DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 11 March 2026 amends claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 15. Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 of the response, “In the present application, accessing information, as recited by claim 1, is not meant to refer to passively monitoring, receiving, or otherwise obtaining, a lure identifier as referred to in paragraph [0052] of the present application.” In response, “passively monitoring, receiving, or otherwise obtaining” is a form of access. For example, a malicious user with a RFID scanner in a crowded public environment that is passively scanning for transmitted RFID signals would be said to be “accessing” the RFID information of users within this public environment by means of an unauthorized access. Unauthorized access would still be considered to be access.
Applicant explains on page 9 of the response, “At act 636 the malicious network equipment passively monitors message traffic, on a network to which it is connected for storage access commands and messages that appear to include information that sounds interesting, for example, information indicative of financial-related information or personal information such as medical information.” In response, this form of passive monitoring would be described as “unauthorized access”.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the response, “Thus, Assignee’s representative respectfully submits that the office action has incorrectly merged passively obtaining of a lure identifier with attempting to access information from the network-connected storage (e.g., passively obtaining the lure identifier and lure information versus the requesting device taking affirmative action of directing a read, copy, or download command to the network connected storage to attempt to manipulate, control, or otherwise actively access information stored by the network connected storage equipment).” This argument is not persuasive because the described passive monitoring is a form of affirmative action that is specifically designed to access information as described above.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the response, “Notwithstanding that claim 1 as previously presented does not recite subject matter of a requesting device actively accessing a lure identifier …instead the requesting device may have passively received or detected the lure identifier – claim 1 is amended hereby to recite that ‘the requesting device does not access…information, that is not the at least one lure identifier, from the network-connected storage device to result in non-access, where the non-access…comprises…not reading, not copying, or not downloading…information, that is not the at least one lure identifier, from the network-connected storage’ to make clear that even though the requesting device may passively obtain the lure identifier the requesting device does not actively access information from the network-connected storage…” In response, this language has the same written description issues addressed in the Non-Final dated 11 December 2025 (“Non-Final”). Specifically, the specification and the claim specify that the requesting devices that are not authorized to access information from the network-connected storage device, do in fact access non lure identifier information from the network-connected storage device to the extent that the requesting devices that are not authorized to access information from the network-connected storage device access the lure identifier information transmitted from the network-connected storage device. Specifically, Applicant’s specification ([0043] & [0049] & Figure 6A, step 630) shows that the monitoring of incoming request messages includes receiving messages that include information from the lure query message that was initially transmitted by the network-connected storage device ([0049] & Figure 6A, step 620) such that the lure query message includes other information that is not the lure identifier ([0043]). Therefore, it is clear that the device sending the request message has accessed information from the network-connected storage device that is not the lure identifier.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of the response, “Support for additional subject matter, amended to claim 1, not discussed during the Interview may be found in the specification of the present application at least at paragraphs that discuss request/command 199, for example, paragraphs [0045]-[0049], [0052], and [0057], and FIGS. 3, 5, and 11.” This argument is not persuasive because paragraph [0043] of Applicant’s specification discloses that the lure query message 197 and the lure response message 198, accessed by the unauthorized device, includes information that is not the lure identifier. Paragraphs [0045]-[0049] describes a request 199 from the unauthorized device that includes the information from 197 or 198. Specifically, paragraph [0049] specifies that the request 199 “is directed to the lure identifier or interesting lure information that may have been part of the lure query or response messages…” Therefore, the paragraphs cited by Applicant actually provide evidence that the specification does not support the current claim limitations because it is clear from the cited paragraphs that the claimed “requesting device” accesses information from the network-connected storage device that is not the lure identifier.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the response, “Assignee’s representative respectfully submits that the amendments made hereby to the independent claims overcome the rejection of the claims as being indefinite and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the previous §112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Examiner Notes
All claims were reviewed for compliance with 35 USC §101 (as set forth in MPEP 2106) and it was determined that the claims are statutory.
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 1-6, 8-13, 15-17, 19-23 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 claims 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 requires a network-connected storage device to transmit lure identifiers and monitoring of incoming requests directed to a lure identifier from requesting devices that are not authorized to access information from the network-connected storage device such that the requesting devices that are not authorized to access information from the network-connected storage device do not access information from the network-connected storage device, that is not the lure identifier. However, the specification specifies that the requesting devices that are not authorized to access information from the network-connected storage device, do in fact access information from the network-connected storage device that is not the lure identifier. Specifically, paragraph [0043] of Applicant’s specification discloses that the lure query message 197 and the lure response message 198, accessed by the unauthorized device, includes information that is not the lure identifier. Paragraphs [0045]-[0049] describes a request 199 from the unauthorized device that includes the information from 197 or 198. Specifically, paragraph [0049] specifies that the request 199 “is directed to the lure identifier or interesting lure information that may have been part of the lure query or response messages…” Therefore, it is clear from the cited paragraphs that the claimed “requesting device” accesses information from the network-connected storage device that is not the lure identifier.
Claim 9 requires a network-connected storage device to transmit lure identifiers and monitoring of incoming requests directed to a lure identifier from requesting devices that are not authorized to access information from the network-connected storage device such that the requesting devices that are not authorized to access information from the network-connected storage device do not access information from the network-connected storage device, that is not the lure identifier. However, the specification specifies that the requesting devices that are not authorized to access information from the network-connected storage device, do in fact access information from the network-connected storage device that is not the lure identifier. Specifically, paragraph [0043] of Applicant’s specification discloses that the lure query message 197 and the lure response message 198, accessed by the unauthorized device, includes information that is not the lure identifier. Paragraphs [0045]-[0049] describes a request 199 from the unauthorized device that includes the information from 197 or 198. Specifically, paragraph [0049] specifies that the request 199 “is directed to the lure identifier or interesting lure information that may have been part of the lure query or response messages…” Therefore, it is clear from the cited paragraphs that the claimed “requesting device” accesses information from the network-connected storage device that is not the lure identifier.
Claim 15 requires a network-connected storage device to transmit lure identifiers and monitoring of incoming requests directed to a lure identifier from requesting devices that are not authorized to access information from the network-connected storage device such that the requesting devices that are not authorized to access information from the network-connected storage device does not access information from the network-connected storage device, that is not the lure identifier. However, the specification and the claim specify that the requesting devices that are not authorized to access information from the network-connected storage device, do in fact access information from the network-connected storage device that is not the lure identifier. Specifically, paragraph [0043] of Applicant’s specification discloses that the lure query message 197 and the lure response message 198, accessed by the unauthorized device, includes information that is not the lure identifier. Paragraphs [0045]-[0049] describes a request 199 from the unauthorized device that includes the information from 197 or 198. Specifically, paragraph [0049] specifies that the request 199 “is directed to the lure identifier or interesting lure information that may have been part of the lure query or response messages…” Therefore, it is clear from the cited paragraphs that the claimed “requesting device” accesses information from the network-connected storage device that is not the lure identifier.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-13, 16, 17, 19-23 are rejected based upon their dependence on claims 1, 9, and 15 respectively.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 6:20-4:50.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437