DETAILED ACTION
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
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed, 29 October 2025, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 26 July 2023 in which claims 1, 16, 19-21 have been amended. Claims 1, 3-16, 18-21 are pending in the application.
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, 3-7, 13-14, 16, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiland et al (hereinafter “Heiland”, 2021/0360406) in view of Smith et al (hereinafter “Smith”, 2019/0349426).
As per Claim 1, Heiland discloses a terminal device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to acquire apparatus information indicating a registered apparatus (at least paragraph 61-63; monitoring traffic on network of devices);
transmit, to an apparatus management server, the acquired apparatus information indicating the registered apparatus (at least paragraph 64; traffic monitoring module 316 may collect high-level network metadata regarding connections on the network);
acquire, from the apparatus management server, identification information indicating which of an IoT apparatus that is able to connect to a network, a quasi-IoT apparatus that is able to connect to the network, and a non-IoT apparatus that is not able to connect to the network the registered apparatus is (at least paragraph 49; server over network gathering device data indicating IoT and non-IoT device types; paragraph 78-84; probability of being an IoT device- quasi as shown in Fig. 4-5), the identification information being identified by referring to an apparatus identification table in the apparatus management server (at least paragraph 43, 46, 49, 58; databases 328 may store various types of data relevant in classifying network devices. This data may include, but is not limited to, data regarding which devices on a network are IoT devices, which devices are non-IoT devices, locations of devices, specific features or characteristics of devices, or the like); and
generate display data indicating which of the IoT apparatus, the quasi-IoT apparatus, and the non-IoT apparatus the registered apparatus is on a basis of the acquired identification information; and output the display data (at least paragraph 89-90, 96, 52, Fig. 4-5; classifying a device on a network in accordance with one embodiment. The system 300 may include a user device 302 executing a user interface 304 for presentation to one or more users 306 such as security personnel or other users interested in determining which devices on a network are IoT devices).
Heiland fails to disclose that the quasi-IoT apparatus is able to connect to the network using a retrofitted communication functionality via an external connection terminal or an infrared connection as an external option. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Smith. Smtih discloses, in an analogous IoT art, external modules such as sensors that need to be retrofitted by connecting them to an IoT device in order to connect to the network and identification of the external modules to map them to resources (at least paragraph 1422-1435). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Smith’s IoT modular device with Heiland as this would allow IoT devices to be modified to incorporate functionality from other devices as Smith explains when the devices are no longer working or the lifetime has ended and Smith determines these devices as capable of connecting to a working IoT device that can handle the extra processing load.
As per Claim 3. The terminal device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display an image indicating which of the IoT apparatus, the quasi-IoT apparatus, and the non-IoT apparatus the registered apparatus is on a display in accordance with the generated display data (at least Fig. 2-5; par. 52).
As per Claim 4. The terminal device according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to establish communication between the registered apparatus and the terminal device when the registered apparatus is the IoT apparatus or the quasi-IoT apparatus connected to the network using the retrofitted communication functionality (at least paragraph 105-107).
As per Claim 5. The terminal device according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to accept control of an apparatus whose communication with the terminal device is established, and control the apparatus (at least paragraph 90; inspect the newly-identified IoT device or perform some other security or control measure(s). For example, the user 306 may ban the IoT device from the network, isolate the IoT device…).
As per Claim 6. The terminal device according to claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire a control application of the apparatus whose communication with the terminal device is established, and execute the control application when accepting the control of the apparatus (at least paragraph 90; inspect the newly-identified IoT device or perform some other security or control measure(s). For example, the user 306 may ban the IoT device from the network, isolate the IoT device, set certain limits on the IoT device's activity (e.g., the amount of data it may send), or the like).
As per Claim 7. The terminal device according to claim 6, wherein the acquired control application is a common control application capable of controlling a plurality of apparatuses belonging to an apparatus category to which the apparatus whose communication with the terminal device is established belongs (at least paragraph 90, 106-110; ie. anomalous device category banned).
As per Claim 13. The terminal device according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display an arrangement diagram indicating an arrangement of apparatuses owned by a user on the display, and switch display of the apparatuses included in the arrangement diagram in accordance with the generated display data (at least paragraph 89-90, 96, 52; Fig. 2; classifying a device on a network in accordance with one embodiment. The system 300 may include a user device 302 executing a user interface 304 for presentation to one or more users 306 such as security personnel or other users interested in determining which devices on a network are IoT devices).
As per Claim 14. The terminal device according to claim 13, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to establish communication between the registered apparatus and the terminal device when the registered apparatus is the IoT apparatus or the quasi-IoT apparatus satisfying the certain condition (at least paragraph 105-107); accept control of an apparatus whose communication with the terminal device is established; and control the apparatus, and when an apparatus included in the arrangement diagram is selected, the processing circuitry accepts control of the apparatus (at least paragraph 90; inspect the newly-identified IoT device or perform some other security or control measure(s). For example, the user 306 may ban the IoT device from the network, isolate the IoT device…).
Claims 16, 18-21 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 1, 3-7, 13-14 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
Claim(s) 8-12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiland in view of Smtih, further in view of Goel et al (hereinafter “Goel”, 2014/0324973).
As per Claim 8, Heiland and Smith fail to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire, from the apparatus management server, combination information indicating a combination of apparatuses capable of cooperating with each other in control among two or more apparatuses, when there are the two or more apparatuses whose communication with the terminal device is established, by transmitting apparatus information indicating each of the apparatuses to the apparatus management server; and perform cooperation control between apparatuses according to the combination indicated by the acquired combination information. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Goel. Goel discloses, in an analogous art, IoT devices being grouped together in order to coordinate control and access and prioritizing based on higher priority IoT device requests (at least Goel paragraph 7-8, 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Goel’s IoT management with Heiland and Smith as Goel teaches this supports efficient communication between different IoT groups and allows access to be controlled based on priority for contending requests.
As per Claim 9. The terminal device according to claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire a cooperation application for performing the cooperation control between apparatuses according to the combination indicated by the acquired combination information, and execute the cooperation application (at least Goel paragraph 7-8, 2).
As per Claim 10. The terminal device according to claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display an execution status of the cooperation control on the display (at least Goel paragraph 7-8, 2; Heiland paragraph 89-90, 96, 52; user interface displaying alerts and notifications).
As per Claim 11. The terminal device according to claim 8, wherein in a case where an apparatus for which the cooperation control is performed and an apparatus for which control has been accepted overlap with each other, when a priority of the cooperation control is higher than a priority of the accepted control, the cooperation control performed is prioritized, and when the priority of the cooperation control is equal to or lower than the priority of the accepted control, the accepted control is prioritized (at least Goel paragraph 7-8, 2).
As per Claim 12. The terminal device according to claim 11, wherein when the cooperation control is prioritized, the processing circuitry displays that execution of the cooperation control is prioritized on the display, and when the accepted control is prioritized, the processing circuitry displays that the cooperation control is executed after the accepted control is executed on the display (at least Goel paragraph 7-8, 2; Heiland paragraph 89-90, 96, 52; user interface displaying alerts and notifications).
As per Claim 15. Heiland and Smith fail to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire, from the apparatus management server, combination information indicating a combination of apparatuses capable of cooperating with each other in control among the two or more apparatuses, when there are the two or more apparatuses whose communication with the terminal device is established, by transmitting apparatus information indicating each of the apparatuses to the apparatus management server; and perform cooperation control between apparatuses according to the combination indicated by the acquired combination information, and in a case where there is a plurality of apparatuses for which cooperation control is performed among the apparatuses included in the arrangement diagram, the processing circuitry displays an execution status of the cooperation control in the plurality of apparatuses on the arrangement diagram. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Goel. Goel discloses, in an analogous art, IoT devices being grouped together in order to coordinate control and access and prioritizing based on higher priority IoT device requests (at least Goel paragraph 7-8, 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Goel’s IoT management with Heiland and Smith as Goel teaches this supports efficient communication between different IoT groups and allows access to be controlled based on priority for contending requests.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in first argument that Heiland discloses only binary classification of IoT device or non-IoT device. However, Heiland discloses in par. 43-46, 49, 78-84 scanning devices on a network and ternary classifying them as IoT devices, non-IoT devices and unknown devices (“i.e., devices that are not labeled as an IoT device or a non-IoT device).”
Applicant argues in second argument that Smith does not cure Heiland not disclosing such quasi-IoT apparatus.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant similarly argues in third argument that Smith discloses self-describing external modules different from the claimed “a quasi-IoT apparatus that is able to connect to the network using a retrofitted communication functionality via an external connection terminal or an infrared connection as an external option.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Heiland discloses such quasi-IoT apparatus with Smith relied on for disclosing using a retrofitted communication functionality via an external connection terminal or an infrared connection as an external option.
Smith discloses using external modules such as sensors that need to be retrofitted by connecting them to an IoT device in order to connect to the network and identification of the external modules to map them to resources (at least paragraph 1422-1435). Smith discloses an example of a sensor node with a defective radio external module that would not be IoT capable with such defective module, however, since the sensor could be retrofitted with another external radio module it is quasi-IoT capable as the sensor could be retrofitted with a new radio module to make it communicate with the IoT network and identified as such by enumerating what resources are under control by the IoT modification to the device as it is a unique device and wouldn’t have description of such.
Applicant argues thus Heiland and Smith do not disclose the amendment. However, Heiland discloses in at least paragraph 43, 46, 49, 58, that “databases 328 may store various types of data relevant in classifying network devices. This data may include, but is not limited to, data regarding which devices on a network are IoT devices, which devices are non-IoT devices, locations of devices, specific features or characteristics of devices, or the like.”
Further, see prior 892 SIVARAMAN et al where par. 157+ discuss algorithms for IoT and non-IoT device determinations and accuracy of correct classification and attributes of unknown (quasi?) device types in order to be classified correctly.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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.
/GREGORY TODD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443