DETAILED ACTION
The current office action is in response to the communication filed on 5/16/25.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 .
Paper Submitted
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) as received on 5/16/25 are considered by the Examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the Objections to the Specification, Claim Objections, 35 USC § 112 Claim Rejections and Double Patenting Rejections listed in the paragraph(s) below are corrected and the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Typically abbreviations/acronyms are used after an expansion is provided to the abbreviations/acronyms. However, in the Specification, “LAN,” “LTE,” “SONET,” “SDH,” etc. are used before they are expanded. It is suggested to use expansions before using their abbreviations/acronyms. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner respectfully requests applicant to review and correct any other paragraphs that may contain typographical/grammatical errors.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 7, 14 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “…to update to the respective profile…” in claim 4, line 8, should be “…to update a respective profile…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required. Similar corrections are required in claim 14, line 8.
The limitation “…a respective group one of the plurality of geography-based groups.” in claim 7, line 3, should be “…a respective group of the plurality of geography-based groups.” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required. Similar corrections are required in claim 17, line 3.
All dependent claims are objected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Note: For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted based on the claim language suggested by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 14, at least in part, recite “…wherein the characteristics of the network device are determined based on: receiving data from the at least one node, the data including cellular data and network traffic; detecting, based on the data and a geolocation of the network device, a change in at least one of the plurality of different configuration intents, a template, a geography-based group, or a policy associated with the respective geolocation or the network device; and determining, based on the change, to update to the respective profile of the network device.”
However, the specification of the claimed invention fails to implicitly or explicitly describe the limitations of claims 4 and 14. The specification fails to describe “receiving data from the at least one node, the data including cellular data and network traffic; detecting, based on the data and a geolocation of the network device, a change in at least one of the plurality of different configuration intents, a template, a geography-based group, or a policy associated with the respective geolocation or the network device; and determining, based on the change, to update to the respective profile of the network device” as required by the limitations of claims 4 and 14.
Claims 5 and 15, at least in part, recite “…wherein the characteristics include a device type, a device model, one or more policies associated with the network device, cellular data capabilities, a location associated with the network device, and traffic managed by the network device.”
However, the specification of the claimed invention fails to implicitly or explicitly describe the limitations of claims 5 and 15. The specification fails to describe “wherein the characteristics include a device type, a device model, one or more policies associated with the network device, cellular data capabilities, a location associated with the network device, and traffic managed by the network device” as required by the limitations of claims 5 and 15.
All dependent claims are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Double Patenting
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 claims at issue 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-13 and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,335,102 in view of “Linden et al.” (US PGPUB 2014/0059188) (Hereinafter Linden). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and instant application disclose creating a network device hierarchy among a plurality of nodes, the network device hierarchy comprising a plurality of geography-based groups defined by a corresponding number of geolocations, associating individual groups of the plurality of geography-based groups with a respective profile including a plurality of different configuration intents, associating individual nodes of the plurality of nodes with one of the plurality of geography-based groups and deploying the plurality of nodes based on a respective geolocation of the corresponding number of geolocations.
The difference between claims 1, 11 and 20 of the current application and claims 1, 8 and 13 of the patent is that the current application further includes the limitation(s): “determining, for at least one node, characteristics of a network device; and updating, based on the respective geolocation of the at least one node, the respective profile of the at least one node.”
However, Linden teaches determining, for at least one node, characteristics of a network device; and updating, based on the respective geolocation of the at least one node, the respective profile of the at least one node (a device is configured to retransmit a configuration profile to other devices. The retransmission causes other devices in the vicinity of the device to comply with applicable restrictions; [0013], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate updating a node profile based on proximity to the patent because the patent discloses associating geography-based groups with a plurality of different configuration intents and Linden suggests updating a node profile based on proximity ([0013]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Linden in the patent system in order to provide more effective device management and configuration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Hennenlotter” (US 7,130,278) in view of “Linden et al.” (US PGPUB 2014/0059188) (Hereinafter Linden).
With respect to claim 1, Hennenlotter teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
creating a network device hierarchy among a plurality of nodes, the network device hierarchy comprising a plurality of geography-based groups defined by a corresponding number of geolocations (devices in each hierarchical layer of a network are arranged into groups, each group has one or more devices. The devices are grouped according to any criteria, including geographical location, function, type, etc.; Figs. 3 and 3A, col. 5, lines 6-18, col. 9, lines 11-37);
associating individual nodes of the plurality of nodes with one of the plurality of geography-based groups; and deploying the plurality of nodes based on a respective geolocation of the corresponding number of geolocations (devices of a network are arranged in hierarchical layers. In each hierarchical layer various groups of devices are determined. Each group has one or more devices. The devices are grouped according to any criteria, including geographical location, function, type, etc.; Figs. 3 and 3A, col. 5, lines 6-18, col. 9, lines 11-37).
Hennenlotter does not teach associating individual groups of the plurality of geography-based groups with a respective profile including a plurality of different configuration intents; determining, for at least one node, characteristics of a network device; and updating, based on the respective geolocation of the at least one node, the respective profile of the at least one node.
However. Linden teaches associating individual groups of the plurality of geography-based groups with a respective profile including a plurality of different configuration intents (a networking device is deployed within the jurisdiction of one or more authorities, each of which may impose one or more restrictions on devices operating therein. Accordingly, the location-aware configuration profile of a device deployed within the United States may differ from the location-aware configuration profile of a device deployed within the European Union (EU) or other country; [0008], [0010]);
determining, for at least one node, characteristics of a network device; and updating, based on the respective geolocation of the at least one node, the respective profile of the at least one node (a device is configured to retransmit a configuration profile to other devices. The retransmission causes other devices in the vicinity of the device to comply with applicable restrictions; [0013], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate associating groups with different configurations to Hennenlotter because Hennenlotter discloses grouping devices based on different criteria (col. 5, lines 6-18) and Linden suggests associating groups with different configurations ([0008]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Linden in the Hennenlotter system in order to provide more effective network management and configuration.
With respect to claim 2, Hennenlotter as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Hennenlotter further teaches wherein the plurality of geography-based groups comprise at least a first geography-based group defined at a first geolocation and a second geography-based group defined at a second geolocation within a portion of a geographic boundary of the first geolocation (linked groups 530, 540, and 550 each include one of the groups 24A, 24B, and 24C from the lower hierarchical layer 34 and include two of the groups 26A–26F from the further lower hierarchical layer 36; Fig. 3A, col. 5, lines 30-53, col. 10, lines 4-29).
With respect to claim 3, Hennenlotter as modified teaches the method of claim 2. Hennenlotter further teaches further comprising mapping the individual nodes of the plurality of nodes to one of the first geolocation and the second geolocation (devices in each hierarchical layer of a network are arranged into groups, each group has one or more devices. The devices are grouped according to any criteria, including geographical location, function, type, etc.; Figs. 3 and 3A, col. 5, lines 6-18, col. 9, lines 11-37).
With respect to claim 4, Hennenlotter as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Linden further teaches wherein the characteristics of the network device are determined based on: receiving data from the at least one node, the data including cellular data and network traffic; detecting, based on the data and a geolocation of the network device, a change in at least one of the plurality of different configuration intents, a template, a geography-based group, or a policy associated with the respective geolocation or the network device; and determining, based on the change, to update to the respective profile of the network device (networking device may be configured to contact a location-aware configuration service using a communications network, such as a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), TCP/IP network (e.g., the internet), a Local Area Network (LAN), Wide Area Network (WAN), combination or networks, or the like. The location-aware configuration service may determine a location of the networking device and, using the device location, return a second, location-aware configuration profile to the networking device. The second configuration may be location aware and, as such, may be adapted to cause the device to conform to one or more regional restrictions, use appropriate globalization and privacy settings, and so on. A device is configured to retransmit a configuration profile to other devices. The retransmission causes other devices in the vicinity of the device to comply with applicable restrictions; [0012]-[0013], [0044]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate updating a device profile based on a change to Hennenlotter because Hennenlotter discloses grouping devices based on different criteria (col. 5, lines 6-18) and Linden suggests updating a device profile based on a change ([0013]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Linden in the Hennenlotter system in order to provide more effective device management and configuration.
With respect to claim 5, Hennenlotter as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Linden further teaches wherein the characteristics include a device type, a device model, one or more policies associated with the network device, cellular data capabilities, a location associated with the network device, and traffic managed by the network device (a location-aware configuration profile comprises applying one or more device settings. The settings are configured to cause the device to conform to one or more restrictions (e.g., transmission power restriction, channel restriction, encryption algorithm restriction, or the like); [0012]-[0013], [0044]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining device characteristics to Hennenlotter because Hennenlotter discloses grouping devices based on different criteria (col. 5, lines 6-18) and Linden suggests determining device characteristics ([0047]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Linden in the Hennenlotter system in order to provide more effective device management and configuration.
With respect to claim 7, Hennenlotter as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Linden further teaches wherein the respective profile includes the plurality of different configuration intents that define least one attribute used to deploy the plurality of nodes in a respective group one of the plurality of geography-based groups (a networking device is deployed within the jurisdiction of one or more authorities, each of which may impose one or more restrictions on devices operating therein. Accordingly, the location-aware configuration profile of a device deployed within the United States may differ from the location-aware configuration profile of a device deployed within the European Union (EU) or other country; [0008], [0010], [0012]-[0013], [0044]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate associating groups with different configurations to Hennenlotter because Hennenlotter discloses grouping devices based on different criteria (col. 5, lines 6-18) and Linden suggests associating groups with different configurations ([0008]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Linden in the Hennenlotter system in order to provide more effective network management and configuration.
With respect to claim 8, Hennenlotter as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Hennenlotter further teaches wherein the plurality of geography-based groups comprises a global geography-based group, a hemisphere geography-based group, a country geography-based group, a region geography-based group, an area geography-based group, or a site geography-based group (devices in each hierarchical layer of a network are arranged into groups, each group has one or more devices. The devices are grouped according to any criteria, including geographical location, function, type, etc.; Figs. 3 and 3A, col. 5, lines 6-18, col. 9, lines 11-37).
With respect to claim 9, Hennenlotter as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Hennenlotter further teaches wherein: the plurality of geography-based groups comprise at least a first geography-based group and a second geography-based group subordinate to the first geography-based group, the plurality of nodes comprise a first node within the first geography-based group and a second node within the second geography-based group (devices in each hierarchical layer of a network are arranged into groups, each group has one or more devices. The devices are grouped according to any criteria, including geographical location, function, type, etc. Linked groups 530, 540, and 550 each include one of the groups 24A, 24B, and 24C from the lower hierarchical layer 34 and include two of the groups 26A–26F from the further lower hierarchical layer 36; Figs. 3 and 3A, col. 5, lines 6-53, col. 9, lines 11-37, col. 10, lines 4-29). Linden further teaches the second node inherits at least one attribute of the first node (a device is configured to retransmit a configuration profile to other devices. The retransmission causes other devices in the vicinity of the device to comply with applicable restrictions; [0013], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate inheriting node attributes to Hennenlotter because Hennenlotter discloses grouping devices based on different criteria (col. 5, lines 6-18) and Linden suggests inheriting node attributes ([0013]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Linden in the Hennenlotter system in order to provide more effective device management and configuration.
With respect to claim 10, Hennenlotter as modified teaches the method of claim 9. Linden further teaches wherein updating a first profile associated with the first node updates the at least one attribute inherited by the second node (a device is configured to retransmit a configuration profile to other devices. The retransmission causes other devices in the vicinity of the device to comply with applicable restrictions; [0013], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate inheriting node attributes to Hennenlotter because Hennenlotter discloses grouping devices based on different criteria (col. 5, lines 6-18) and Linden suggests inheriting node attributes ([0013]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Linden in the Hennenlotter system in order to provide more effective device management and configuration.
The limitations of claims 11-15 and 17-19 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1, 8, 2, 4-5, 7 and 9-10 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis. Furthermore, Hennenlotter discloses a system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable media (Fig. 4, col. 4, lines 25-42) as recited in claim 11.
The limitations of claim 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and this claim is rejected on that basis. Furthermore, Hennenlotter discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media (Fig. 4, col. 4, lines 25-42) as recited in claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Katukam et al. US 2022/0210235. Discloses service area based network device configuration.
Chandrashekhar et al. US 2021/0314212. Discloses managing a logical network that spans multiple physical sites.
Vangati. US 2007/0254618. Discloses managing networks using a hierarchical tree structure.
Jeuk et al. US 2021/0409277. Discloses generating and deploying inherited network topology models.
Amishav et al. US 2017/0155619. Discloses location-based Domain Name System (DNS) service discovery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnny B Aguiar whose telephone number is (571)272-3563. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/JOHNNY B AGUIAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights