DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 April 2025 has been entered.
By the above submission, Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 15-19 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-19 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims do not fully comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) that amended claims include markings indicating the changes made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. In particular, at least Claim 8 appears to have had text added without being marked with underlining as required, and at least Claim 12 appears to include text, marked as deleted with strikethrough, which was not previously present in the claim. At least Claim 18 appears to have had text deleted without being marked with strikethrough or double brackets as required. As a courtesy and to advance prosecution, the amendments have been treated as though they were compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(c). Applicant is reminded that all subsequent amendments must fully comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 April 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lee et al, US Patent 10348767, and with particular reference to Claim 1, Applicant argues that the timeout of Lee determines if a connection is currently active but that Lee does not disclose resetting the timer, requesting status of connections, and receiving a list of connections (page 4 of the present response, no particular evidence cited). However, although Lee does disclose a timeout for a particular connection (column 59, line 64-column 60, line 5, as previously cited), Lee also discloses periodically monitoring active connections as claimed (see column 45, lines 6-26, as previously cited, where activity, e.g. of active connections, is monitored with timeout periods, see also lines 27-37, performing system monitoring; see also column 73, lines 31-67, periodic monitoring protocol to check health of each endpoint, where periodic monitoring shows the timer that is reset periodically, and checking the health of each endpoint shows requesting the status of all remote connections and receiving the list of the connections). Applicant also argues that Lee discusses “decoupling from the OS” (pages 4-5 of the present response, citing Lee, column 72, lines 36-39). However, Lee also explicitly discloses implementing security at the operating system layer (column 19, lines 14-19).
With reference to Claims 2 and 3, Applicant argues that the whitelists or blacklists in Lee do not indicate a list of allowable or blocked connections (page 5 of the present response, citing Lee, column 72, lines 28-30, and column 1, lines 65-67). However, Lee also explicitly discloses a list of allowable connections (for example, see column 73, lines 31-67, and column 28, line 19-column 29, line 3). With reference to Claim 5, Applicant generally argues that Lee does not disclose a time being within a range of times (pages 5-6 of the present response, no evidence cited); however, Applicant provides no evidence or explanation in support of this allegation.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites several steps, such as an operating system running and security software running, setting a timer, resetting the timer, making a request, returning a list of connections, using connection control data to determine if a computer is authorized, and requesting disconnection. However, because the claim is directed to a system, it is not clear how the system would include these steps. It is not clear whether infringement would occur only upon performance of those steps or if the device is intended to be configured to perform the steps, for example. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “the security software running on the processor” in lines 3-4. It is not clear whether this is intended to be a separate, active step of the claimed method. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “includes finding an absence” in line 4. It is not grammatically clear what the subject of the verb “includes” is intended to be.
Claim 10 recites “includes finding the computer name” in line 4. It is not grammatically clear what the subject of the verb “includes” is intended to be..
Claim 11 recites “includes finding an absence” in line 4. It is not grammatically clear what the subject of the verb “includes” is intended to be..
Claim 12 recites “includes finding an absence” in line 4. It is not grammatically clear what the subject of the verb “includes” is intended to be.
Claim 13 recites “includes finding an absence” in line 4. It is not grammatically clear what the subject of the verb “includes” is intended to be. The claim further recites “the time” in line 6; however, the claim previously recited plural times, and it is not clear to which of the plural times this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 15 recites elements of storage media in line 2 and instructions in line 3. There is not a conjunction (e.g. “and” or “or”) between these elements, and therefore, it is not clear whether both elements are required or if they are alternatives. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the computing instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer-readable data storage media and executable by the one or more processors of the target device to perform determining” in lines 3-7. This is grammatically unclear and appears to be missing a verb or other critical language.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the computing instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer-readable data storage media and executable by the one or more processors of the target device to perform” in lines 3-6. This is grammatically unclear and appears to be missing a verb or other critical language. Further, the phrase “when a time being within a range of times associated with the remote computer in the whitelist” is grammatically unclear, and it is not clear how this relates to the remainder of the claim.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the computing instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer-readable data storage media and executable by the one or more processors of the target device to perform” in lines 3-6. This is grammatically unclear and appears to be missing a verb or other critical language. The claim further recites “the time” in line 9; however, the claim previously recited plural times, and it is not clear to which of the plural times this limitation is intended to refer.
Claims not specifically referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al, US Patent 10348767.
In reference to Claim 1, Lee discloses a system including security software with connection control data, where the security software sets a timer and when the timer expires, the security software resets the timer, requests the status of all remote computer connections and receives a list of the remote connections (see column 59, line 64-column 60, line 5; see also column 45, lines 27-37, performing system monitoring; see also column 73, lines 31-67, periodic monitoring protocol to check health of each endpoint), and uses the connection control data to determine whether a connecting computer is still authorized, and if not, requests that the connecting computer be disconnected from the target device (see column 45, lines 6-26).
In reference to Claims 2-4, Lee discloses use of a whitelist and/or blacklist for authorization (column 72, line 27-column 73, line 43; see also column 28, line 19-column 29, line 3).
In reference to Claim 5, Lee discloses use of a whitelist and blacklist (column 72, line 27-column 73, line 43; see also column 28, line 19-column 29, line 3) and checking if a time is within a range of times (column 56, lines 46-51).
In reference to Claim 6, Lee discloses disconnecting all connections if a time is within a global timeframe (column 56, lines 46-51).
In reference to Claim 7, Lee discloses a remote desktop connection (column 26, line 62-column 27, line 3).
Claims 8-14 are directed to methods corresponding to the functionalities of the systems of Claims 1-7, and are rejected by a similar rationale.
Claims 15-19 are directed to software implementations of the methods of Claims 9, 10, and 12-14, and are rejected by a similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492