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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “plurality” should be --plural--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 19-20 is/are directed to an abstract idea under the mental process under Prong I step 2A wherein the limitation “determining…the management page view request” can be mentally done in human mind with aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Thus, it is reasonable to identify this limitation as reciting a mental process. Under Prong II step 2A, the other limitations are considered as additional elements including “displaying…network device”, “obtaining…other network device, and displaying…the network device", and “a memory…”, and “a processor…” The limitations of displaying and obtaining merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The limitations of memory and processor merely recite high level of generalized and generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Thus, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Under step 2B, these additional elements are identified as insignificantly amount to the judicial exception wherein these additional elements are merely insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and high level of generalized and generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-14 and 16-17, similarly these claims recite additional elements however, these additional elements that are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements are identified as insignificantly amount to the judicial exception wherein these additional elements are merely insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and high level of generalized and generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 15 and 18, similarly these claims recite limitations “determining…”, “creating…” and “managing…” that can be mentally done in human mind with aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Thus, it is reasonable to identify this limitation as reciting a mental process. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis (U.S. 7,600,007 B1).
Re claim 1, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 a network device management method, applied to a network device (e.g. abstract and Figures 33-36 with network monitoring system) and comprising:
displaying a management page and a device list of the network device in response to a received display request (e.g. Figures 35-38 and col. 27 lines 1-10 and col. 34 lines 8-30 wherein devices are displayed for monitoring),
wherein the management page comprises management information for managing a corresponding network device (e.g. Figure 36 with management page of individual device), the device list comprises a link control for at least one other network device that is in a same network device cluster as the network device, and the link control for the other network device corresponds to the other network device (e.g. Figure 35 and col. 37 line 50 to col. 38 line 5 and col. 45 line 55 to col. 46 line 10 with displaying network topology);
determining, in response to a management page view request received through the device list, the other network device corresponding to the management page view request (e.g. Figures 9-18 and col. 27 lines 1-10, col. 34 lines 10-35, and col. 35 line 50 to col. 36 line 50 wherein a particular network can be requested as authorized to monitor); and
obtaining a management page corresponding to the other network device through the link control corresponding to the other network device (e.g. Figures 4-8 and col. 16 lines 12-30 wherein the data is gather from various devices/agents/sensors for displaying), and
displaying the management page corresponding to the other network device with nesting the management page corresponding to the other network device into the management page corresponding to the network device (e.g. Figures 35-36 with displaying topology of devices in the network monitoring system).
Re claim 2, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 the network device and the other network device are connected through an IP address or a MAC address of the other network device (e.g. col. 19 lines 5-15).
Re claim 3, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 when the link control is created based on the IP address of the corresponding other network device, the network device and the other network device are connected through the IP address of the other network device (e.g. Figure 35 and col. 19 lines 5-15).
Re claim 4, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 when the link control is created based on the MAC address of the corresponding other network device, the network device and the other network device are connected through the MAC address of the other network device (e.g. Figure 35 and col. 19 lines 5-15).
Re claim 5, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 when the link control is created based on both the IP address and the MAC address of the corresponding other network device, the network device and the other network device are connected through the IP address or the MAC address of the other network device (e.g. Figure 35 and col. 19 lines 5-15 and col. 7 line 60 to col. 8 line 15).
Re claim 6, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 a quantity of the other network device is plurality, and the management page of the network device comprises management information for managing a network device or management information of a designated network device in the same network device cluster (e.g. Figures 35-36), wherein the designated network device is a network device designated in advance in the other network devices (e.g. abstract and col. 2 lines 55-68 and col. 7 line 60 to col. 8 line 15).
Re claim 7, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 when the management information comprised in the management page of the network device is the management information of the designated network device (e.g. abstract and col. 1 lines 40-60), the management information corresponding to the network device is displayed in the management page of the network device by integrating the management information corresponding to the network device (e.g. Figures 35-36 and col. 46 lines 20-60).
Re claim 8, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 when the management information comprised in the management page of the network device is the management information of the designated network device, the management information corresponding to the network device is obtained and displayed through a link control corresponding to the network device (e.g. Figures 35-36 and col. 46 lines 20-60).
Re claim 9, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 the obtaining the management page corresponding to the other network device through the link control corresponding to the other network device comprises: accessing the other network device through the link control corresponding to the other network device; and obtaining the management page corresponding to the other network (e.g. Figures 35-36 and col. 46 lines 20-60).
Re claim 10, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 identification information is pre-configured in the link control (e.g. col. 41 lines 35-60).
Re claim 11, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 the obtaining the management page corresponding to the other network device through the link control corresponding to the other network device (e.g. Figures 35-36 and their description) comprises: proxying, based on the identification information pre-configured in the link control, the management page view request to the other network device corresponding to the link control (e.g. col. 41 lines 35-60).
Re claim 12, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 each network device in the same network device cluster is pre-configured with a first communication protocol, and shares client information based on the first communication protocol (e.g. col. 47 lines 5-50).
Re claim 13, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 the obtaining the management page corresponding to the other network device through the link control corresponding to the other network device (e.g. Figures 35-36 and their description) comprises: obtaining, through the link control corresponding to the other network device, the management page corresponding to the other network device from the other network device corresponding to the link control (e.g. abstract and col. 2 lines 55-68 and col. 7 line 60 to col. 8 line 15).
Re claim 14, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 a quantity of the other network device is plurality, and the obtaining the management page corresponding to the other network device through the link control corresponding to the other network device (e.g. Figures 35-36 and their description) comprises: obtaining, through the link control corresponding to the other network device, a management page corresponding to the other network device corresponding to the link control from a designated network device in the same network device cluster, wherein the designated network device is a network device designated in advance in the other network devices (e.g. abstract and col. 2 lines 55-68 and col. 7 line 60 to col. 8 line 15).
Re claim 15, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 the device list is generated in the following ways: determining an IP address and/or a MAC address of the other network device connected to the network device; and creating a link control based on the IP address and/or MAC address, and generating the device list based on the link control e.g. Figure 35 and col. 19 lines 5-15 and col. 7 line 60 to col. 8 line 15).
Re claim 16, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 the displaying the management page corresponding to the other network device with nesting the management page corresponding to the other network device into the management page corresponding to the network device (e.g. Figures 35-36 and their description) comprises: nesting the management page corresponding to the other network device into a pop-up window; and setting a page style for the pop-up window based on a preset display mode and displaying the set pop-up window (e.g. col. 36 lines 1-12).
Re claim 17, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 the display mode comprises a primary display mode and a secondary display mode, a page style set for the primary display mode is determined based on a style parameter pre-configured in the network device, and a page style set for the secondary display mode is determined based on a style parameter pre-configured in the other network device (e.g. Figures 35-36 and col. 36 lines 1-50).
Re claim 18, Lewis discloses in Figures 1-38 after the displaying the management page corresponding to the other network device with nesting the management page corresponding to the other network device into the management page corresponding to the network device (e.g. Figures 35-36 and their description) the method further comprises: managing the other network device in response to a management request triggered through the management page corresponding to the other network device (e.g. Figure 1 and Figures 6-10 and col. 48 line 50 to col. 49 line 10).
Re claim 19, it is a device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 20, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20230037516-A1
US-20070115967-A1
US-20070106768-A1
US-20030097438-A1
US-7600007-B1
US-7350138-B1
US-6985901-B1
US-5821937-A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451