DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (19/012,786) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 19/012,786, all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Provisional Application
The instant application claims benefit to provisional application No. 63/618,841 filed on January 8, 2024 under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
Claimed Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of (1) Applicants’ claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on October 9, 2017; and (2) certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Drawings
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(t) recites “These [numbering of sheets of drawings], if present, must be placed in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin. . . . The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion.” See MPEP § 608.02. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(g) recites “Each sheet must include a top margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a right side margin of at least 1.5 cm. (5/8 inch).” See MPEP § 608.02.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(t) for failing to include the numbering of sheets of drawings in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicants are advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the USPTO does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicants will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(b):
The sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.
MPEP § 608.01(b) recites “The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, ‘This disclosure concerns,’ ‘The disclosure defined by this invention,’ ‘This disclosure describes,’ etc.”
The abstract is objected to under § 1.72(b) for using phrases which can be implied. The Examiner recommends amending the first sentence of the abstract to recite “are provided.”
Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting1
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 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).2
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c) or § 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
The ‘545 App. and Nickels
Claims 1, 4, 6–9, 12, 14–17, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 15, and 18 of copending Application No. 18/972,545 (’545 App.) in view of Nickels et al. (US 2018/0091605 A1; filed Sept. 18, 2017).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6–9, 12, 14–17, and 20 of the instant App., although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant Application
Copending ’545 App.
Claim 1: A method comprising:
receiving, at a first time, a user request for a service facilitated by a telecommunications network, the user request identifying a location of a user;
identifying, based on the service, a device or port to which the user connects to access the telecommunications network;
sending, based on the device or port, discovery commands to retrieve information from one or more additional devices in the telecommunications network;
retrieving, based on the discovery commands, the information from the one or more additional devices;
identifying, based on the information, a second device to which the device or port may connect to generate a path to an endpoint of the telecommunications network;
identifying, based on the device or port, the second device, and at least one additional device, a path from the location of the user to the endpoint in the telecommunications network;
generating an estimated time to provision the service using the path; and
presenting, at the first time, the estimated time to provision the service using the path.
Claim 1: A method comprising:
receiving a user request for a service facilitated by a telecommunications network, the user request identifying a location of a user;
identifying, based on the service, a device or port to which the user connects to access the telecommunications network;
sending, based on the device or port, discovery commands to retrieve information from one or more additional devices in the telecommunications network;
retrieving, based on the discovery commands, the information from the one or more additional devices;
identifying, based on the information, a second device to which the device or port may connect to generate a path to an endpoint of the telecommunications network;
generating, based on the device or port and the second device, a path from the location of the user to the endpoint in the telecommunications network; and
provisioning the service for the user based on the path without presenting a quote to the user indicating an amount of time expected to provision the service.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein generating the path occurs without information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein generating the path occurs without information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services.
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying at least one of a virtual local area network, a subinterface, or a route target based on the information, wherein the path uses the at least one of the virtual local area network, the subinterface, or the route target.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying at least one of a virtual local area network, a subinterface, or a route target based on the information, wherein the path uses the at least one of the virtual local area network, the subinterface, or the route target.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a first command protocol used by the second device; and identifying a second command protocol used by a third device of the telecommunications network, and wherein the discovery commands comprise a first command using the first command protocol and a second command using a second command protocol.
Claim 5: The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a first command protocol used by the second device; and identifying a second command protocol used by a third device of the telecommunications network, wherein the discovery commands comprise a first command using the first command protocol and a second command using a second command protocol.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending an indication to the user that the service has been provisioned for the user.
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending an indication to the user that the service has been provisioned for the user.
Claim 9: A system comprising:
memory coupled to at least one processor, the at least one processor configured to:
receive, at a first time, a user request for a service facilitated by a telecommunications network, the user request identifying a location of a user;
identify, based on the service, a device or port to which the user connects to access the telecommunications network;
send, based on the device or port, discovery commands to retrieve information from one or more additional devices in the telecommunications network;
retrieve, based on the discovery commands, the information from the one or more additional devices;
identify, based on the information, a second device to which the device or port may connect to generate a path to an endpoint of the telecommunications network;
identify, based on the device or port, the second device, and at least one additional device, a path from the location of the user to the endpoint in the telecommunications network;
generate an estimated time to provision the service using the path; and
present, at the first time, the estimated time to provision the service using the path.
Claim 8: A system comprising:
a memory coupled to at least one processor, the at least one processor configured to:
receive a user request for a service facilitated by a telecommunications network, the user request identifying a location of a user;
identify, based on the service, a device or port to which the user connects to access the telecommunications network;
send, based on the device or port, discovery commands to retrieve information from one or more additional devices in the telecommunications network;
retrieve, based on the discovery commands, the information from the one or more additional devices;
identify, based on the information, a second device to which the device or port may connect to generate a path to an endpoint of the telecommunications network;
generate, based on the device or port and the second device, a path from the location of the user to the endpoint in the telecommunications network; and
provision the service for the user based on the path without presenting a quote to the user indicating an amount of time expected to provision the service.
Claim 12: The system of claim 9, wherein to generate the path occurs without information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services.
Claim 10: The system of claim 8, wherein to generate the path occurs without information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services.
Claim 14: The system of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify at least one of a virtual local area network, a subinterface, or a route target based on the information, wherein the path uses the at least one of the virtual local area network, the subinterface, or the route target.
Claim 11: The system of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify at least one of a virtual local area network, a subinterface, or a route target based on the information, wherein the path uses the at least one of the virtual local area network, the subinterface, or the route target.
Claim 15: The system of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify a first command protocol used by the second device; and identify a second command protocol used by a third device of the telecommunications network, and wherein the discovery commands comprise a first command using the first command protocol and a second command using a second command protocol.
Claim 12: The system of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify a first command protocol used by the second device; and identify a second command protocol used by a third device of the telecommunications network, wherein the discovery commands comprise a first command using the first command protocol and a second command using a second command protocol.
Claim 16: The system of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: send an indication to the user that the service has been provisioned for the user.
Claim 13: The system of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: send an indication to the user that the service has been provisioned for the user.
Claim 17: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed, cause at least one processor to:
receive, at a first time, a user request for a service facilitated by a telecommunications network, the user request identifying a location of a user;
identify, based on the service, a device or port to which the user connects to access the telecommunications network;
send, based on the device or port, discovery commands to retrieve information from one or more additional devices in the telecommunications network;
retrieve, based on the discovery commands, the information from the one or more additional devices;
identify, based on the information, a second device to which the device or port may connect to generate a path to an endpoint of the telecommunications network;
identify, based on the device or port, the second device, and at least one additional device, a path from the location of the user to the endpoint in the telecommunications network;
generate an estimated time to provision the service using the path; and
present, at the first time, the estimated time to provision the service using the path.
Claim 15: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive a user request for a service facilitated by a telecommunications network, the user request identifying a location of a user;
identify, based on the service, a device or port to which the user connects to access the telecommunications network;
send, based on the device or port, discovery commands to retrieve information from one or more additional devices in the telecommunications network;
retrieve, based on the discovery commands, the information from the one or more additional devices;
identify, based on the information, a second device to which the device or port may connect to generate a path to an endpoint of the telecommunications network;
generate, based on the device or port and the second device, a path from the location of the user to the endpoint in the telecommunications network; and
provision the service for the user based on the path without presenting a quote to the user indicating an amount of time expected to provision the service.
Claim 20: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein execution of the instructions further causes the at least one processor to: identify at least one of a virtual local area network, a subinterface, or a route target based on the information, wherein the path uses the at least one of the virtual local area network, the subinterface, or the route target.
Claim 18: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein execution of the instructions further causes the at least one processor to: identify at least one of a virtual local area network, a subinterface, or a route target based on the information, wherein the path uses the at least one of the virtual local area network, the subinterface, or the route target.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 of the ’545 App. does not disclose generating an estimated time to provision the service using the path; and presenting, at the first time, the estimated time to provision the service using the path.
Nickels teaches generating an estimated time (fig. 4D, item 411 illustrating “4 MIN ETA”) to provision a service (fig. 4D, item 467) using a path (fig. 4D illustrates a path between items 467 and 405; intended use in italics);
presenting (fig. 4D) the estimated time to provision the service using the path (intended use in italics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for claim 1 of the ’545 App. to include generating an estimated time to provision the service using the path; and presenting, at the first time, the estimated time to provision the service using the path as taught by Nickels “to ensure a high likelihood of fulfilling the request for service within the ETA.” Nickels ¶ 52. Moreover, to prevent “inconvenience for human operators.” Id. ¶ 2.
Claims 9 and 17 of the instant application by analogy.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The ‘545 App., Nickels, and DelRegno
Claims 5 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/972,545 (’545 App.) in view of Nickels, and in further view of DelRegno et al. (US 2006/0153070 A1; filed June 2, 2004).
Regarding claims 5 and 13 of the instant App., although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 5: The method of claim 1, wherein generating the path occurs with information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein generating the path occurs without information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services.
Claim 13: The system of claim 9, wherein to generate the path occurs with information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services.
Claim 10: The system of claim 8, wherein to generate the path occurs without information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services.
Regarding claim 5 of the instant application, claim 3 of the ’545 App. does not disclose wherein generating the path occurs with information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services.
DelRegno teaches wherein generating the path (“communication path between the customer and the service edge 214” at ¶ 46; fig. 4 illustrates lines between items 212 and 214) occurs with information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services (“The control system processes the request within layer 2 provisioning system 430, which may access network topology information contained within database 232. The layer 2 provisioning system now determines all of the individual commands that need to be issued to the various network elements in order to configure the service. . . . The various network addresses and labels are assigned to the customer to determine the exact path of the communication flows out to the service edge. In step 605, for example, the switch 226 is provided with the layer two switch specific information.” at ¶ 83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for claim 5 of the instant application to include generating the path occurs with information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services as taught by DelRegno “to monitor multiple access devices.” DelRegno ¶ 70.
Claim 13 of the instant application by analogy.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Means-plus-Function Language
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof
The claims in the instant application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the Specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the Specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in the instant application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The instant application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations3 are:
“device” (claim 1, line 4; claim 9, line 4; claim 17, line 5);
“one or more additional devices” (claim 1, lines 6–7; claim 9, lines 7–8; claim 17, lines 7–8); and
“second device” (claim 1, line 10; claim 9, line 11; claim 17, line 11).
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), claims 1–20 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the Specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With respect to the claimed function corresponding to the “device” (claim 1, line 4; claim 9, line 4; claim 17, line 5), the Specification discloses “the user's device connects to access the network 110.” Spec. ¶ 36. One skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw the “user’s device” recited in paragraph 36 of the Specification corresponds to the “client device” described in paragraph 23 of the Specification which recites
a desktop computer or a portable device, such as a cellular telephone, a smart phone, a display pager, a radio frequency (RF) device, an infrared (IR) device a Near Field Communication (NFC) device, a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a handheld computer, a tablet computer, a phablet, a laptop computer, a set top box, a wearable computer, smart watch.
Spec. ¶ 23. See MPEP § 2181(II)(A)(reciting “The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation.”); see also id. § 2144.01.
If Applicants do not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicants may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke § 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of § 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011) (available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “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 MPEP recites “[d]uring examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected.” MPEP § 2173.02(I) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” Id. See also id. § 2173.05(e)(discussing indefiniteness arising for terms lacking proper antecedent basis).
Claims 1–20 are rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular,
(i) As discussed above, claim element “one or more additional devices” (claim 1, lines 6–7; claim 9, lines 7–8; claim 17, lines 7–8) is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The Specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the Specification states the claimed function of providing information to be retrieved is performed by “one or more additional devices.” Spec. ¶ 47. The use of the term “one or more additional devices” is not adequate structure for providing information to be retrieved because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, providing information to be retrieved can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
(ii) As discussed above, claim element “second device” (claim 1, line 10; claim 9, line 11; claim 17, line 11) is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The Specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the Specification states the claimed function of providing a connection for a device or port is performed by “second device (and other devices).” Spec. ¶ 48. The use of the term “second device (and other devices)” is not adequate structure for providing a connection for a device or port because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, providing a connection for a device or port can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
(iii) With respect to items (i) and (ii) above, the written description, therefore, fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicants may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the Specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the Specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR § 1.175(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
(iv) claim 1, lines 12–13, “at least one additional device” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to “one or more additional devices” introduced in lines 6–7 or not. If so, the limitation adds additional ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to which at least one additional device among of the one or more additional devices is being referred to.
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers to “one or more additional devices” introduced in lines 6–7 and recommends amending the limitation to recite “the one or more additional devices”. See MPEP § 2173.06 (reciting “When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important that the examiner state on the record how the claim term or phrase is being interpreted with respect to the prior art applied in the rejection.”; emphasis omitted).
Claim 9, line 13; and claim 17, line 13 by analogy.
(v) claim 1, line 13, “a path” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to the path introduced in line 11 or not.
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers the path introduced in line 11.
Claim 9, line 14; and claim 17, line 14 by analogy.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
DelRegno, Nickels, and Garty
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–10, 13, 14, 16–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over DelRegno in view of Nickels, and in further view of Garty et al. (US 2021/0203731 A1; filed Dec. 30, 2019).
Regarding claim 1, while DelRegno teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a first time, a user request (fig. 4, item 410) for a service (“order entry process 410 is used to communicate a customer's request for new services” at ¶ 75) facilitated by a telecommunications network (fig. 4, item 400);
identifying, based on the service, a device (fig. 4, item 216; ¶ 47) or port to which the user connects to access the telecommunications network;
sending, based on the device or port, discovery requests (“The control system processes the request within layer 1 provisioning system 420, which may access network topology information contained within database 232.” at ¶ 77; “provide storage for and access to network topology and status information” at ¶ 59) to retrieve information from one or more additional devices in the telecommunications network (intended use in italics);
retrieving, based on the discovery requests, the information (“network topology information” at ¶ 77) from the one or more additional devices (fig. 4, item 232; “The control database 232 may comprise, for example, a semiconductor memory, a hard drive, or another storage system, and may be located in a single location or distributed between a number of remote locations.” at ¶ 59);
identifying, based on the information, a second device (fig. 4, items 218, 220, 290, 226) to which the device or port may connect to generate a path to an endpoint of the telecommunications network (intended use in italics);
identifying, based on the device or port, the second device, and at least one additional device, a path (“communication path between the customer and the service edge 214” at ¶ 46; fig. 4 illustrates lines between items 212 and 214) from a location of the user (fig. 4, items 212, 216) to the endpoint (fig. 4, item 214) in the telecommunications network; and
provisioning the service using the path (“providing the required service” at ¶ 79; fig. 5, item 507),
DelRegno does not teach (A) the user request identifying a location of a user; (B) the discovery requests being discovery commands; (C) generating an estimated time to provision the service using the path; (D) presenting the estimated time to provision the service using the path; and (E) the receiving the user request and the presenting the estimated time being at a first time.
(A), (C), (D)
Nickels teaches a location of a user (fig. 4D, item 405; “selection engine can use map data with service provider locations and service requester locations to generate ETA information 411” at ¶ 56);
generating an estimated time (fig. 4D, item 411 illustrating “4 MIN ETA”) to provision a service (fig. 4D, item 467) using a path (fig. 4D illustrates a path between items 467 and 405; intended use in italics);
presenting (fig. 4D) the estimated time to provision the service using the path (intended use in italics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for DelRegno’s user request to identify a location of a user, for DelRegno to generate an estimated time to provision the service using the path, and for DelRegno to present the estimated time to provision the service using the path as taught by Nickels “to ensure a high likelihood of fulfilling the request for service within the ETA.” Nickels ¶ 52. Moreover, to prevent “inconvenience for human operators.” Id. ¶ 2.
(B)
Garty teaches discovery commands (“discovery commands” at ¶ 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for DelRegno’s discovery requests to be discovery commands as taught by Garty “to improve the enterprise's operations and workflow for IT, HR, CRM, customer service, application development, and security.” Garty ¶ 47.
(E)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention for the receiving the user request and the presenting the estimated time being at a first time since “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.” MPEP § 2144.04 (citing In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690 (CCPA 1946)).
Regarding claim 2, DelRegno does not teach further comprising: receiving an acceptance of the estimated time from the user; and provisioning the service for the user based on the path.
Nickels teaches receiving an acceptance (the user not cancelling when “a cancellation option” is provided at ¶ 39; “As long as neither service requester nor service provider cancels, the service provider should arrive to provide service to the service requester (270).” at ¶ 44) of an estimated time (fig. 4D, item 411) from a user (fig. 1, item 174); and
provisioning a service (fig. 4D, item 467) for the user based on a path (fig. 4D illustrates a path between items 467 and 405).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for DelRegno to further comprise receiving an acceptance of the estimated time from the user; and provisioning the service for the user based on the path as taught by Nickels “to ensure a high likelihood of fulfilling the request for service within the ETA.” Nickels ¶ 52. Moreover, to prevent “inconvenience for human operators.” Id. ¶ 2.
Regarding claim 5, DelRegno teaches wherein generating the path (“communication path between the customer and the service edge 214” at ¶ 46; fig. 4 illustrates lines between items 212 and 214) occurs with information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services (“The control system processes the request within layer 2 provisioning system 430, which may access network topology information contained within database 232. The layer 2 provisioning system now determines all of the individual commands that need to be issued to the various network elements in order to configure the service. . . . The various network addresses and labels are assigned to the customer to determine the exact path of the communication flows out to the service edge. In step 605, for example, the switch 226 is provided with the layer two switch specific information.” at ¶ 83).
Regarding claim 6, while DelRegno teaches further comprising:
identifying network topology based on the information (“network topology information” at ¶ 77),
wherein the path (“communication path between the customer and the service edge 214” at ¶ 46; fig. 4 illustrates lines between items 212 and 214) uses the network topology,
DelRegno does not teach the network topology including at least one of a virtual local area network, a subinterface, or a route target.
DelRegno teaches at least one of a virtual local area network (“a virtual local area network (VLAN)” at ¶ 65), a subinterface, or a route target.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for DelRegno’s network topology to include at least one of a virtual local area network, a subinterface, or a route target as taught by DelRegno “to monitor multiple access devices.” DelRegno ¶ 70.
Regarding claim 8, DelRegno does not teach further comprising: sending an indication to the user that the service has been provisioned for the user.
Nickels teaches sending an indication (fig. 4D, item 460) to a user (fig. 1, item 174) that a service (fig. 4D, item 467) has been provisioned for the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for DelRegno to further comprise ending an indication to the user that the service has been provisioned for the user as taught by Nickels “to ensure a high likelihood of fulfilling the request for service within the ETA.” Nickels ¶ 52. Moreover, to prevent “inconvenience for human operators.” Id. ¶ 2.
Regarding claim 9, DelRegno teaches a system (fig. 4, item 400) comprising: memory (¶ 43) coupled to at least one processor (¶ 43), the at least one processor configured to perform operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claims 10, 13, 14, and 16, claims 2, 5, 6, and 8, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 2, 5, 6, and 8 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 10, 13, 14, and 16.
Regarding claim 17, DelRegno teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (¶ 43) tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed, cause at least one processor (¶ 43) to perform operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 17.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, claims 2 and 6, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 2 and 6 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 18 and 20.
DelRegno, Nickels, Garty, and Sutton
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over DelRegno in view of Nickels, in further view of Garty, and in further view of Sutton et al. (US 2025/0227040 A1; filed Jan. 7, 2025).
Regarding claim 4, DelRegno does not teach wherein generating the path occurs without information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services.
Sutton teaches generating a path (“generate a network path” at ¶ 28) occurring without information in inventory for a telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services (Sutton does not disclose the network path generation occurring with information in inventory for a telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for DelRegno path to be generated without information in inventory for the telecommunications network indicating which devices and ports are used for respective users and services as taught by Sutton “to identify available resources rather than relying exclusively on the network inventory records for network resource status information..” Gray ¶ 28.
Regarding claim 12, claim 4 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 4 are equally applicable to claim 12.
DelRegno, Nickels, Garty, and Gray
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over DelRegno in view of Nickels, in further view of Garty, and in further view of Gray et al. (US 2008/0189353 A1; filed Jan. 30, 2008).
Regarding claim 7, DelRegno does not teach further comprising: identifying a first command protocol used by the second device; and identifying a second command protocol used by a third device of the telecommunications network, and wherein the discovery commands comprise a first command using the first command protocol and a second command using a second command protocol.
Gray teaches identifying a first command protocol used by a second device; and identifying a second command protocol used by a third device of a telecommunications network, and wherein discovery commands comprise a first command using the first command protocol and a second command using a second command protocol (“INE 170 may receive information concerning each of nodes A-F 150, 450-454 based on a routing protocol (step 505), receive information concerning each of nodes A-F based on an active protocol (step 510), and continue to receive such information until the network reaches a quiescent state (step 512). If a quiescent state is not reached, INE 170 continues to receive such information (yes at step 512).” at ¶ 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for DelRegno to further comprise: identifying a first command protocol used by the second device; and identifying a second command protocol used by a third device of the telecommunications network, and wherein the discovery commands comprise a first command using the first command protocol and a second command using a second command protocol as taught by Gray “for managing networks, and more particularly, to inferring services on a network.” Gray ¶ 6.
Regarding claim 15, claim 7 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 7 are equally applicable to claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to (1) overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action; and (2) include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-20250193076-A1 and US-10833961-B1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner will determine whether Applicants’ reply to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is compliant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b). See MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1) (reciting
[a] complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
). In the event the reply is non-compliant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b), the Examiner will issue a Notice of Non-Compliant Response.
2 See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528 (CCPA 1969).
3 The Examiner notes “Applicants are free to invoke § 112 ¶ 6 for a claim term nested in a method claim. We have never held otherwise.” Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2021). See also Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the term “compliance mechanism” in a method claim was a means-plus-function term); see also MPEP § 2181.
Prosecution Insights