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 .
Claim status in the amendment received on 1/8/2026:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are pending.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been considered and in response to the amendments:
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
The previous 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities.
As to claims 1, 5, 8, 12 and 15, the claims recite the limitation “plurality of network devices is abnormal”. However, for grammatical reason, the limitation should be amended to “plurality of network devices [[is]] are abnormal”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 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.
As to claims 1, 8 and 15,
The claims recite the limitation: “the other network devices of the plurality of network devices superimpose the difference data to their respective ledger data”. However, the claim also stated that synchronization of the difference data is optional “synchronizing, by the specific network device, the second ledger data of the specific network device or difference data”. It is not clear how the network devices superimpose the difference data in the option when the difference data is no synchronized. Appropriate correction is required.
The claims further recite the limitation “the second ledger data of any network device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims.
As to the claim(s) that are dependent on claim(s) 1, 8 or 15, the dependent claim(s) are also rejected under 112(a) for the same reason of their base claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aissi et al. (Pub. No.: US 20140089261 A1) in view of Kalthoff et al. (Pub. No.: US 20060064456 A1) and further in view of Paterson et al. (Pub. No.: US 20060041603 A1).
As to claim 1, Aissi teaches a device abnormality detection method, wherein the method is applied to a device networking system including a plurality of network devices, the method comprising: in response to first ledger data of a specific network device changes to second ledger data of the specific network device wherein the specific network device is one of the plurality of network devices (paragraph [0079]), synchronizing, by the specific network device, the second ledger data of the specific network device or difference data of the specific network device to other network devices of the plurality of network devices other than the specific network device (paragraph [0080], and [0026]]), wherein the difference data of the specific network device is changed data between the first ledger data and the second ledger data of the specific network device (paragraph [0080]), and
determining whether the plurality of network devices is abnormal according to the difference data (paragraph [0085], “…In one embodiment, anomalies are concurrency anomalies, such as, two separate transactions modifying the same data concurrently. Some other types of anomalies could be caused by malicious activities such as credit card fraud, cyber intrusion, system breakdown, etc.”) wherein:
the first ledger data includes attribute information and consumption information of the specific network device (fig. 6, 616 and fig. 6, 618, respectively).
Aissi does not explicitly teach determining abnormality based on multiple same attribute information and consumption information and superimposing the difference data by the other network devices.
However, in an analogues art (computer networks) Kalthoff teaches determining whether the plurality of network devices is abnormal according to the difference data includes: determining whether the second ledger data of any network device includes multiple same attribute information (paragraph [0043], “If any duplicates are found…”); and
in response to the second ledger data of any network device includes the multiple same attribute information, determining whether the plurality of network devices is abnormal according to consumption information corresponding to the multiple same attribute information (paragraph [0043], “…For example, an attribute of the duplicates may have different values across the duplicates. Attributes that have different values across the duplicates may be set to a common value to create literal consistency across the duplicates…”, i.e. inconsistency teaches abnormality).
Based on Aissi in view of Kalthoff, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate determining abnormality based on multiple same attribute information and consumption information (taught by Kalthoff) with synchronizing states between plurality of network devices (taught by Aissi) in order to enhance security and data integrity of devices.
Aissi in view of Kalthoff does not explicitly teach superimposing the difference data by the other network devices.
However, in an analogues art (computer networks) Paterson teaches other network devices of the plurality of network devices superimpose the difference data to their respective ledger data (paragraph [0015], “…The synchroniser passes those streams of deltas to other devices. In return, the conduit also receives deltas from other devices, translates them from canonical format to the devices' format including any truncation to be applied and updates the device.”).
Based on Aissi in view of Kalthoff and further in view of Paterson, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate superimposing the difference data by the other network devices (taught by Paterson) with determining abnormality based on multiple same attribute information and consumption information (taught by Kalthoff) with synchronizing states between plurality of network devices (taught by Aissi) in order to enhance security and data integrity of devices and in order to speed up synchronization process while preserving network resources.
As to claim 5, Aissi teaches wherein determining whether the plurality of network devices is abnormal according to the difference data includes: determining whether the difference data satisfies an abnormality detection condition (paragraph [0085]); and in response to the difference data is determined to satisfy the abnormality detection condition, determining that at least one network device is abnormal (paragraph [0085], “…In one embodiment, anomalies are concurrency anomalies, such as, two separate transactions modifying the same data concurrently. Some other types of anomalies could be caused by malicious activities such as credit card fraud, cyber intrusion, system breakdown, etc.”).
As to claim 6, Aissi teaches the first ledger data includes attribute information and consumption information of the specific network device, and the difference data includes changed attribute information and/or changed consumption information (paragraph [0026]).
As to claims 8 and 12-13, the claims are substantially similar to claims 1 and 5-6, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above.
As to claim 15, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above.
As to claim 16, Aissi teaches wherein the second ledger data is the first ledger data plus added data, the added data is additional to the first ledger data, such that the difference data is the added data (fig. 6, 602 and 604).
As to claim 17, Aissi teaches wherein the second ledger data is the first ledger data minus reduced data, the reduced data is part of the first ledger data, such that the difference data is the reduced data (fig. 6, 602 and 604).
As to claim 18, Aissi teaches wherein the second ledger data is same to the first ledger data on the attribute information, but differs from the first ledger data on the consumption information, such that the difference data is a difference on the consumption information (fig. 6, 602 and 604).
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aissi et al. (Pub. No.: US 20140089261 A1) in view of Kalthoff et al. (Pub. No.: US 20060064456 A1) and Paterson et al. (Pub. No.: US 20060041603 A1) and further in view of Johansson et al. (Patent. No.: US 9542177 B1).
As to claim 2, Aissi in view of Kalthoff and further in view of Paterson does not explicitly teach utilizing a master node to synchronize between network devices.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer networks) Johansson teaches plurality of network devices includes a master node and at least one first network device (fig. 4, 410);
the specific network device is one first network device, and the other network devices include the master node and other first network devices (fig. 4, 430-444 and 410); and synchronizing, by the specific network device, the second ledger data of the specific network device or difference data of the specific network device to other network devices of the plurality of network devices other than the specific network device includes: sending, by the specific network device, the difference data to the master node (fig. 4, 421); updating, by the master node, current ledger data of the master node to the second ledger data according to the difference data (col. 13, lines 24-55); and sending, by the master node, the difference data or the second ledger data to the other first network devices (col. 13, lines 24-55); or sending, by the specific network device, the second ledger data to the master node; updating, by the master node, current ledger data of the master node to the second ledger data; determining, by the master node, the difference data according to the current ledger data of the master node and the second ledger data; and sending, by the master node, the difference data or the second ledger data to the other first network devices; or sending, by the specific network device, the difference data or the second ledger data to the master node and the other first network devices (col. 13, lines 24-55).
Based on Aissi in view of Kalthoff and Paterson and further in view of Johansson, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate utilizing a master node to synchronize between network devices (taught by Johansson) with superimposing the difference data by the other network devices (taught by Paterson) with determining abnormality based on multiple same attribute information and consumption information (taught by Kalthoff) with synchronizing states between plurality of network devices (taught by Aissi) in order to enhance security and data integrity of devices, and in order to speed up synchronization process while preserving network resources, and in order to better managing and controlling synchronization process between network devices.
As to claim 3, Johansson further teaches connecting a second network device to the device networking system, and sending a multicast message to the plurality of network devices, wherein the multicast message includes a joining message (col. 10, lines 35-60); and
performing an arbitration process to determine a new master node, by all network devices in the device networking system, from the all network devices according to a preset arbitration rule, wherein the all network devices include the second network device and the plurality of network devices (col. 10, lines 35-60). The limitations of claim 3 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 2 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 2, applies here as well.
As to claim 4, Johansson further teaches connecting a second network device to the device networking system, and sending a multicast message to the plurality of network devices, wherein the multicast message includes a joining message (col. 10, lines 35-60);
in response to the joining message, sending, by the master node, a re- arbitration message to other network devices other than the master node in the device networking system; and performing an arbitration process to determine a new master node, by all network devices in the device networking system, from the all network devices according to a preset arbitration rule, wherein the all network devices include the master node and a plurality of network devices receiving the re-arbitration message, or the all network devices include a plurality of network devices receiving the re-arbitration message other than the master node (col. 10, lines 35-60). The limitations of claim 4 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 2 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 2, applies here as well.
As to claims 9-11, the claims are substantially similar to claims 2-4, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above.
As to claim 19, Aissi in view of Kalthoff and further in view of Paterson does not explicitly teach utilizing a master node to synchronize between network devices.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer networks) Johansson teaches other network devices include a master node, and the method further comprises (fig. 4, 410);
sending, by the master node, ledger data of the master node to a second network device new to the system of network devices (col. 13, lines 24-55);
receiving, from the second network device, difference data of the second network device to the master node, the difference data of the second network device reflecting difference of ledger data of the second network device in comparison to the ledger data of the master node (fig. 4, 421); and sending, by the master node, the difference data to the specific network device (col. 13, lines 24-55).
Based on Aissi in view of Kalthoff and Paterson and further in view of Johansson, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate utilizing a master node to synchronize between network devices (taught by Johansson) with superimposing the difference data by the other network devices (taught by Paterson) with determining abnormality based on multiple same attribute information and consumption information (taught by Kalthoff) with synchronizing states between plurality of network devices (taught by Aissi) in order to enhance security and data integrity of devices, and in order to speed up synchronization process while preserving network resources, and in order to better managing and controlling synchronization process between network devices.
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 ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, 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 at (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 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 5/7/2026
Prosecution Insights