CTNF 18/944,358 CTNF 87263 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1 – 20 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 12175256 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to substantially the same subject matter involving remotely configure and install software on the remote device based on its configuration. Instant Application 18944358 US Patent 12175256 B2 1. A method, comprising: generating, by a central controller associated with a network, a file that includes configuration information for a remote device, wherein the configuration information includes credentials for accessing the remote device; utilizing, by the central controller, the file to remotely install and configure software on the remote device; testing, by the central controller, connectivity between the central controller and the remote device based on remotely installing and configuring the software; and performing, by the central controller, one or more actions based on testing the connectivity. 1. A method, comprising: receiving, by a central controller implemented on a server device associated with a central region, a request to validate connectivity between the server device and a device associated with a cellular site, wherein the device includes a controller Internet Protocol (IP) address configured to enable a controller associated with the device; generating, by the central controller and based on receiving the request to validate the connectivity between the server and the device, an image file that includes site-specific configuration information for the cellular site, wherein the site-specific configuration information includes a controller password generated by the server device; utilizing, by the central controller, the image file to remotely install and configure an operating system of the device; testing, by the central controller, the connectivity between the server device and the device based on remotely installing and configuring the operating system; and performing, by the central controller, one or more actions based on testing the connectivity between the server device and the device. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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 1-3,5,7-10,12,14-16,18 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barkie et al (US Publication 20120185925 A1). Regarding claim 1, Barkie discloses a method, comprising: generating, by a central controller associated with a network, a file that includes configuration information for a remote device, wherein the configuration information includes credentials for accessing the remote device [0003: generating a device configuration file to enable access to the service, validating the configuration file before deploying the configuration file to the computing device by testing configuration settings of the configuration file against the service for which the configuration file is generated to access, and deploying the configuration file to the computing device when the configuration file is deemed valid][0004-0006: validating the configuration file][0017-0019] [Figs 2,4, 6 and 8] .; utilizing, by the central controller, the file to remotely install and configure software on the remote device [0052: if the computing device does not have the proper or updated software, but the provisioning server (500) can automatically update/correct any software issues (step 612) via module (560)][0022][0038][0053][0064] [Figs 2,4, 6 and 8] .; testing, by the central controller, connectivity between the central controller and the remote device based on remotely installing and configuring the software [0054: Next, the provisioning server (500) will perform a connection protocol check (step 616) to determine if the computing device can connect to the VPN][0029][0066] [Figs 2,4, 6 and 8] .; and performing, by the central controller, one or more actions based on testing the connectivity [0056: if the connection is successful (affirmative determination in step 617), then the provisioning server (500) will generate and sign the configuration file for download to the mobile device (step 618)][0067][Figs 2,4, 6 and 8] . Regarding claim 2, Barkie discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a unique identifier for the remote device, wherein the unique identifier is used to verify an identity of the remote device [0024: MAC configuration] [ Figs 2,4, 6 and 8]. Regarding claim 3, Barkie discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a real-time status update to an administrator device regarding progress of the remote installation and configuration of the software [0027-0029] [0065: prompting the user]. Regarding claim 5, Barkie discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the credentials for accessing the remote device are encrypted before being included in the file [0004-0006] [Figs 2,4, 6 and 8]. Regarding claim 7, Barkie discloses the method of claim 1, wherein performing one or more actions based on testing the connectivity comprises: identifying one or more errors or issues associated with the connectivity; and sending a notification to address the identified one or more errors or issues [0027-0029] [0065] [Figs 2,4, 6 and 8]. Regarding claims 8-10 and 12, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-3 and 5 above. Regarding claims 14-16,18 and 20, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-3, 5 and 7 above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkie et al (US Publication 20120185925 A1) and in view of Goin et al (US Publication 20050097517 A1) . Regarding claim 4, Barkie does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the software installed on the remote device includes an application for monitoring performance metrics of the remote device and reporting the performance metrics back to the central controller. Goin discloses the software installed on the remote device includes an application for monitoring performance metrics of the remote device and reporting the performance metrics back to the central controller [0046: performance metrics can be obtained using a performance collector software application installed at a monitored system]. 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 Barkie and Goin together because they both directed to deploy the application to the computing device. Goin’s disclosing of performance metrics can be obtained using a performance collector software application installed at a monitored system would allow Barkie to remotely deploy the desire application to the device. Regarding claims 11 and 17, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkie et al (US Publication 20120185925 A1) and in view of Balachandran (US 20140280901 A1) . Regarding claim 6, Barkie does not disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: scheduling regular intervals at which the central controller re-tests the connectivity between the central controller and the remote device. Balachandran discloses scheduling regular intervals at which the central controller re-tests the connectivity between the central controller and the remote device [0028: tool 204 may monitor the wireless network connection for changes in wireless network connectivity by periodically running one or more connectivity tests that test the ability of communication apparatus 206 to send and receive network traffic 226 using a default gateway, network address, DNS server, target host, and/or other components and/or attributes of wireless network 208]. 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 Barkie and Balachandran together because they both directed to deploy the application to the computing device. Balachandran’s disclosing of scheduling regular intervals at which the central controller re-tests the connectivity between the central controller and the remote device would allow Barkie to increase the stable connection between the controller and the remote device. Regarding claims 13 and 19, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6. Conclusion Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner (see MPEP § 2123). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHIL K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3356. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 a.m - 5 p.m. 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571)270-1640. 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. /PHIL K NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176 Application/Control Number: 18/944,358 Page 2 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 18/944,358 Page 3 Art Unit: 2176
Prosecution Insights