DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending.
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sunaga et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0088471 (hereinafter Sunaga).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-13, Sunaga discloses all the claimed limitations, as outlined below.
Claim 1 and corresponding claim 8. A control system comprising: a control unit configured to control a control target; a storage unit configured to store a program executed by the control unit and an access authority for each of a plurality of data referred to in the program; and an input unit configured to accept an access request for any one of the plurality of data, wherein each of the access authorities includes information about an operation executable by each of users having different authorities (Figure 7 - - see for example 23a and 231; Paragraphs 0060-0063, 0071, 0084, 0096 – multiple users/entities with distinct authorities)
and the control unit refers to each of the access authorities based on acquisition of the access request for any one of the plurality of data from the input unit, and determines whether the user who transmits the access request has an access authority to access data for which the access is requested, based on each of the access authorities (Figure 7 - - see for example 23a and 231; Paragraphs 0060-0063, 0071, 0084, 0096 – allow access to the authorized user/entity).
Claim 2 and corresponding claim 9. The control system according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of data is data indicated by an address of a variable or a physical memory in the program (Figure 7 - - see for example 23a and 231; Paragraphs 0060-0063, 0071, 0084, 0096).
Claim 4 and corresponding claim 11. The control system according to claim 2 or 3, wherein the access authority for each of the plurality of data is generated based on a first rule defining an access authority for each variable name or a second rule defining an access authority for each physical memory (Figure 7 - - see for example 23a and 231; Paragraphs 0060-0063, 0071, 0084, 0096).
Claim 5 and corresponding claim 12. The control system according to claim 4, further comprising a device configured to generate the program, wherein the device analyzes the program based on the first rule or the second rule, generates each of the access authorities based on an analysis result, and outputs each of the access authorities to the storage unit (Figure 7 - - see for example 23a and 231; Paragraphs 0060-0063, 0071, 0084, 0096).
Claim 6. The control system according to claim 4, wherein the storage unit further stores the first rule or the second rule, and the control unit analyzes the program using the first rule or the second rule based on acquisition of the program from another device, generates each of the access authorities based on an analysis result, and outputs each of the access authorities to the storage unit (Figure 7 - - see for example 23a and 231; Paragraphs 0060-0063, 0071, 0084, 0096).
Claim 7 and corresponding claim 13. The control system according to claim 2, wherein the control unit stores an update history in the storage unit based on an update of any one of a plurality of data referred to in the program, and the update history includes an address of a variable name or a physical memory that indicates updated data, the updated data, and a user identifier of a user who updates the data (Paragraph 0114 - - updated shared data).
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, 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 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunaga et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0088471 (hereinafter Sunaga) in view of Confalonieri et al., US Patent No. 8,654,563 (hereinafter Confalonieri).
Regarding claims 3 and corresponding claim 10, Sunaga discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Sunaga fails to clearly specify wherein the storage unit further stores information about a write range for each of the variable or the physical memory, and the control unit restricts a range of a value writable for the variable or the physical memory in which the access request is made based on information about the write range.
However, Confalonieri teaches wherein a storage unit further stores information about a write range for variables or a physical memory, and control unit restricts a range of a value writable for the variable or the physical memory in which access request is made based on information about the write range (see claim 25 of US Patent No 8,654,563).
The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to data storage and management.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above data sharing scheme, as taught by Sunaga, and incorporating the concept of write range, as taught by Confalonieri.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide dynamic manipulation of data, as suggested by Confalonieri (C3 L20-32).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent No. 6,282,649 – relates to controlling access to services.
US Patent No. 7,835,806 – relates to indirect access to controller data.
US Patent No. 7,950,044 – relates to access rules provided by the central access authority.
US Patent No. 8,375,227 relates to addressing and identifying a variable size block of data.
US Patent No. 8,819,458 – relates to authentication keys for executing functions.
US Patent No. 9,256,716 – relates to access authority generation device.
US Patent No. – 9,542,164 - relates to managing an application variable using variable attributes.
US Patent No. – 9,674,690 - relates to control and enforcement of policy rule.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0363329 – relates to memory address translation.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0116185 – relates to access authority management.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3766. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00 am- 6:30 pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119