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: claims 1-8 are pending in this Office Action.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding to claim 3: The phrase "a DB version invalidater" should be -- a data base version invalidater --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding to claims 1-5, 7:
3-Prong Analysis for “means-type” claim limitations
(A) the claim limitations use a term " a first vulnerability information obtainer", “a second vulnerability information obtainer”, “first configuration information obtainer”; “scanner”, “searcher”; “a version invalidater”, “a DB version invalidate”, “a selector”, “an eliminator” used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder.
(B) the term is modified by functional language, typically linked by the transition
word “configured to”, “detects” “obtains”.
(C) the term is not modified by sufficient definite structure for performing the
claimed function. Applicant's specification is devoid of sufficient disclosure of structure
for these terms as required by 112 second paragraph.
Regarding to claim 6:
Claim 6 is also rejected as claim 1 because it is depended on claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1.
All dependent claims that are rejected on a rejected base claim are rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN DOAN whose telephone number is 571 272-4317. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday and biweekly Friday 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571)272-7304. 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.
/HIEN V DOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights