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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1.This action is response to application filed on 03/25/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-10 are pending.
Responses to the amendments/arguments
2. The previous 112 rejection for claim 1 responding to the newly amendments added to claim 1.
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.
3. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 20230006926) in view of Bugenhagen (US 20120131466) and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 20190117161)
Regarding claim 1:
A network interface device, comprising:
a first port for connecting the network interface device to a network access point provided by a network service provider: (a network interface device connects to a network through cable line: Iwasaki figure 4);
a second port for connecting the network interface device to a separate network access device: (the network interface device includes other ports for connecting the network interface device to other devices: Iwasaki figure 4)
a wireless communication system comprising a wireless antenna (Iwasaki, antenna [0040]) and a wireless transceiver (a dual-band WLAN RF transceiver: Iwasaki [0136]) for communicatively coupling the network interface device to a remote computing device: (a network interface device also includes a port which supports wireless connections to wireless tablet/ cell phone: Iwasaki figure 4);
However, Iwasaki does not explicitly teach a remote computing device enables one or more of: access to a subscription service associated with the network service provider; or access to diagnostic information associated with the network interface device.
In similar art, Bugenhagen teaches a residential gateway can be any device including network interface device (NID) that provides connectivity between a subscriber and a provider's network, and between customer's premises and the access network which operated by Internet Service Provider (ISP). The customer devices can be any devices those are programmed with applications that access the Internet for the services (e.g., through the residential gateway and the access network (see, Bugenhagen [0036]-[0037]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bugenhagen’s ideas into Iwasaki’s system in order to provide an improved network services providing system (see Bugenhagen, [0010]-[0011]).
However, Iwasaki-Bugenhagen does not explicitly teach a diagnostic system that automatically transmits diagnostic information to the network service provider when a potential issue is detected.
In similar art, Johnson teaches a mobile communication device to sense and collect diagnostic information which is automatically transmitted to service providers for further diagnostic analysis (Johnson [0065]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Johnson’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen’s system in order to provide efficient mobile communication network (Johnson [0015]).
Regarding claim 5:
In addition to the rejection claim 1, Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson further teaches a cable connection interface for communicatively coupling a remote device to the network interface device: (cable connection interface for communicatively coupling a remote device to the network interface device: Iwasaki figure 1, figure 2).
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson in view of Petric et al. (US 20020055788 A1)
Regarding claim 2:
Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach network interface device comprising an internal power supply.
In similar art, Petric teaches a network interface device can include an internal power supply (see, Petric [0080]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Petric’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Petric’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system.
5. Claims 3-4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson in view of Louca et al. (US 11,025,481)
Regarding claim 3:
Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach receiving the access via a copper cable.
In similar art, Louca teaches network interface of devices that can be referred to as “ports” can be connected to each other using copper wire cables (Louca column 5, lines 52-26).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Louca’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Louca’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system.
Regarding claim 4:
Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach receiving the network access via a fiber optic cable.
In similar art, Louca teaches network interface of devices that can be referred to as “ports” can be connected to each other using fiber optic cable (Louca column 5, lines 52-26).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Louca’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Louca’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson in view of Della Sera et al. (US 20140265585)
Regarding claim 6:
Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach cable interface provides at least one ampere of power to the remote device.
In similar art, Della Sera teaches enables 30 ampere cable to be used for electrical cables (Della Sera [0100]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Della Sera’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Della Sera’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen’s system.
7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson in view of Bauer et al. (US 20180270231)
Regarding claim 8:
Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach an optical label on an outer surface of a housing of the network interface device, wherein the optical label provides network-interface-device-specific information to a computing device that scans the optical label.
In similar art, Bauer teaches the information provided with the device is encoded as a machine-readable optical label; and detecting said information comprises optically reading the machine-readable optical label (see, Bauer [0014]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bauer’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Bauer’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system.
8. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson in view of Sternberg et al. (US 20170332421)
Regarding claim 9:
Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a wireless communication system receives instruction from the remote computing device to change the subscription service, and wherein the wireless communication system is adapted to receive information about the subscription service from the network service provider and provide the information about the subscription service to the remote computing device.
In similar art, Sternberg teaches service profile stored in the Subscription Service Function. The Profile Change may be initiated by the UE ([0488]). The UE sends a Profile-Change-Req message to the RIF. The RIF will send a SS-Profile-Change-Req message to the SISF which may optionally forward the message to the subscription Service Function. The SS-Profile-Change-Req message will include, at a minimum, one or more UE-SERVICE-DESCRIPTORS which describe the type of services that the UE expects to access. The SISF may independently respond to the SS-Profile-Change-Req with a SS-Profile-Change-Resp message which will indicate a confirmation that the UEs profile has been updated. the RIF will send a Profile-Change-Resp message to the UE indicating that the UEs profile change procedure has been completed (see, [0492]-[0495]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Sternberg’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Sternberg’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system.
9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson in view of Holness et al. (US 20040114924 A1)
Regarding claim 10:
Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach an indication whether a user of the remote computing device is a current customer of the network service provider.
In similar art, Holness teaches service status indicates active status for active client (see, Holness table 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Holness’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Holness’s ideas into Iwasaki-Bugenhagen-Johnson’s system.
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Conclusions
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN DAI T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 Am to 3:00 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, Follansbee John A 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.
/LAN DAI T TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights