->3530), Wright discloses presenting to a user 330 of the mobile device 3400 with a notification where the acceptance, by the user, causes the service provider system 3100 to provide assistance with connectivity).
Regarding Claim 11, Wright discloses the method of claim 1.
Wright further discloses wherein the change in the broadband status is any one or more of a total loss of broadband connectivity between the gateway and the internet (¶38, Wright discloses detecting a connectivity loss is either an outage or a network connection failure) or a reduction in broadband speed below a predetermined threshold.
Regarding Claim 12, Wrigth discloses a data processing apparatus comprising:
a processor (¶44 & Fig. 2, Wright discloses a device, or a mobile device, including a processor 2100);
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the date processing apparatus to perform (¶44 & Fig. 2, Wright discloses the mobile device further including a memory/storage 2200 storing applications 2400 on the memory/storage 2200 for execution by the processor 2100 to perform a method) the steps of:
a Wi-Fi client (¶44 & Fig. 2, Wright discloses an application on the mobile device) subscribing to a broadband status of a gateway when the Wi-Fi client connects to the access point of the gateway (¶47, Wright discloses that the mobile device 3400 subscribes to a service provider system 3100 having connectivity via a router 3200 when the mobile device 3400 connects to the router 3200 of the service provider system 3100. Examiner correlates the router 3200 to "the access point". Examiner correlates the combination of the access point and the modem to "the gateway". Examiner correlates the connectivity to "a broadband status");
the Wi-Fi client (¶44 & Fig. 2, Wright discloses an application on the mobile device) detecting a change in the subscribed broadband status indicating a disruption in broadband connectivity of the gateway (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3520), Wright discloses detecting, by the mobile device 3400, a connectivity lost message where the connectivity lost message indicates an outage in the connectivity between the router and the service provider system 3100); and
in response to the detected change of the subscribed broadband status generating a user notification on the Wi-Fi client (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3525), Wright discloses generating, in response to receipt of the connectivity lost message, a notification to the user on the mobile device 3400).
Regarding Claim 13, Wright discloses a system comprising:
a gateway (¶40 & Fig. 1, Wright discloses a router 1200. Examiner correlates the router to “a gateway”) having an access point and a broadband interface (¶40 & Fig. 1, Wright discloses that the router 1200 includes an access point device and a modem 1300. Examiner correlates the access point device to “an access point”. Examiner correlates a modem to “a broadband interface”), the gateway configured to
provide a subscription to a broadband status of the gateway (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3520), Wright discloses that the router is configured to provide a subscription to the connectivity between the router and the service provider system 3100, which, in turn, allows for receipt of connectivity loss information. Examiner correlates the connectivity between the router and the service provider system to “a broadband status”);
one or more Wi-Fi clients (¶44 & Fig. 2, Wright discloses an application on the mobile device), the Wi-Fi clients configured to:
subscribe to the broadband status of the gateway when the Wi-Fi client connects to the access point of the gateway (¶47 & ¶40, Wright discloses that the mobile device 3400 subscribes to a router 3200 when the mobile device 3400 connects to the access point of the router 3200. Examiner correlates the access point of the router 3200 to "the access point". Examiner correlates the combination of the access point and the modem to "the gateway". Examiner correlates the connectivity between the router and the service provider system to "a broadband status"),
detect a change in the broadband status indicating a disruption in broadband connectivity of the gateway (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3520), Wright discloses detecting, by the mobile device 3400, a connectivity lost message where the connectivity lost message indicates an outage in the connectivity between the router and the service provider system 3100), and
in response to the detected change of the subscribed broadband status generating a user notification on the Wi-Fi client (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3525), Wright discloses generating, in response to receipt of the connectivity lost message, a notification to the user on the mobile device 3400).
Regarding Claim 14, Wright discloses the system of claim 13.
Wright further discloses wherein the gateway is configured to provide broadband connectivity using a digital subscriber line, DSL (¶39 & Fig. 1, Wright discloses the router 1200 includes a modem 1300 to provide a digital transmission medium for communication between the router and the cable modem termination system 1110).
Regarding Claim 15, Wright discloses the system of claim 13.
Wright further discloses [the method] further comprising
an external server (¶35 & Fig. 1, Wright discloses a service provider system 1100 including a configuration management server 1120) configured to:
validate credentials of the Wi-Fi client (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3535) & ¶45, Wright discloses validating by authorizing, by the service provider system 3100, the authentication information or credentials of the mobile device 3400 used by the user 3300), and
reinstate broadband connectivity of the gateway upon request from the Wi-Fi client (¶48 & Fig. 3 (3530->3555->3560), Wright discloses diagnosing and repairing, by the service provider system 3100, the connectivity based upon an accept message from the user of the mobile device 3400).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of Vlad (US 20050266826 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Vlad”).
Regarding Claim 2, Wright discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Wright does not disclose wherein the Wi-Fi client subscribes to the broadband status using universal plug and play, UPnP, general event notification architecture, GENA.
Vlad, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the Wi-Fi client subscribes to the broadband status using universal plug and play, UPnP, general event notification architecture, GENA (Abstract & ¶27 & ¶32 & Fig. 1, Vlad discloses that the user device 12 subscribes to events and services provided by the access point 16 using universal plug and play (UPnP) general event notification architecture (GENA)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wright by requiring that the Wi-Fi client subscribes to the broadband status using universal plug and play, UPnP, general event notification architecture, GENA as taught by Vlad because hardware implementation is simplified by providing a user friendly, intuitive method of inserting security parameters in a wireless network (Vlad, ¶9).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of Tripathi et al. (US 20110047219 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Tripathi”).
Regarding Claim 9, Wright discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Wright does not disclose wherein the user notification is delayed by a predetermined time from the detection of the change of the subscribed broadband status.
Tripathi, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the user notification is delayed by a predetermined time from the detection of the change of the subscribed broadband status (¶40-43 & Fig. 3 (330->340->350), Tripathi discloses that the status of the device displayed to the user is delayed by a configured time period in order to determine whether a disconnection is temporary or permanent).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wright by requiring that the user notification is delayed by a predetermined time from the detection of the change of the subscribed broadband status as taught by Tripathi because messaging is improved by determining whether the disconnection is temporary or permanent and informing the user the nature of the disconnection (Tripathi, ¶3).
Regarding Claim 10, Wright in view of Tripathi discloses the method of claim 9.
Tripathi, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the predetermined time is user- configurable using an application of the Wi-Fi client (¶40-43 & Fig. 3 (330->340->350), Tripathi discloses that the configured time period is configurable).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wright in view of Tripathi by requiring that the predetermined time is user- configurable using an application of the Wi-Fi client as taught by Tripathi because messaging is improved by determining whether the disconnection is temporary or permanent and informing the user the nature of the disconnection (Tripathi, ¶3).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Corda et al. (20090164611; hereinafter referred to as “Corda”) is cited to show a reference that discloses all features of Claim 1, Claim 12, and Claim 13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights