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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/12/2025.
Response to Amendment
3. This is in response to the amendments filed on 02/17/2026. Claims 1 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-5,15-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On the Remarks, Applicant argues that;
There is no teaching or suggestion in Simcoe of the first and second communication ports 118 and 124 being stored in the same memory of one of the computers 102 or 104.
Simcoe does not teach or suggest a memory of a single communication device that stores information related to a first communication port and information related to a second communication port, stores an application program corresponding to the first communication port but does not store an application program corresponding to the second communication port.
There is not teaching or suggestion of sending a dummy response in response to the second request signal in Simcoe, Schwartz or Nakamura.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's argument that there is no teaching or suggestion in Simcoe of the first and second communication ports 118 and 124 being stored in the same memory of one of the computers 102 or 104. It is noted that, Simcoe at Para.0013, Para.0044 discloses, “a first computer 102 ….”, “second computer 404”, which is equivalent to the claimed ‘….. communication device’. Also, Simcoe at Para.0023, Para.0027 discloses, “first communication port 118”, “second communication port 124”, which is equivalent to the claimed ‘a first communication port and ….. a second communication port’. The Examiner noted that, Schwartz at Para.0010 discloses, “a device includes a memory …. and a processor”, which is equivalent to the claimed ‘A….. device’. Thus, it is indicated that Simcoe discloses the first and second communication ports 118 and 124 and two of the computers 102 or 104, while Schwartz discloses only one device.
Second, in response to applicant's argument that Simcoe does not teach or suggest a memory of a single communication device that stores information related to a first communication port and information related to a second communication port, stores an application program corresponding to the first communication port but does not store an application program corresponding to the second communication port. The Examiner already noted that Simcoe discloses first communication port and second communication port. Also, it is noted that, Simcoe at Para.0013, Para.0023 discloses, “first computer 102 includes a first application 108…. stored in a first memory 130 and executed by a first processing unit 135”, “When first processing unit 135 ….. executing first communication instructions …. completes the formatting of a data packet, the data packet is passed to first communication port 118” which is equivalent to the claimed ‘stores an application program corresponding to the first communication port…’. The Examiner noted that, Schwartz at Para.0033, Para.0052 discloses, “the processor …. utilize a software program stored in the memory”, “the processor …. determine …. a field of information ….. field of information may include ….. a source port….a destination port”, which is equivalent to the claimed ‘a memory of a … device that stores information related to a …. port …..’. Moreover, Schwartz at Para.0019, Para.0020 discloses, “an industrial control system (“ICS”) …. include use of honeyports and/or honeypots”, honeyports in an ICS ….. displaying of “a fake or vulnerable application”, which is equivalent to the claimed ‘…. does not store an application …. corresponding to the …. Port…’, as honeyports or honeypots are associated with fake or vulnerable application which is not stored in the industrial control system (“ICS”) of Schwartz.
Finally, in response to applicant's argument that there is not teaching or suggestion of sending a dummy response in response to the second request signal in Simcoe, Schwartz or Nakamura. it is noted that, Schwartz at Claim 1, Para.0034, Para.0044 discloses, “generate a second signal using a second communication protocol” “a second communication protocol (e.g., protocol B) ….”, “generate protocol B signals and transmit dummy signals ….” which is equivalent to the claimed ‘….. send a dummy response in response to the second …...signal.…’.
Applicant's further arguments with respect to claims 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Further, the examiner notes that while Simcoe and Schwartz are being maintained in the new ground of rejection and for the newly added limitation "in a case where a first request signal for the first communication port is received via the communication interface in a state where the first communication port is enabled, execute a process according to the first request signal by the first application program to provide the first communication service; and in a case where a second request signal for the second communication port is received via the communication interface in a state where the second communication port is enabled, execute a security process related to security of the communication device without providing a communication service, and without executing an authentication process", as the applicant does not mention any arguments related with these limitations, thus any arguments presented by Applicant concerning this newly added limitation are considered moot.
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.
5. Claims 1, 16-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simcoe et al. (US 20120216037 A1) in view of Schwartz et. Al (US 20160373483 A1)
Regarding Claim 1:
Simcoe discloses
a. ….. communication device (Para.0013, Para.0044; “a first computer 102 ….”, “second computer 404”) comprising:
a communication interface; (Para.0013; “a first computer 102 …. communicate through a communication connection 106…. With…. second computer 404”)
a memory configured to; (Para.0013; “first computer 102 includes a …. first memory 130”)
….. a first communication port (Para.0023; “first communication port 118”) …. a second communication port (Para.0027; “second communication port 124”) …..
b. store a first application program corresponding to the first communication port, (Para.0013, Para.0023; “first computer 102 includes a first application 108…. stored in a first memory 130 and executed by a first processing unit 135”, “When first processing unit 135 ….. executing first communication instructions …. completes the formatting of a data packet, the data packet is passed to first communication port 118”) the first communication port being for providing a first communication service; (Para.0014, Para.0001, Para.0045, “first computer 102 communicates with …. using TFTP over communication connection ….”, “Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP)…..will service ….read requests and …. write requests”, “a first computer may create a packet containing a read request or a write request to be transmitted to……” the data packet containing a read request or a write request, passed to first communication port 118 and transmitted to the destination over communication connection is construed as the first communication port being for providing a first communication service) and
….. a second application program corresponding to the second communication port, (Para.0027, Para.0026; “second communication port 124 sends the data packet to second processing unit 14 …. second processing unit 145 ….process the data packet with second application 110”, “Second computer 104 …. includes second communication port 124…. second communication port 124 transmits and receives …. data packets …… over communication connection””) the second communication port …..and
c. a controller (Para.0013; “first processing unit 135 executes first application 108 on first computer 102, first processing unit 135 initiates the sending of data packets to and handles data received ….data packets transmitted by first computer 102 …..handled by second processing unit 145 executing second application 110 on second computer 104” first processing unit 135 and second processing unit 145 altogether construed as a controller) configured to:
in a case where a …. request ….. (Para.0013; “first processing unit 135 executes first application 108 on first computer 102….. data packets …..received ….. over communication connection 106. The data packets ….. include read data requests and write data requests”) for the first communication port is received via the communication interface in a state where the first communication port is enabled, (Para.0023, Para.0013; “the data packet is passed to first communication port 118. First communication port 118 stores data packets received from first processing unit 135 …...”, “first computer 102 includes a first application 108, ….. executed by a first processing unit 135… when first processing unit 135 executes first application 108 …. initiates …. handles data received …. over communication connection”) execute a process according to the … request …. by the first application program to provide the first communication service; (Para.0016, Para.0013; “First computer 102 ….includes a …. first memory 130 and executed by first processing unit 135…. upon execution by first processing unit 135….. format the data packet ….. for transmission across communication connection”, “first processing unit 135 executes first application 108 on first computer 102, first processing unit 135 …. handles data received …. over communication connection 106. The data packets …… include read data requests and write data requests”) and
d. in a case where a …. request …. for the second communication port is received via the communication interface in a state where the second communication port is enabled, (Para.0026, Para.0027, Para.0038; “Second computer 104 …includes second communication port 124….. second communication port 124 …. receives …. data packets …..over communication connection”, “after second communication port 124 receives a data packet ….second communication port 124 sends the data packet to second processing unit 145….. Second processing unit 145…. receive the data packet and verify that the data packet”, “data packets containing read and write requests”) execute a security process related to security of …. communication device (Para.0044, Para.0032; “the second computer have …. critical instructions…… second computer 404”, “a computer can have critical software…. that has been tested and verified …..” second communication port receives data packets and second communication port sends the data packet to second processing unit, afterwards second processing unit executes critical software which verifies that the data packet is not corrupted, which is construed as receiving a request for the second communication port and execute a security process related to security of communication device) …..and without executing an authentication process. (Para.0044, Claim. 16, Para.0032; “the second computer have … low-criticality instructions …… second computer 404”, “executing the low-criticality instructions ….during the execution of the low-criticality software”, “low-criticality software….. that was not ….tested to verify that it will operate correctly” second computer 404 executes low-criticality software which was not verified, thus is construed as ‘communication device …. without executing an authentication process’)
however, Simcoe does not explicitly disclose
a. A… device…. store port information including information related to a ….. port that is not used as a honeypot port …. and information related to a …. port that is used as a honeypot port….. [Simcoe discloses a first communication port, a second communication port, but Simcoe does not disclose ‘store port information including information related to a ….. port that is not used as a honeypot port …. and information related to a …. port that is used as a honeypot port…..’]
b. ……not store a …..application …. corresponding to the …. port, the …… port being not for providing a communication service; and [Simcoe discloses ‘’a second application program corresponding to the second communication port’, but Simcoe does not disclose ‘……not store a …..application …. corresponding to the …. port, the …… port being not for providing a communication service’]
c. in a case where a first …. signal …... is received …… execute a process according to the first …... signal by the ……. program;
d. in a case where a second …. signal …. is received …… related to …. the …. device…. without providing a communication service,
In an analogous reference Schwartz discloses
a. A… device (Para.0010; “a device includes a ….processor”) …. store port information including information related to a ….. port that is not used as a honeypot port (Para.0033, Para.0052; “the processor …. utilize a software program stored in the memory”, “the processor …. determine …. a field of information ….. field of information may include,…..a source port….a destination port”) …. and information related to a …. port that is used as a honeypot port (Para.0019; “Honeyports may be dummy ports that monitor for a connection being made and ….. connection has been established…. A honeypot …. gather information regarding an attacker or intruder into a network”) …..
b. ……not store a …..application …. corresponding to the …. port, the …… port being not for providing a communication service; (Para.0019, Para.0020; “an industrial control system (“ICS”) …. include use of honeyports and/or honeypots, honeyports and/or honeypots, which allow for the creation of fake services”, honeyports in an ICS ….. displaying of “a fake or vulnerable application” honeyports or honeypots, allow for the creation of fake services, honeyports or honeypots are associated with fake or vulnerable application which is not stored in the industrial control system (“ICS”)) and
c. in a case where a first …. signal …... is received …… execute a process according to the first …... signal by the ……. program; (Para.0010, Para.0031; “a processor …. receive data corresponding to …. machinery, generate a first signal ….. related to the machinery, wherein the first signal corresponds to the data received by the processor”, “programs that may be executed by the processor”)
d. in a case where a second …. signal …. is received …… (Para.0010; “generate a second signal …. wherein the second signal comprises fabricated data generated by the processor”) …… related to …. the …. device…. without providing a communication service, (Claim 1, Para.0034, Para.0038, Para.0019; “generate a second signal using a second communication protocol”, “a second communication protocol (e.g., protocol B) …. as a dummy protocol…. include fabricated data generated by the processor”, “the false signals with protocol B act as a honeyports”, “honeyports and/or honeypots, which allow for the creation of fake services”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Simcoe’s method for access security for data loading by enhancing Simcoe’s method to include Schwartz’s method of receiving captured data at a security engine from a processor to generate a first signal.
The motivation: usage of honeyports and/or honeypots, allow for the creation of fake services that appear legitimate to attackers. Honeyports are the dummy ports that monitor for a connection being made and report when the connection has been established. Honeyports include fake services that may entice port scanners of hackers to connect thereto. A honeypot may be a partial or full system (e.g., decoy servers or systems) setup to gather information regarding an attacker or intruder into a network. The use of honeyports and/or honeypots cause an attacker to make additional pivots in the system, stay connected longer, and to be more likely to identify themselves or motives.
With respect to independent claim 19, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 1; therefore, claim 19 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16:
Simcoe in view of Schwartz discloses;
The communication device according to claim 1, wherein
the communication device further comprises a blacklist, (Schwartz, Para.0046; “all devices blacklist (e.g., do not allow write commands from the affected device)”) and
the security process includes a process of storing an IP address of a sender (Claim 1, Para.0051; “A device…. generate …. a second signal”, “the connection …. protocol connection has occurred…. capture information related to ….. a source IP address”) of the second request signal in the blacklist. (Para.0046, Para.0045, Para.0034, claim 1; “ports/vulnerabilities for ….. delivery of malicious payload…. through the honeyports …. transmitted to …. computer network …. so that all devices blacklist (e.g., do not allow write commands from the affected device)”, “signals with protocol B act as a honeyport that aids in the detection of unauthorized access to…..”, “second communication protocol (e.g., protocol B)”, “generate a second signal using a second communication protocol”)
Regarding Claim 17:
Simcoe in view of Schwartz discloses;
The communication device according to claim 1, wherein ….. request signal for the second communication port has been received. (Simcoe, disclosed in claim 1)
the security process includes a process of storing log information in the memory, (Schwartz, Para.0029; “software application (e.g., stored on a device such as memory or storage) that allows for monitoring of …. malicious activities…. and transmit indications of the activities (e.g., log the instances)”) the log information indicating that the second request signal for the …. communication port has been received. (Para.0029, Para.0046, Para.0036, Para.0008; “malicious activities…. e.g., log the instances”, “ports/vulnerabilities for its spread ….of malicious payload.”, “the processor ….running a software program stored in memory …..generate protocol B signals and transmit the fabricated data signals”, “second signal comprises fabricated data generated by the processor”)
Regarding Claim 18:
Simcoe in view of Schwartz discloses;
The communication device according to claim 1, wherein …. request signal for the second communication port has been received. (Simcoe, disclosed in claim 1)
the security process includes a process of notifying a user of receipt information indicating that the second request signal for the ……communication port has been received. (Schwartz, Para.0019, Para.0046; “honeyports …. allow …. services that appear legitimate to attackers. Honeyports may be dummy ports….. honeyports…. help to alert …. to spurious activities …. on the network”, “ports…… for its spread …..of malicious payload”)
Regarding Claim 20:
Simcoe in view of Schwartz discloses
The communication device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to … the …. request ….. (Simcoe, disclosed in claim 1)
….. send a dummy response in response to the second …..signal. (Schwartz, Claim 1, Para.0034, Para.0044; “generate a second signal using a second communication protocol” “a second communication protocol (e.g., protocol B)….”, “generate protocol B signals and transmit dummy signals …..”)
Claims 2-4 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simcoe et al. (US 20120216037 A1) in view of Schwartz et. Al (US 20160373483 A1) and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20120106387 A1)
Regarding Claim 2:
Simcoe in view of Schwartz discloses;
The communication device according to claim 1, wherein the security process…. the first communication port.
however, Simcoe in view of Schwartz does not explicitly disclose
…. a process of disabling the first …. port.
In an analogous reference Nakamura discloses
…. a process of disabling the first …. port. (Para.0103; “keeping the first port …. of the management station …. disabled”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Simcoe in view of Schwartz’s method for access security for data loading by enhancing Simcoe in view of Schwartz’s method to include Nakamura’s method of generating network connection information.
The motivation: Disabling multiple communication ports is a fundamental cybersecurity best practice that primarily minimizes the potential attack surface for cybercriminals.
Regarding Claim 3:
Simcoe in view of Schwartz discloses;
The communication device according to claim 2, wherein the security process …. the second communication port.
however, Simcoe in view of Schwartz does not explicitly disclose
…. a process of disabling the second …. port.
In an analogous reference Nakamura discloses
…. a process of disabling the second …. port. (Para.0083; “disables one port …. i.e., the second port”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Simcoe in view of Schwartz’s method for access security for data loading by enhancing Simcoe in view of Schwartz’s method to include Nakamura’s method of generating network connection information.
The motivation: is the same as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4:
Simcoe in view of Schwartz discloses;
The communication device according to claim 2, wherein
the controller is further configured to …...enable the first communication port…. (disclosed in claim 1)
however, Simcoe in view of Schwartz does not explicitly disclose
…… enable the first …. port in a case where a predetermined period has elapsed after the first …. port was disabled.
In an analogous reference Nakamura discloses
…… enable the first …. port in a case where a predetermined period has elapsed after the first ….. port was disabled. (FIG.15/Para.0130, Para.0125, Para.0135; “receives the …acknowledge frame …... enables the first port X1 (step S224) ….”, “the first port X1 ….is disabled (step S211)”, “a predetermined time elapses after the …. acknowledge frame …. is received” from FIG.15, at step 211 the first port is disabled, a predetermined time elapses after the acknowledge frame is received. Once acknowledge frame is received at step 224 the first port is enabled)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Simcoe in view of Schwartz’s method for access security for data loading by enhancing Simcoe in view of Schwartz’s method to include Nakamura’s method of generating network connection information.
The motivation: is the same as claim 2.
Claims 5 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simcoe et al. (US 20120216037 A1) in view of Schwartz et. Al (US 20160373483 A1) also in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20120106387 A1) and further in view of Doerr et al. (US 20200302090 A1)
Regarding Claim 5:
Simcoe in view of Schwartz also in view of Nakamura discloses;
The communication device according to claim 2….
however, Simcoe in view of Schwartz also in view of Nakamura does not explicitly disclose
…. the memory is further configured to store a fourth application program corresponding to a fourth communication port,
the fourth communication port is for more secure communication compared to the first communication port, and
the security process does not include a process of disabling the fourth communication port.
In an analogous reference Doerr discloses
……the memory is further configured to store a fourth application program corresponding to a fourth communication port, (Para.0025, Para.0009, Para.0006; “a software program …. stored in a memory”, “the multiprocessor fabric may be operated to execute a software application”, “The multiprocessor fabric may include ….. a plurality of communication ports”)
the fourth communication port is for more secure communication compared to the first communication port, (Para.0056, Para.0103, Para.0006; “communication paths in the multiprocessor fabric, e.g., in order to secure portions of the multiprocessor fabric…. allow a portion of the multiprocessor fabric to be secured and provide security functions for the remainder of the multiprocessor fabric”, “Once the section is secured …. the ports are all enabled”, “The multiprocessor fabric may include …. a plurality of communication ports” a portion of the multiprocessor fabric to be secured indicates that that portion/the ports are all enabled, which is construed as fourth communication port is more secure communication compared to the other/first communication port) and
the security process does not include a process of disabling the fourth communication port. (Para.0103, Para.0006; “Once the section is secured …. the ports are all enabled”, “The multiprocessor fabric may include …. a plurality of communication ports” a secured portion of the multiprocessor fabric indicates that that portion/the ports are enabled, which is construed as fourth communication port is not being disabled/enabled always)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Simcoe in view of Schwartz also in view of Nakamura’s method for access security for data loading by enhancing Simcoe in view of Schwartz also in view of Nakamura’s method to include Doerr’s method for disabling communication in a multiprocessor system.
The motivation: Secure communication ports protect data, ensure data integrity so information is not altered, and provide user authentication to verify the identity of the parties involved. This leads to enhanced security, user confidence and compliance with regulations.
Claims 15 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simcoe et al. (US 20120216037 A1) in view of Schwartz et. Al (US 20160373483 A1) and further in view of YANAGITA et al. (US 20220294802 A1)
Regarding Claim 15:
Simcoe in view of Schwartz discloses;
The communication device according to claim 1, wherein
the communication device further comprises a display unit, (Para.0038; “display elements…. on first computer 404”) and
the security process…… (disclosed in claim 1)
however, Simcoe in view of Schwartz does not explicitly disclose
…. a process of displaying a message screen on the display unit in a case where a current password of the communication device is an initial password, the message screen including a message that prompts a user to change a password of the communication device.
In an analogous reference YANAGITA discloses
….. a process of displaying a message screen on the display unit in a case where a current password of the communication device is an initial password, the message screen including a message that prompts a user to change a password of the communication device. (Para.0060; “displays a message indicating that the password received …. does not satisfy the …. current policy, and a message that prompts to change the password”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Simcoe in view of Schwartz’s method for access security for data loading by enhancing Simcoe in view of Schwartz’s method to include YANAGITA’s method of receiving authentication information.
The motivation: A password change prompt benefits users by preventing unauthorized access through compromised credentials, reducing the risk of cyberattacks over time, and complying with security best practices.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAYEDA SALMA NAHAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached on (571) 270-3351. 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.
/SAYEDA SALMA NAHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/BEEMNET W DADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights