Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 07/29/2026. Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
3. The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/29/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of prior patent No. 12,231,480 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1, 7-9, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2015/0012707 A1), in view of Kaplan et al. (US 12,526,646 B2), hereinafter “Li” and “Kaplan”.
6. As to claim 1, Li teaches a method, comprising:
performing network segmentation for a network associated with a multi-dwelling unit (MDU) to generate a plurality of network segments (Fig. 1 and [0021]: MDU environment 100 includes building 102 communicatively coupled to media converter 104 via a coax transmission line 103, building 106 …, building 110 … and building 114 communicatively coupled to media converter 116 via an Ethernet transmission line 115);
performing segmentation of a content resource provided by the MDU into a plurality of content segments respectively corresponding to the plurality of network segments, each content segment of the content resource comprising content items designated to the corresponding network segment based on a predetermined network policy ([0003] and [0014]: ABR video segments can be cached locally at network nodes (e.g., CMCs, GWs) of one or more distribution networks (e.g., passive optical network, cable coax network), wherein each of locally cached ABR video segments at CMCs, GWs is designated to its network segment which the corresponding CMCs, GWs serve); and
providing access to one of the plurality of content segments to a user equipment (UE) connected to the network segment corresponding to the content segment (Figs. 1-2 and [0026]: a broadband service provider may place fiber optic endpoints, e.g., optical network terminal (ONTs), in the basements of large high-rise apartment buildings that include several apartments (i.e., network segment). The ONTs coupled to gateway devices 210 to provide broadband service (e.g. television, telephone and/or Internet) to user devices 218 in the individual dwelling units [of the apartment building]).
Li does not explicitly disclose “the predetermined network policy specifies the relationship between the plurality of content segments and the plurality of network segments”.
In an analogous art, Kaplan discloses “the predetermined network policy specifies the relationship between the plurality of content segments and the plurality of network segments” (col. 23, lines 56 – col. 24, line 3: For a business deployment, there can be a secure access zone, an employee access zone, and a guest access zone (i.e., a plurality of network segments). The secure access zone can include sensitive devices and restrictive access (i.e., secure/restrictive content). The employee zone is meant for a business’ employees who have a need to access more secure resources, e.g., file shares (i.e., shared content), hosted application, etc. The guest zone is meant for a business’ customers, visitors, partners, etc. and is meant to have Internet access only (public content or no content at all) and possible access to some devices).
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 Li and Kaplan to achieve the claimed invention to enable the system/landlords to offer different Internet services to a plurality of end users each associated with one of the plurality of different network zones/segments to increase tenant satisfaction and retention, reduce cost and complexity, and increase operational efficiency (Kaplan, col. 2, lines 38-40).
7. As to claim 7, Li-Kaplan teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a user request sent from a user equipment (UE) for access to a content item of the content resource; and determining that the UE is associated with one of the network segments and that the requested content item is designated to the network segment, based on the network policy; and wherein the access to the content item is provided to the UE (Li, [0015]: respond to subsequent requests from the same ABR video segments from the leaf devices (i.e., user request) served by the GW if the requested ABR video segments are locally cached at the GW; and [0044]: these responses may include video segments corresponding to the channels watched by all users on a given optical downstream channel. In a MDU community, if each MDU building is served by one CMC and all CMC’s serving the community are on the same optical downstream channel, then each CMC will be able to intercept all video segments associated with the IPTV video channels watched by the entire population in the community).
8. As to claim 8, Li teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the content item is a shared recording designated to the network segment (Li, [0015]: ABR video segments).
9. Claims 9, 15-17 and 20 are corresponding system and non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims that recite similar limitations as of method claims 1 and 7-8; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
10. Claims 2-5, 10-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li-Kaplan, in view of Schumacher et al. (US 2007/0147261 A1), hereinafter “Schumacher”.
11. As to claim 2, Li-Kaplan teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “dividing an IP address pool assigned to the network into a plurality of IP address ranges using a subnet mask; assigning the plurality of IP address ranges respectively to the plurality of network segments, wherein the plurality of network segments are a corresponding plurality of subnets; and assigning a unique network identifier to each one of the plurality of subnets”.
In analogous art, Schumacher discloses a Network system 100 comprises three network segments, identified as sub-networks or simply subnets 110a-110c with respective network numbers (subnet numbers) 165.97.33.0, 165.97.34.0 and 165.97.35.0. A subnet number comprises a designated identifier associated with a network segment. Each subnet 110a-110c has a range of IP addresses allocated to various hosts connected to it, which are collectively referred to as a subnet IP address space (Fig. 1 and [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li-Kaplan and Schumacher to achieve the claimed invention for dividing a network (such as a MDU network) into subnets to improve performance, security and management.
12. As to claim 3, Li-Kaplan-Schumacher teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the unique network identifier for each subnet comprises at least one of: a Basic Service Set Identifier (BSSID), a Service Set Identifier (SSID), and a Media Access Control (MAC) address (Schumacher, [0024]: A MAC address is uniquely associated with the device hardware, e.g., a network interface card (NIC), an access point (AP), connecting it to a network segment).
13. As to claim 4, Li-Kaplan-Schumacher teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing network segmentation further comprises: configuring a router connected to the network to generate a plurality of virtual interfaces for each network segment, wherein each network segment is a virtual local area network (VLAN); assigning a plurality of IP address ranges respectively corresponding to the plurality of virtual interfaces; and assigning a unique network identifier to each one of the VLANs (Schumacher, Fig. 1 and [0029]: network system 100 is configured with VLANs 175a-175c (assigned/designated a unique network identifier VLAN_1, VLAN_2 and VLAN_3). Each of VLANs 175a-175c is assigned a respective subnet number (165.97.31.0, 165.97.32.0, and 165.97.33.0). With multiple VLANs in use, router 120a is configured with three sub-interface IP addresses (165.97.31.1, 165.97.32.1, and 165.97.33.1) each corresponding to one of the VLAN subnets).
14. As to claim 5, Li-Kaplan-Schumacher teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the unique network identifier for each VLAN comprises at least one of: a Basic Service Set Identifier (BSSID), a Service Set Identifier (SSID), and a Media Access Control (MAC) address (Schumacher, [0029]: BSSID-unique MAC address and/or SSID-network name of the router 120a can be mapped to each VLAN).
15. Claims 10-13 and 18-19 are corresponding system and non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims that recite similar limitations as of method claims 2-5; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
16. Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li-Kaplan-Schumacher and further in view of Kandasamy et al. (US 2019/0327113 A1), hereinafter “Kandasamy”.
17. As to claim 6, Li-Kaplan-Schumacher teaches the method of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose “configuring one or more access point (AP) connected to each one of the VLANs to broadcast the unique network ID assigned to the VLAN; and providing access of the content item to the UE connected to the VLAN, according to the unique network ID for the VLAN”.
In an analogous art, Kandasamy discloses “configuring one or more access point (AP) connected to each one of the VLANs (Fig. 1 and [0013]: The AP 112 can be a part of a first VLAN managed by the first network controller 121-1 of the first data center 106-1 and a part of a second VLAN managed by the second network controller 121-2 of the second data center 106-2) to broadcast the unique network ID assigned to the VLAN; and providing access of the content item to the UE connected to the VLAN, according to the unique network ID for the VLAN” ([0019-0021]: If the primary VLAN tunnel is inactive, the AP 312 may terminate broadcasting of a SSID to the client device to cause the client device to be disconnect from the primary VLAN tunnel … The AP 312 may connect the client device to the secondary VLAN tunnel in response to determining that the primary VLAN tunnel is inactive … The AP 312 may broadcast the SSID to the client device when connecting the client device to the secondary VLAN tunnel to provide VPN access to the client device).
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 Li-Kaplan-Schumacher and Kandasamy to achieve the claimed invention to allow enterprise networks to set up VLANs to re-partition their network for improved traffic management.
18. Claim 14 is a corresponding system claim that recites similar limitations as of method claim 6; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
19. Applicant’s arguments filed 07/29/2026j have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
20. 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.
21 Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s SPE, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights