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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
2. Applicant argues that the prior art Pan in view of Singh do not disclose “generating, by the computing system, configuration information for the network device”, as recited in independent claims.
In response to Applicants arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant and would like to show that Pan in view of Singh discloses generating, by the computing system, configuration information for the network device. The Examiner points out that Pan discloses detecting whether the software version of each terminal device is up to date; wherein when the software version is not up to date, assigning the detected terminal device is in the abnormal state (claim 3). Applicant’s representative argues “nowhere does Singh disclose generating configuration information…second, Singh does not disclose network device”. Examiner asserts that “detecting whether the software version of each terminal device is up to date” in Pan is germane to the configuration information for the network device, as described in Applicant’s invention. Examiner points out that the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”.
As such the Examiner maintains the rejection.
3. Applicant argues that the prior art Pan in view of Singh do not disclose “based on the firmware information, making, by the computing system, a determination that the version of the firmware currently installed on the network device is incapable of generating valid authentication information subsequent to an expiration date that occurred prior to a current date”, as recited in independent claims.
In response to Applicants arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant and would like to show that Pan in view of Singh discloses based on the firmware information, making, by the computing system, a determination that the version of the firmware currently installed on the network device is incapable of generating valid authentication information subsequent to an expiration date that occurred prior to a current date. The Examiner points out that Singh discloses Nudm_UECM service instance 104A1 is using an incorrect or out of date software version and, as a result, generates responses with incorrect IEs (Paragraph 52). Examiner asserts that the out of date software version in Singh is germane to the “subsequent to an expiration date that occurred prior to a current date”, as described in Applicant’s invention.
Examiner points out that the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”.
As such the Examiner maintains the rejection.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10-11, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US Patent Pub. 2018/0123917) in view of Singh (US Patent Pub. 2025/0267088).
As per claims 1, 11 and 16: Pan discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a network request from a network device, wherein the network request comprises firmware information indicative of a version of firmware currently installed on the network device (claim 3; which also triggers a software update request to the manager according to the manager information of the abnormal terminal device);
based on the firmware information, making, by the computing system, a determination that the version of the firmware currently installed on the network device is incapable of generating valid authentication information subsequent to an expiration date that occurred prior to a current date (claim 3; detecting whether the software version of each terminal device is up to date; wherein when the software version is not up to date, assigning the detected terminal device is in the abnormal state); and
Pan does not specifically disclose responsive to the determination, generating, by the computing system, configuration information for the network device comprising instructions to utilize a poisoned network entity, wherein the poisoned network entity is configured with a false current date that precedes the expiration date (See Singh; Paragraph 52; Nudm_UECM service instance 104A1 is using an incorrect or out of date software version and, as a result, generates responses with incorrect IEs).
Therefore, it 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, having the teachings of Pan and Singh in it’s entirety, to modify the technique of Pan for detecting whether the software version of each terminal device is up to date; wherein when the software version is not up to date, assigning the detected terminal device is in the abnormal state by adopting Singh's teaching for wherein an instance using an incorrect or out of date software version then, as a result, generates responses with incorrect IEs. The motivation would have been to improve remote recovery and re-establishment of identity for network devices.
As per claims 2 and 17: The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing, by the computing system, the configuration information to the network device (Paragraph; the log file can record: manager information, software information, version information, coupling status, temperature information of main heat-generating components, and running information of each terminal device 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d).
As per claims 3 and 18: The method of claim 1, wherein generating the configuration information for the network device comprising the instructions to utilize the poisoned network entity comprises:
generating, by the computing system, the configuration information for the network device, wherein the configuration information comprises instructions to utilize a set of poisoned network entities, each poisoned network entity of the set of poisoned network entities being configured based on the false current date that precedes the expiration date (See Singh; Paragraph 52; Nudm_UECM service instance 104A1 is using an incorrect or out of date software version and, as a result, generates responses with incorrect IEs).
As per claim 6: The method of claim 5, wherein generating the configuration information for the network device comprising the instructions to utilize the poisoned DNS server further comprises:
receiving, by the computing system via the poisoned management service implemented by the computing system, a firmware update request comprising authentication information for the network device (See Singh; Paragraph 40; An authentication server function (AUSF) 112 performs authentication services for user equipment (UEs), such as user equipment (UE) 114, seeking access to the network);
determining, by the computing system, that the authentication information for the network device is valid for the network device on the false current date; and responsive to determining that the authentication information for the network device Is valid (See Singh; Paragraph 52; Nudm_UECM service instance 104A1 is using an incorrect or out of date software version and, as a result, generates responses with incorrect IEs),
providing, by the computing system, firmware update information to the network device via the poisoned management service (See Singh; Paragraph 52).
As per claim 7: The method of claim 6, wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the computing system, a second network request from the network device, wherein the second network request comprises valid authentication information that is valid for the network device on the current date (See Singh; Paragraph 40; An authentication server function (AUSF) 112 performs authentication services for user equipment (UEs), such as user equipment (UE) 114, seeking access to the network).
As per claim 8 and 14: The method of claim 1, wherein the network request comprises an Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment request (See Singh; Paragraph 3; Internet protocol (IP)).
As per claim 9 and 15: The method of claim 8, wherein the network request comprises an Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment request (See Singh; Paragraph 3; Internet protocol (IP)).
Pan in view of Singh do not specifically disclose wherein the IP address assignment request comprises a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) request (See Gundavelli; Paragraph 27; request for an IP address comprisesDynamic Host Configuration Protocol request message).
Therefore, it 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, having the teachings of Pan, Singh and in it’s entirety, to modify the technique of Pan for detecting whether the software version of each terminal device is up to date; wherein when the software version is not up to date, assigning the detected terminal device is in the abnormal state by adopting Singh's teaching for wherein an instance using an incorrect or out of date software version then, as a result, generates responses with incorrect IEs. The motivation would have been to improve remote recovery and re-establishment of identity for network devices.
As per claim 10: The method of claim 1, wherein the poisoned network entity is implemented using at least one of the one or more computing devices of the computing system (See claim 1; installing a log tool into each of a plurality of terminal devices in a monitoring network, to control each terminal device to update and output a log file to a file server each preset time).
Claim(s) 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US Patent Pub. 2018/0123917) in view of Singh (US Patent Pub. 2025/0267088) and in view of Gundavelli (US Patent Pub. 2017/0188223).
As per claim 9 and 15: The method of claim 8, wherein the network request comprises an Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment request (See Singh; Paragraph 3; Internet protocol (IP)).
Pan in view of Singh do not specifically disclose wherein the IP address assignment request comprises a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) request (See Gundavelli; Paragraph 27; request for an IP address comprisesDynamic Host Configuration Protocol request message).
Therefore, it 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, having the teachings of Pan, Singh and in it’s entirety, to modify the technique of Pan for detecting whether the software version of each terminal device is up to date; wherein when the software version is not up to date, assigning the detected terminal device is in the abnormal state by adopting Singh's teaching for wherein an instance using an incorrect or out of date software version then, as a result, generates responses with incorrect IEs. The motivation would have been to improve remote recovery and re-establishment of identity for network devices.
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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-1472. The examiner can normally be reached 730-330pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached at 5712705440. 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.
/ANTHONY D BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408