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 .
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 12 recites limitations that represent the claimed invention as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 12 recites limitations that are deemed software per se. Claims limitations such as the device manager, a feature extractor, an encoder, and a classifier appear to be referring to software entities as described in Par.[0022] and elsewhere. Claim may be amended to represent the hardware structure such as a computing device with a processor and memory that may host these software programs to overcome this rejection.
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 1-11 and 13-20 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.
Claim 1 recites limitation related a single device. Claim 10 however, does not follow the established fact pattern in claim 1 because claim 10 recites three different devices as being part of a network communication flow graph with no relation to the device recited in claim 1. Claim 13 corresponds to claim 1 and claim 20 corresponds to claim 10 and are deficient in the same way.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first instance of a device record…” on line 5 and the limitation “updating the device record…” on line 12 and it is not clear if these are referring to the same device record. Claim 2 recites the limitation “updating the first instance of the device record…” which adds to the ambiguity. Claim 3 recites the limitation “updating the device record…” and it is not clear if it is referring to the first instance of the device record. Claim 4 recites the limitation “each instance of the device record…” and it is not clear from claim 1 that there are multiple instances of the device record. Other corresponding claims 14, 15, and 16 are analyzed in a similar manner.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “generating the second query comprises…” and does not appear to follow from the limitations recited in claim 1. Claim 6 recites that the second query is a query for an operational technology device communication protocol. Claim 3 recites the second query is based on the first communication protocol and the second communication protocol and appears to presume that the communication protocols are known when the second query is performed. Appropriate corrections must be made to remove this ambiguity.
Claim 1 recites predicting a type of the device is based the second feature information gathered from performing the second query. However, claims 2 and 3 appear to suggest that the second query is generated based on the prediction of the first type of device and the communication protocols. Appropriate corrections must be made to remove this ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alperovich et al. (US 2020/0210871 A1, hereinafter Alperovich).
Regarding claim 1, Alperovich teaches a method comprising:
performing a first query on a device of a network of operational technology devices, where operational technology devices operate with physical processes, [Figure 2, Par.[0036] for feature extraction; extracted features in Par.[0040] and Par.[0057]]
gathering first feature information of the device based on the first query, [extracted features in Par.[0040] and see Par.[0022] and Par.[0057]];
generating a first instance of a device record that includes the first feature information, [Figure 1 classification DB, Figure 2 and Par.[0036]];
selecting a second query based on the first instance of the device record, the second query selected from a query set for features of operational technology devices operating in a particular physical domain, [Figure 2 and associated description for iterative extraction for additional features, see Par.[0036]];
performing the second query on the device, [Par.[0036] iterative feature extraction];
gathering second feature information of the device based on the second query, [Par.[0036], Par.[0040], [0057] and Figure 2];
updating the device record based on the second feature information to generate an updated device record, [Figure 1 classification DB and Figure 4]; and
predicting a type of the device based on the updated device record, [Figures 2 and 4 and in Par.[0036]: Thus, at each iteration, updated data can be provided to the machine learning engine and rules engine, which can provide further updated predictions and confidence levels regarding the device types. The ensemble engine can then use the updated predictions and confidence levels to provide updated decisions as to the device types on a local network].
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected as above.
Regarding claim 2, Alperovich teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: predicting a first type of the device based on the first instance of the device record; and updating the first instance of the device record based on the predicted first type of the device, wherein selecting the second query comprises selecting the second query based on the updated first instance of the device record, [see Figures 2 and 4, Par.[0036]].
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected as above.
Regrading claim 4, Alperovich teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the first query from a query set for features of operational technology devices operating in the particular physical domain, wherein each instance of the device record comprises a predetermined feature set of features of operational technology devices operating in the particular physical domain, and wherein each instance of the device record indicates whether features of the predetermined feature set are present, [all citations in claim 1 apply and Figure 2 in particular].
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected as above.
Regarding claim 5, Alperovich teaches the method of claim 4, wherein features in the feature set include a protocol feature corresponding to a communication protocol and a plurality of port features, each of the port features corresponding to a different port number, [Figure 5 shows port numbers and protocols attached to them].
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected as above.
Regarding claim 6, Alperovich teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second query is a query for an operational technology device communication protocol, [Figure 2 initial scan gets IP/MAC and open ports, second iteration/extraction gets DHCP protocol, Figure 6, 602, protocol].
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected as above.
Regarding claim 9, Alperovich teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the query set is built to interrogate for features of operational technology devices operating in a particular physical domain, [see Figure 2 and associated description].
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.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alperovich in view of Park et al. (EP 3459840 A1, hereinafter Park – in the IDS filed on 6/12/2025).
Regarding claim1 2, Alperovich teaches a network device manager for a maritime vessel bridge, the device manager comprising:
a feature extractor that: performs a first query on a device of a network of operational technology devices, where the operational technology devices operate, gathering information of a feature of the device based on at least the first query, and generating a device record that includes the feature in a set of features, [Figure 2, Par.[0036] for feature extraction; extracted features in Par.[0022], Par.[0040] and Par.[0057]];
a database that stores the device record, [Figure 1];
an encoder that generates first encoded data based on the set of features; and a classifier that predicts a type of device based on the first encoded data by comparing the first encoded data to stored device feature data, [Figures 2 and 4],
wherein the device manager updates the set of features in the device record with information of the predicted type of device, [Figure 1 classification DB and Figure 4],
wherein the feature extractor:
selects a second query based on information of the predicted type of device, the second query selected from a query set for features of operational technology devices, [Figure 2 and associated description for iterative extraction for additional features, see Par.[0036]],
performs the second query on the device, [[Par.[0036] iterative feature extraction] and
gathers information of an additional feature of the device based on the second query, [Par.[0036], Par.[0040], [0057] and Figure 2],
wherein the device manager updates the set of features in the device record with the information of the additional feature, [Figure 1 classification DB and Figure 4];
wherein the encoder generates second encoded data based on the set of features including the additional feature, [Figure 2], and
wherein the classifier predicts an updated type of the device based on the second encoded data by comparing the second encoded data to the stored device feature data, [Figure 4];
Alperovich does not explicitly teach (operational devices) coupled to the maritime vessel bridge, with physical processes of the maritime vessel, maritime vessel operational technology devices;
Park, in an analogous art, teaches (operational devices) coupled to the maritime vessel bridge, with physical processes of the maritime vessel, maritime vessel operational technology devices, [Par.[0011]]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vessel data integration system for efficiently providing necessary vessel data to various third party services based on a vessel data model that can manage vessel data in different formats made by different protocols into an integrated data format, [Park: Par.[0011]].
Regarding claim 7, Alperovich teaches the method of claim 6, and does not explicitly teach wherein the particular physical domain is a vessel, the device is a vessel operational technology device coupled to a bridge of the vessel, and the second query is a query for a vessel operational technology device communication protocol of the vessel operational technology device;
Park, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the particular physical domain is a vessel, the device is a vessel operational technology device coupled to a bridge of the vessel, and the second query is a query for a vessel operational technology device communication protocol of the vessel operational technology device, [see Par.[0011]]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vessel data integration system for efficiently providing necessary vessel data to various third party services based on a vessel data model that can manage vessel data in different formats made by different protocols into an integrated data format, [Park: Par.[0011]].
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected as above.
Regarding claim 8, Alperovich and Park teach the method of claim 7, and Park teaches wherein the vessel operational technology device communication protocol comprises a National Marine Electronics Association (NMEA) protocol or an Automatic Identification System (AIS) protocol, [dependent claim is obvious over Alperovich in view of Park for the same reasons; Par.[0005] mentions NMEA].
Regarding claim 11, Alperovich teaches the method of claim 1, and teaches wherein the predicting is performed by a classifier trained on data, [see claim 1] and does not explicitly teach wherein the predicting is performed on data collected from a cyber-physical testbed set that is based on maritime hardware equipment configured into a representation of a bridge of a ship;
Park, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the predicting is performed on data collected from a cyber-physical testbed set that is based on maritime hardware equipment configured into a representation of a bridge of a ship, [see Par.[0011]]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vessel data integration system for efficiently providing necessary vessel data to various third party services based on a vessel data model that can manage vessel data in different formats made by different protocols into an integrated data format, [Park: Par.[0011]].
Examiner’s Note: claims 3, 10, 15, and 20 are deficient as explained in the 112 rejection. The ambiguity makes it impossible to determine the scope and breadth of the claims limitations to accurately apply prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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 at 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights