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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending in the present application, with claims 1, 14, and 17 being independent. Note – see claim objection for renumbering of two dependent claims from 15/16 to 21/22.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 15 March 2024 and 01 May 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,612.
Current Application (18/692468)
U.S. Patent No. 12,244,612
1. A system comprising: edge devices that comprise communication circuitry; and one or more security components.
1. A method of performing a computer network action, comprising: receiving data from at least one industrial internet of things (IIOT) device located in a field; performing at least one artificial intelligence analysis of the data received from the at least one IIOT device; determining presence of a fault condition or event on a network with the data based on the at least one artificial intelligence analysis of the data received from the at least one IIOT device; prioritizing a risk of the fault condition or event over a plurality of additional risks associated with a plurality of additional fault conditions or events; when the fault condition or event is present, performing an automated action in response to the fault condition or event through the artificial intelligence analysis, wherein the automated action involves changing at least one parameter of the network and at least one parameter of the at least one IIOT device, wherein the automated action is specified and triggered by running a playbook of a plurality of playbooks on a computer-based system that includes a neural network, wherein the neural network is configured to predict the automated action for the fault condition or event with learning capability developed over time, wherein the neural network is configured to assign different weights to a plurality of different fault conditions or events on the network, wherein the neural network is configured to modify the different weights over time based on threat levels of security threats, wherein the plurality of playbooks is set in a hierarchy based on the threat levels of the security threats; and continuing to receive further data from the at least one Internet connected IIOT device located in the field, when the fault condition or event is not present.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more security components comprise a security code interface.
11. The method according to claim 1, further comprising sending the automated action to a privileged module of the IIOT device, wherein the privileged module comprises an edge device.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more security components comprise a mobile device application that comprises security code sensing circuitry.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the data from the at least one IIOT device located in the field comprises receiving the data at a cloud monitoring service, wherein the data comprises at least one of communications data from the at least one IIOT device and communications data to the at least one IIOT device; wherein determining the presence of the fault condition or event on the network with the data based on the at least one artificial intelligence analysis of the data received from the at least one IIOT device comprises determining the presence of the fault condition or event by the cloud monitoring service; when the fault condition or event is present, selectively performing at least one of: notifying a security operations center of the fault condition or event, and performing the automated action at the security operations center; or sending the automated action to a privileged module of the IIOT device, wherein the privileged module is an edge device, and performing the automated action at the privileged module of the IIOT device; wherein performing the automated action consists of at least two of: notifying of increased network activity m response to a detection of reconnaissance and probing; denying a request to provide an addition to the network in response to a delivery attack; disabling access to additional computer resources in response to a system compromise; disabling software installation for a purpose not included in a plurality of permissible purposes in response to an installation on an exploited system; removing malicious code in response to a malware infection; configuring a web server to protect against a flood request in response to a distributed denial of service attack; maintaining a list of a plurality of security sensitive installations in response to an unauthorized access to the network; shutting down access to a portion of a computer system in response to a breach resulting from an insider malicious actor; and monitoring actions and restricting access to pre-authorized security function levels in response to an unauthorized change in privileged access
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 in the current application (18/692468) is an obvious variant of the claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,612. The other minor differences between the claim the US Patent and claims 1-3 in the current application do not appear to change the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/464427 (reference application).
Current Application (18/692468)
Reference Application
1. A system comprising: edge devices that comprise communication circuitry; and one or more security components.
1. A method comprising: receiving, via an application programming interface (API) of an edge-based inference service system, a request for a machine learning inference from a client device; forwarding, via the API, the request to one or more edge computing resources, wherein the one or more edge computing resources comprise one or more edge computing resource nodes, and wherein the API is configured to interface with one or more hardware devices of the one or more edge computing resource nodes based on the request; generating, via the one or more edge computing resource nodes, the machine learning inference; and sending, via the API, the machine learning inference to the client device.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein generating, via the one or more edge computing resource nodes, the machine learning inference comprises accessing data stored in one or more databases of the edge-based inference service system.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the one or more databases store documentation, licensing information, security information, or some combination thereof.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 in the current application (18/692468) is an obvious variant of the claim 8 of the reference application. The other minor differences between the claims in the reference application and claim 1 in the current application do not appear to change the scope of the claimed invention. Similar mapping can be performed for the noted dependent claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) edge devices that comprise communication circuitry; and one or more security components, wherein the one or more security components comprise a mobile device application that comprises security code sensing circuitry, wherein the mobile device application comprises a comparison program that compares security codes sensed by the security code sensing circuitry. Claim 14 recites receiving security codes from a plurality of edge devices without accessing the Internet; comparing the security codes without accessing the Internet; and based at least in part on the comparing, connecting the plurality of edge devices for communication without accessing the Internet. Claim 17 recites executing a trained machine learning model on an edge device; and based at least in part on the executing, detecting a change in state of the edge device.
As drafted, the claimed limitations are mental processes that could be done with a human using pen and paper. For instance, with respect to claims 6 and 14, the limitation “compares security codes sensed by the security code sensing circuitry”, and “comparing the security codes without accessing the Internet” are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is comparing security codes. The limitation “executing a trained machine learning model on an edge device; and based at least in part on the executing, detecting a change in state of the edge device” recited in claim 17 is a processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is executing a trained machine learning model and detecting a change in the state of the edge device. The limitations can be done by processes that could be performed using a pen and paper. Thus, the claims, as drafted, falls at least within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the edge devices/security components, is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Claim 14 does not require a computer or machine. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 14 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a edge device/security components to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, as noted, claim 14 does not explicitly require a generic computer component. Thus, claims 6, 14, and 17 are not patent eligible.
Claims 15, 16, 15, 16, and 18-22 recite additional limitations that are processes that could be performed by a human using pen and paper. For instance, claim 18 further requires the change in state to correspond to an unacceptable change indicative of a security breach. Accordingly, the considerations laid out for claims 14 and 17 apply to the noted dependent claims. Therefore, as currently drafted, the noted dependent claims are not patent eligible. Note see claim objection for renumber of claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented. The originally filed claims have two claim 15s and two claim 16s. As such,
Misnumbered claim 15 (comprising executing a machine learning model...) has been renumbered 21.
Misnumbered claim 16 (comprising comparing object snapshots to detect a change...) has been renumbered 22.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-22 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the scope of claimed limitation is not immediately clear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what constitutes an edge device. The specification describes an edge device generically, such as paragraph 164 which sets forth “an edge device or another device (e.g., a mobile device) may include environment detection circuitry”. Paragraph 200 sets forth “connectivity matters at a field site as edge devices are more useful where connectivity exists” Paragraph 205 sets forth “Such an approach can provide for high fidelity security alerts for edge devices, even if they are deployed in places with expensive low bandwidth connectivity or offline” Taking the specification into account, the scope of an edge device remains unclear. Furthermore, does the claim require multiple edge devices and if so, does it require an arrangement of them? It is also unclear as to if the claim does anything, since it seems the claim comprises a generic “edge device” and “security components”. Finally, it is unclear as to what constitutes the security components as claimed.
Claims 14 and 17 also recite a generically worded edge device and are accordingly rejected for substantially similar reasons with respect to edge device as claim 1.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the totality of the deficiencies and are also rejected for at least the reason(s) set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 3, the scope of claimed limitation is not immediately clear. For instance, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves and/or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, it is not immediately clear as to what comprises the generically worded “security code sensing circuitry”. The disclosure sets forth in paragraph 231 “As an example, a system can include edge devices that include communication circuitry; and one or more security components. In such an example, the one or more security components can include a security code interface and/or a mobile device application that includes security code sensing circuitry, for example, consider security code sensing circuitry is operatively coupled to a camera where, for example, the mobile device application includes an augmented reality program that operates using images acquired by the camera. As an example, a mobile device application can include a comparison program that compares security codes sensed by a security code sensing circuitry”. However, the scope of a security code sensing circuitry remains unclear. Furthermore, how does a mobile device application (which presumably is software) comprise security code sensing circuitry? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the totality of the deficiencies and are also rejected for at least the reason(s) set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 6, the scope of claimed limitation is not immediately clear. For instance, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves and/or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, it is not immediately clear as to how the security codes are “sensed” by the security code sensing circuitry. What does sensing security codes mean and how are they sensed? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 10, the scope of claimed limitation is not immediately clear. For instance, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves and/or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by “measures at least one object of an object-based framework of one or more of the edge devices”. What constitutes an object-based framework of the edge devices? Is it linking the edge devices? The disclosure sets forth in paragraph 233 “one or more security components can include a state characterization component where, for example, the state characterization component measures at least one object of an object-based framework of one or more of the edge devices. In such an example, the state characterization component can compare one or more measurements”. However, taking into consideration the disclosure, the scope of the limitation remains unclear. In addition, it is not clear as to if any structure is present to perform the method as currently claimed. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 14, the scope of claimed limitation is not immediately clear. For instance, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves and/or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, it is not immediately clear as to which steps are not “accessing the Internet” and the scope of internet. For instance, to what are the plurality of edge device being connected for communication without accessing the Internet – and what are the bounds of the Internet? Is it a local network? Connections via a specific protocol? Etc? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the totality of the deficiencies and are also rejected for at least the reason(s) set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 17, the scope of claimed limitation is not immediately clear. For instance, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves and/or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, it is not immediately clear as to the scope of detecting a change in state of the edge device. What is a change in state of the edge device – and how is that based at least in part on the trained machine learning model? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claim 21 recites a substantially similar limitation as to that of claim 17 and is also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that of claim 17.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the totality of the deficiencies and are also rejected for at least the reason(s) set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 18, the scope of claimed limitation is not immediately clear. For instance, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves and/or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, it is not immediately clear as to the scope of the state corresponding to an unacceptable change indicative of a security breach. What constitutes the unacceptable change and how is that indicative of a security breach? How is the state an unacceptable change? Is that like altering or changing the device itself? Is it related to authentication? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the totality of the deficiencies and are also rejected for at least the reason(s) set forth for the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sakai (US PG Publication 2019/0320317).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai teaches a system comprising: edge devices (printer 502, PC 503 in fig. 5, paragraphs 28 and 45) that comprise communication circuitry (see for instance, paragraphs 24 and 28 and fig. 2, ‘wireless communication unit’); and one or more security components (“authentication processing unit 403” in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Sakai teaches the system of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the one or more security components comprise a security code interface (see for instance, paragraphs 24-26 and 28. An input unit is used by the user to operate the communication apparatus by making various inputs or the like, see for instance, paragraph 24. “An authentication processing unit 303 performs authentication of the target apparatus using a QR code information or the like that the setting apparatus acquires. An authentication process to be performed by the setting apparatus (to be described later) is performed by the authentication processing unit 303”, see for instance, paragraph 26. A QR code can be displayed, see for instance, paragraphs 22, and 29-33).
Regarding claim 3, Sakai teaches the system of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the one or more security components comprise a mobile device application that comprises security code sensing circuitry (see for instance, paragraph 29, the smartphone (mobile device) reads the QR codes. An image capturing unit serves as a reading unit that reads a QR code or the like by image capture, see for instance, paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 4, Sakai teaches the system of claim 3 and further teaches wherein the security code sensing circuitry is operatively coupled to a camera (see for instance, paragraph 29, the smartphone (mobile device) reads the QR codes. An image capturing unit serves as a reading unit that reads a QR code or the like by image capture, see for instance, paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 6, Sakai teaches the system of claim 3 and further teaches wherein the mobile device application comprises a comparison program that compares security codes sensed by the security code sensing circuitry (An authentication processing unit 303 performs authentication of the target apparatus using a QR code information or the like that the setting apparatus acquires, see for instance, paragraph 26. If the authentication request contains the correct hash value, the authentication process has succeeded, see for instance, paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 9, Sakai teaches the system of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the one or more security components comprise a state characterization component (see for instance, figs. 6 and 7. An authentication processing unit 303 performs authentication of the target apparatus using a QR code information or the like that the setting apparatus acquires, see for instance, paragraph 26. If the authentication request contains the correct hash value, the authentication process has succeeded, see for instance, paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 10, Sakai teaches the system of claim 9 and further teaches wherein the state characterization component measures at least one object of an object-based framework of one or more of the edge devices (see for instance, figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 11, Sakai teaches the system of claim 10 and further teaches wherein the state characterization component compares one or more measurements (An authentication processing unit 303 performs authentication of the target apparatus using a QR code information or the like that the setting apparatus acquires, see for instance, paragraph 26. After the process is started, the smartphone prompts the user to determine whether to carry on the process in double mode or triple mode, see paragraph 32. The QR code that the smartphone read at S603 may contain information necessary for constructing the network, such as the service set identifier and a cryptographic key, see for instance, paragraph 34. If the authentication request contains the correct hash value, the authentication process has succeeded, see for instance, paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 14, Sakai teaches a method comprising: receiving security codes (QR codes, see for instance, paragraphs 22, 28, and 29) from a plurality of edge devices without accessing the Internet (printer 502, PC 503 in fig. 5, paragraphs 28 and 45. Smartphone reads the QR codes of the printer and the notebook PC, which are communication apparatuses, see for instance, paragraph 29);
comparing the security codes without accessing the Internet (see for instance, figs. 6 and 7. The smartphone acquires information on a public key contained in the read QR code (S605), see paragraph 35. “The information on the public key is one example of information on the other communication apparatus. The information may not be the public key information but may be identification information, such as address information on or a universally unique identifier (UUID) of the other communication apparatus. After acquiring the public key information, the smartphone 501 calculates the hash value of the acquired public key information and transmits an authentication request containing the hash value to the other communication apparatus (S606). When the address of the other communication apparatus is specified from the read QR code, the smartphone 501 may transmit the authentication request by unicast by specifying the address”, see for instance, paragraph 35. When receiving the authentication request, the communication apparatus determines whether a hash value contained in the authentication request matches a hash value in the public key information of the communication apparatus (S702), see for instance, paragraph 46); and
based at least in part on the comparing, connecting the plurality of edge devices for communication without accessing the Internet (The smartphone 501 incorporates the encrypted communication parameters in a setting response and transmits the response to the other communication apparatus (S613), see for instance, paragraph 39. The communication parameters transmitted at that time include at least information on the communication channel selected at S612, see for instance, paragraph 39. The smartphone 501 incorporates the encrypted communication parameters in a setting response and transmits the setting response to the second other communication apparatus (S615), see for instance, paragraph 42. This allows, even if three or more communication apparatuses participate in the network 504, the GO determination process to be promptly performed among the participating communication apparatuses, see for instance, paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 15, Sakai teaches the method of claim 14 and further teaches wherein the receiving and the comparing is via a mobile device (see for instance, paragraphs 29-35 and fig. 6. the smartphone 501 reads the QR code of another communication apparatus...After acquiring the public key information, the smartphone 501 calculates the hash value of the acquired public key information and transmits an authentication request containing the hash value to the other communication apparatus (S606), see for instance, paragraph 35).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US PG Publication 2019/0320317) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Krejei et al. (US PG Publication 2021/0216618).
Regarding claim 5, Sakai teaches the system of claim 4, but does not appear to teach wherein the mobile device application comprises an augmented reality program that operates using images acquired by the camera.
In the same art of authentication, Krejei teaches the mobile device application comprises an augmented reality program that operates using images acquired by the camera (see for instance, paragraph 18 and 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Sakai and Krejei in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate augmented reality as taught by Krejei into Sakai’s authentication system, as administering authentication in augmented reality, such as described by Krejei was well known at the time of the effective filing date invention and would have yielded predictable results in combination with Sakai.
The modification of Sakai with Krejei would have allowed the mobile device application to comprise an augmented reality program that operates using images acquired by the camera.
The motivation for combining Sakai with Krejei would have been to improve the user experience, and enhance functionality, see for instance, Krejei, paragraph 2.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US PG Publication 2019/0320317) as applied to claim 1above, and further in view of Lewis et al. (US PG Publication 2019/0340605).
Regarding claim 7, Sakai teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the one or more security components comprise a machine learning model.
In the same art of authentication, Lewis teaches the one or more security components comprise a machine learning model (see for instance, paragraphs 29, 39, 41, and 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Sakai and Lewis in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate machine learning as taught by Lewis into Sakai’s authentication system, as incorporating a machine learning model, such as described by Lewis was well known at the time of the effective filing date invention and would have yielded predictable results in combination with Sakai.
The modification of Sakai with Lewis would have allowed the one or more security components to comprise a machine learning model.
The motivation for combining Sakai with Lewis would have been to use known techniques, improve the user experience, and enhance functionality, see for instance, Lewis, paragraph 29.
Regarding claim 8, Sakai in view of Lewis teach the system of claim 7 and further teach wherein the machine learning model comprises a trained machine learning model that processes information generated by one or more of the edge devices (see for instance, Sakai, paragraphs 22 and 28 and Lewis, paragraphs 29, 39, 41, and 44). The motivation to combine Sakai and Lewis is the same as that which was set forth with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, Sakai teaches the system of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the one or more security components comprise a state characterization component and a machine learning model (see for instance, figs. 6 and 7. An authentication processing unit 303 performs authentication of the target apparatus using a QR code information or the like that the setting apparatus acquires, see for instance, paragraph 26. If the authentication request contains the correct hash value, the authentication process has succeeded, see for instance, paragraph 36. An authentication processing unit 303 performs authentication of the target apparatus using a QR code information or the like that the setting apparatus acquires, see for instance, paragraph 26. After the process is started, the smartphone prompts the user to determine whether to carry on the process in double mode or triple mode, see paragraph 32. The QR code that the smartphone read at S603 may contain information necessary for constructing the network, such as the service set identifier and a cryptographic key, see for instance, paragraph 34. Sakai however, does not teach that the one or more security components comprise a machine learning model.
In the same art of authentication, Lewis teaches the one or more security components comprise a machine learning model (see for instance, paragraphs 29, 39, 41, and 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Sakai and Lewis in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate machine learning as taught by Lewis into Sakai’s authentication system, as incorporating a machine learning model, such as described by Lewis was well known at the time of the effective filing date invention and would have yielded predictable results in combination with Sakai.
The modification of Sakai with Lewis would have allowed the one or more security components comprise a state characterization component and a machine learning model.
The motivation for combining Sakai with Lewis would have been to use known techniques, improve the user experience, and enhance functionality, see for instance, Lewis, paragraph 29.
Regarding claim 13, Sakai in view of Lewis teach the system of claim 12 and further teach wherein the one or more security components comprise a security code interface (see for instance, paragraphs 24-26 and 28. An input unit is used by the user to operate the communication apparatus by making various inputs or the like, see for instance, paragraph 24. “An authentication processing unit 303 performs authentication of the target apparatus using a QR code information or the like that the setting apparatus acquires. An authentication process to be performed by the setting apparatus (to be described later) is performed by the authentication processing unit 303”, see for instance, paragraph 26. A QR code can be displayed, see for instance, paragraphs 22, and 29-33)
Allowable Subject Matter
Since no prior art is being applied to the claims, claims 16, 21, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Since no prior art is being applied to the claim, claims 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615