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 .
This is the initial office action that has been issued in response to patent application 18/721,699 filed on 06/19/2024. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been considered below. Claim 1 and 9-10 are independent claim.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/127478 filed on 10/25/2022. The application also claims foreign priority of CHINA 202111599512.0 filed on 12/24/2021.
Drawing
The drawings filed on 06/19/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS's) submitted on 09/27/2024 and 12/03/2024, are in compliance with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of International Publication No. WO 2015/196664 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the patented application contains every element of claims of the instant application. A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claims 1 and 9-10 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of International Publication No. WO2015/196664A1 in view of Rommer (US Patent Application Publication No 2015/0327073 A1).
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims got 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.
The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1 and 9-10 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
The claims 1-10 are directed to the abstract idea, an idea of itself. The claim 1 and 9-10 recite to collect, present, then comparing the data with the stored data. Limitations in claim herein can be related to different situations like collecting new information and comparing new and stored information. Claim 1 recites receiving identification data, comparing the identification data and find out if they match and connecting the computing device when matching takes place. Thus all of these concepts relate to comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify option. The steps can also be related to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claims do not require the use of a machine and may simply be performed mentally or with a pen and paper. A person can do the calculations and make the decisions without the assistance of a computer. Therefore the claims are abstract. The machines claimed to implement the abstract idea are merely generic computer components, including the processor, modules, computing system and computer readable medium. There is nothing present in the claims to indicate that these computing elements differ from any standard computer setup that can execute code with instructions as detailed in the claims.
Claims can be directed to an abstract idea that stands alone without technical implementation required to execute it to be considered abstract. Even if the steps of collecting data, comparing data, updating data and sending the updated data back are implemented via computer instructions, the step of “a user pressing a button to initiate the process” is directed to a conventional human activity that is irrelevant to the patentable features of the instant claim(s) (mayo v. prometheus). The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A generic computer (or equivalent circuitry) to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry does not qualify as “significantly more”. The steps recited in claim 1, 9 and 14 are considered abstract idea that does not require computer technology because a version of these steps can exist outside of the computer technology currently claimed to implement these steps. Computer components, including the processor, modules, computing system and computer readable medium have been recognized by the courts as computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they repeat the essential elements of claim 1 and 9-10 respectively. Thus dependent claims inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore they are rejected based on the same rational as applied to their parent claims above.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 10 recites “a computer readable storage medium, storing a computer program”. “Computer readable storage medium” as recited in the claim is interpreted as no more than software program. Computer programs per se do not fit within recognized categories of statutory subject matter.
Claim 10 recites “computer readable storage medium” is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall outside the scope of patent-eligible subject matter at least because the claimed computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program, in light of the supporting disclosure, is broad enough to encompass transitory embodiments. (See MPEP 2106-2106.01) Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories:
i. transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, (Fed. Cir. 2007);
vi. a computer program per se, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72.
A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 of this title, 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rommer (US Patent Application Publication No 2015/0327073 A1) in view of Hao (Patent Application Publication No. CN105743723).
Regarding Claim 1, Rommer discloses a single board management method, comprising:
obtaining attribute information of a single board, wherein the attribute information is immutable (Rommer, ¶[0070]- ¶[0075], UE sends the MAC address associated with WLAN. The access controller may receive a GUID related to the operating system of the UE. The access controller uses the received MAC address and the GUID to control the UE’s access to services provided by the communication network);
determining whether the single board is an illegal single board according to the attribute information (Rommer, ¶[0064]-¶[0065], equipment identity register refers to a database for storing a list of equipment identities. It may constitute a list of equipment not allowed to receive services from the network; in this case the list constitutes a black list of equipment identities. ¶[0070]- ¶[0075], the access controller uses a combination of MAC address and IMEI to perform an equipment identity check. ¶[0076], the result of the equipment identity check is then used by the access controller to determine whether the UE is granted access to the services); and
in response to that the single board is the illegal single board, reporting alarm information, and prohibiting operation of the single board (Rommer, ¶[0017], it is possible that a stolen and blacklisted UE can obtain full services via a WLAN hotspot. This makes it very attractive for criminals to put focus on illegally acquiring UE. ¶[0108], the algorithm may check the permission of each of the received equipment identities, and disallows the UE’s access if at least one equipment identifier is found in the database. ¶[0113], a result is returned to the sender of the access verification request indicating to reject the access request. ¶[0135], 24: the AAA server processes the information received from the EIR. The IMEISV is found illegal, so the AAA server generates an EAP-Request/SIM-Notification message to report the terminal about the illegal IMEISV rejection reason).
Rommer does not explicitly discuss the following limitation that Hao teaches:
a single board (Hao, page 4-5. ¶[0010], the single board identification is pre-written into the single board of the device).
Rommer in view of Hao are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “methods for user authentication”. 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 invention of Rommer in view of Hao to include the idea of identifying single board identification information written into the equipment single board by single board information writing tool so that identification can be obtained during detection to prevent cross-selling (Hao, ¶[0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Rommer in view of Hao discloses the single board management method according to claim 1, wherein in response to being applied to a network management equipment, the obtaining the attribute information of the single board comprises:
obtaining a first identification in the attribute information of the single board (Rommer, ¶[0064], examples of equipment identities are IMEI, MAC, GUID, UDID. UE may comprise several identifiers, some of which may be related to hardware of the equipment, others may be related to the operating system software of the UE. ¶[0070]- ¶[0075], the access controller uses a combination of MAC address and IMEI to perform an equipment identity check. Also Hao, ¶[0037], if the board identification information matches the preset identification information, it is confirmed that the board is not being sold in parallel); and
the determining whether the single board is the illegal single board according to the attribute information comprises:
determining whether the single board is the illegal single board according to the first identification (Rommer, ¶[0017], it is possible that a stolen and blacklisted UE can obtain full services via a WLAN hotspot. This makes it very attractive for criminals to put focus on illegally acquiring UE. ¶[0108], the algorithm may check the permission of each of the received equipment identities, and disallows the UE’s access if at least one equipment identifier is found in the database. ¶[0113], a result is returned to the sender of the access verification request indicating to reject the access request. ¶[0135], 24: the AAA server processes the information received from the EIR. The IMEISV is found illegal, so the AAA server generates an EAP-Request/SIM-Notification message to report the terminal about the illegal IMEISV rejection reason).
Regarding claim 3, Rommer in view of Hao discloses the single board management method according to claim 2, wherein the determining whether the single board is the illegal single board according to the first identification comprises:
querying an identification in a pre-stored blacklist (Rommer, ¶[0064]-¶[0065], equipment identity register refers to a database for storing a list of equipment identities. It may constitute a list of equipment not allowed to receive services from the network; in this case the list constitutes a black list of equipment identities. ¶[0070]- ¶[0075], the access controller uses a combination of MAC address and IMEI to perform an equipment identity check. ¶[0076], the result of the equipment identity check is then used by the access controller to determine whether the UE is granted access to the services); and
in response to that the first identification matches any identification in the blacklist, determining that the single board is the illegal single board (Rommer, ¶[0064]-¶[0065], equipment identity register refers to a database for storing a list of equipment identities. It may constitute a list of equipment not allowed to receive services from the network; in this case the list constitutes a black list of equipment identities. ¶[0070]- ¶[0075], the access controller uses a combination of MAC address and IMEI to perform an equipment identity check. ¶[0076], the result of the equipment identity check is then used by the access controller to determine whether the UE is granted access to the services).
Regarding claim 4, Rommer in view of Hao discloses the single board management method according to claim 2, wherein the determining whether the single board is the illegal single board according to the first identification comprises:
querying an identification in a pre-stored whitelist (Rommer, ¶[0064]-¶[0065], equipment identity register refers to a database for storing a list of equipment identities. It may constitute a list of equipment not allowed to receive services from the network; in this case the list constitutes a black list of equipment identities. ¶[0070]- ¶[0075], the access controller uses a combination of MAC address and IMEI to perform an equipment identity check. ¶[0076], the result of the equipment identity check is then used by the access controller to determine whether the UE is granted access to the services); and
in response to that the first identification does not match any identification in the whitelist, determining that the single board is the illegal single board (Rommer, ¶[0064]-¶[0065], equipment identity register refers to a database for storing a list of equipment identities. It may constitute a list of equipment not allowed to receive services from the network; in this case the list constitutes a black list of equipment identities. ¶[0070]- ¶[0075], the access controller uses a combination of MAC address and IMEI to perform an equipment identity check. ¶[0076], the result of the equipment identity check is then used by the access controller to determine whether the UE is granted access to the services).
Regarding Claim 5, Rommer in view of Hao discloses the single board management method according to claim 2, wherein the first identification comprises an electronic IDentity, EID of the single board in response to leaving a factory (Rommer, ¶[0064], examples of equipment identities are IMEI, MAC, GUID, UDID. UE may comprise several identifiers, some of which may be related to hardware of the equipment, others may be related to the operating system software of the UE. Also Hao, ¶[0037], if the board identification information matches the preset identification information, it is confirmed that the board is not being sold in parallel).
Regarding Claim 6, Rommer in view of Hao discloses the single board management method according to claim 1, wherein in response to being applied to a network element, the obtaining the attribute information of the single board comprises:
obtaining a second identification in the attribute information of the single board (Rommer, ¶[0064], examples of equipment identities are IMEI, MAC, GUID, UDID. UE may comprise several identifiers, some of which may be related to hardware of the equipment, others may be related to the operating system software of the UE. ¶[0070]- ¶[0075], the access controller uses a combination of MAC address and IMEI to perform an equipment identity check. Also Hao, ¶[0037], if the board identification information matches the preset identification information, it is confirmed that the board is not being sold in parallel); and
the determining whether the single board is the illegal single board according to the attribute information comprises:
determining whether the single board is the illegal single board according to operator information of the network element and the second identification (Rommer, ¶[0017], it is possible that a stolen and blacklisted UE can obtain full services via a WLAN hotspot. This makes it very attractive for criminals to put focus on illegally acquiring UE. ¶[0108], the algorithm may check the permission of each of the received equipment identities, and disallows the UE’s access if at least one equipment identifier is found in the database. ¶[0113], a result is returned to the sender of the access verification request indicating to reject the access request. ¶[0135], 24: the AAA server processes the information received from the EIR. The IMEISV is found illegal, so the AAA server generates an EAP-Request/SIM-Notification message to report the terminal about the illegal IMEISV rejection reason).
Regarding Claim 7, Rommer in view of Hao discloses the single board management method according to claim 6, wherein the second identification is generated in response to that the single board is powered on for a first time (Rommer, ¶[0064], examples of equipment identities are IMEI, MAC, GUID, UDID. UE may comprise several identifiers, some of which may be related to hardware of the equipment, others may be related to the operating system software of the UE. ¶[0070]- ¶[0075], the access controller uses a combination of MAC address and IMEI to perform an equipment identity check. Also Hao, page 25-26, ¶[0080], the board information is stored in advance in a specific format in a storage area that will not be lost when the board is powered off. Once the detection is started, the network management system can obtain the board identification information of the main control board and the main control board can obtain the board identification information).
Regarding Claim 8, Rommer in view of Hao discloses the single board management method according to claim 6, wherein the network element supports the network management equipment to set the second identification to the single board powered on for a first time by an input interface of the network element (Rommer, ¶[0064], examples of equipment identities are IMEI, MAC, GUID, UDID. UE may comprise several identifiers, some of which may be related to hardware of the equipment, others may be related to the operating system software of the UE. ¶[0070]- ¶[0075], the access controller uses a combination of MAC address and IMEI to perform an equipment identity check. Also Hao, page 25-26, ¶[0080], the board information is stored in advance in a specific format in a storage area that will not be lost when the board is powered off. Once the detection is started, the network management system can obtain the board identification information of the main control board and the main control board can obtain the board identification information);
wherein the single board powered on for the first time is in a state of being connected to the network element (Rommer, ¶[0064], examples of equipment identities are IMEI, MAC, GUID, UDID. UE may comprise several identifiers, some of which may be related to hardware of the equipment, others may be related to the operating system software of the UE. ¶[0070]- ¶[0075], the access controller uses a combination of MAC address and IMEI to perform an equipment identity check. Also Hao, page 25-26, ¶[0080], the board information is stored in advance in a specific format in a storage area that will not be lost when the board is powered off. Once the detection is started, the network management system can obtain the board identification information of the main control board and the main control board can obtain the board identification information).
Regarding Claim 9, Rommer in view of Hao discloses an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (Rommer, Fig-2); and,
a memory communicated with the at least one processor (Rommer, Fig-2); and
wherein the memory is configured for storing an instruction executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions is executed by the at least one processor so that the at least one processor executes the single board management method according to claim 1 (see mapping of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Rommer in view of Hao discloses a computer readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the single board management method according to claim 1 is implemented (see mapping of claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-Form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASIKA NIPA whose telephone number is (571)272-8923. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on 571-272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/WASIKA NIPA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433