CTNF 18/819,541 CTNF 84603 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA CLAIM INTERPRETATION 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an inspection unit” in claim 1, “a determination unit” in claim 1, “a temporary invalidation unit” in claim 1, “a re-inspection determination unit” in claim 1, “an inspection unit” in claim 3, “an inspection request unit” in claim 4, “a storage unit” in claim 5, and “a re-inspection instruction unit” in claim 7. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. “an inspection unit” in claim 1 is read as the CPU (Fig.3, item 301), “a determination unit” in claim 1 is read as the CPU (Fig.3, item 301), “a temporary invalidation unit” in claim 1 is read as the CPU (Fig.3, item 301), “a re-inspection determination unit” in claim 1 is read as the CPU (Fig.3, item 301), “an inspection unit” in claim 3 is read as the CPU (Fig.3, item 301), “an inspection request unit” in claim 4 is read as the CPU (Fig.3, item 301), “a storage unit” in claim 5 is read as the secondary storage device (Fig.3, item 306), and “a re-inspection instruction unit” in claim 7 is read as the CPU (Fig.3, item 301). If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousty’969 (US 2014/0181969), and further in view of LISA’328 (WO 2016/120328) . With respect to claim 1 , Mousty’969 teaches a management apparatus [regarding to the combination of the system shown in Fig.1] that communicates with an inspection apparatus (Fig.1, item 122) configured to inspect whether input information input from a terminal (Fig.1, item 104) is abnormal information and manages the input information, the management apparatus comprising: an inspection unit configured to generate an inspection result for the input information; a determination unit configured to, in a case where the inspection result is a result of a type that cannot be expected to be recovered over time [Examiner views that when the web security application scan is not successful, the file is considered cannot be expected to be recovered over time (paragraph 36 and 37)], determine that subsequent processing for the input information is temporary invalidation processing and, in a case where the inspection result is a result of a type that can be expected to be recovered over time [when the file is being ejected in step 510 in Fig.5, the subsequent processing for processing the file is considered as the temporary invalidation processing], a temporary invalidation unit configured to make the input information temporarily unavailable from outside the management apparatus based on determination by the determination unit [when the file is being ejected in step 510 in Fig.5, the file is considered being unavailable from outside the management apparatus]; Mousty’969 does not teach determine that the subsequent processing for the input information is re-inspection determination processing; and a re-inspection determination unit configured to determine whether to re-inspect the input information based on the determination by the determination unit. LISA’328 teaches determine that the subsequent processing for the input information is re-inspection determination processing [Conversely, in the event that the AV scan reveals that the resent write update again introduced malicious software, this time to the temporary copy subfile 205b2, an attempt may be made to repair and rescan the infected temporary copy subfile 205b 1 one or more times as described above in connection with temporary copy subfile 205b 1 (paragraph 45). Therefore, the subsequent processing for the infected temporary copy subfile is considered being executed to perform repairing and rescanning]; and a re-inspection determination unit configured to determine whether to re-inspect the input information based on the determination by the determination unit [Conversely, in the event that the AV scan reveals that the resent write update again introduced malicious software, this time to the temporary copy subfile 205b2, an attempt may be made to repair and rescan the infected temporary copy subfile 205b 1 one or more times as described above in connection with temporary copy subfile 205b 1 (paragraph 45). Therefore, the subsequent processing for the infected temporary copy subfile is considered being executed to perform repairing and rescanning]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mousty’969 according to the teaching of LISA’328 to repair the infected file and then to perform re-scanning operation for the repaired file because this will allow the file to be shared more effectively. With respect to claim 3 , which further limits claim 1, Mousty’969 teaches an inspection request unit configured to request the inspection apparatus to inspect the input information (Fig.3, step 304), wherein, in a case where the inspection result is an error that occurs if the inspection request unit is not operating, the determination unit determines that the subsequent processing for the input information is temporary invalidation [as shown in Fig.5, the quarantine system (Fig.1, item 122) performs the scanning operation on a file and to determine if the file has any malware in step 506. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to recognize not to transmit a file to temporary storage in step 508 in Fig.5 for accessing when the server (Fig.1, item 112) has an error to transmit the said file to the quarantine system (Fig.1, item 122) for inspection since this will enhance the security of the file]. With respect to claim 4 , which further limits claim 1, Mousty’969 teaches an inspection request unit configured to request the inspection apparatus to inspect the input information (Fig.3, step 304), wherein the determination unit determines that the subsequent processing for the input information is re-inspection determination in a case where the inspection result is at least one of following errors including: an error that occurs if the inspection request unit cannot acquire the input information; an error that occurs if the inspection request unit terminates processing while processing a request; an error that occurs if processing fails due to time taken for processing the request from the inspection request unit being a predetermined time or longer; and an error that occurs if processing fails due to parallelism of the inspection request unit being predetermined parallelism or more [as shown in Fig.5, the quarantine system (Fig.1, item 122) performs the scanning operation on a file and to determine if the file has any malware in step 506 and then to determine if the file should be stored in the temporary storage 508 or rejecting the file in step 210. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to recognize not to rescan the file when the file is not able to be determined having and malware in the previous scanning due to an error including the error that occurs if the inspection request unit terminates processing while processing a request because this will allow the file to be scanned for malware more effectively]. With respect to claim 5 , which further limits claim 1, Mousty’969 teaches a storage unit configured to store summary information associated with the input information [In an alternate embodiment, the data server may generate and display a message to the customer indicating that the file has failed the web security application scan (block 510) and the message may suggest that the customer try to upload a different file or contact their insurance agent for further details (paragraph 37). Therefore, the message is considered being stored before providing it], wherein the temporary invalidation unit makes the summary information associated with the input information unavailable [In an alternate embodiment, the data server may generate and display a message to the customer indicating that the file has failed the web security application scan (block 510) (paragraph 37)]. With respect to claim 8 , it is a method claim that claims how the management apparatus of claim 1 to process the received input information. Claim 8 is obvious in view of Mousty’969 and LISA’328 because the claimed combination operates at the same manner as described in the rejected claim 1. In addition, the reference has disclosed a management apparatus to process the received input information, the process (method) to process the received input information is inherent disclosed to be performed by a processor in the management apparatus when the management apparatus performs the operation to process the received input information. With respect to claim 9 , it is a claim regarding to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program. Claim 9 claims the management apparatus of claim 1 to execute to process the received input information. Claim 9 is obvious in view of Mousty’969 and LISA’328 because the claimed combination operates at the same manner as described in the rejected claim 1. In addition, the reference discloses a process, the process would be implemented by a processor that requires a non-transitory computer readable medium, e.g., a RAM, to function, thus, the medium is inherently present 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousty’969 (US 2014/0181969), LISA’328 (WO 2016/120328) and further in view of Hilerio’514 (US 2008/0244514). With respect to claim 2 , which further limits claim 1, the combination of Mousty’969 and LISA’328 does not teach wherein, in a case where the inspection result is an error that occurs if the management apparatus does not have authority to use the inspection apparatus, the determination unit determines that the subsequent processing for the input information is temporary invalidation. Hilerio’514 teaches that the authorization is required for using or accessing to a specific function (paragraph 61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mousty’969 and LISA’328 according to the teaching of Hilerio’514 to only enable the quarantine system (Fig.1, item 122) to perform viruses scanning when the server (Fig.1, item 112) is authorized to use the quarantine system (Fig.1, item 122) to perform viruses scanning on a file such that the quarantine system (Fig.1, item 122) reports an error when the server (Fig.1, item 112) is being determined not having authorization to use the quarantine system (Fig.1, item 122) to perform viruses scanning on a file (wherein, in a case where the inspection result is an error that occurs if the management apparatus does not have authority to use the inspection apparatus, the determination unit determines that the subsequent processing for the input information is temporary invalidation) because this will allow the viruses in a file to be detected more effectively . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousty’969 (US 2014/0181969), LISA’328 (WO 2016/120328) and further in view of Li’488 (US 2013/0080488). With respect to claim 6 , which further limits claim 1, the combination of Mousty’969 and LISA’328 does not teach wherein, in a case where a number of re-inspection times with respect to the input information is a predetermined times or less, the re-inspection determination unit determines that re-inspection is necessary and determines that the subsequent processing is inspection, and wherein, in a case where the number of re-inspection times with respect to the input information exceeds the predetermined times, the re-inspection determination unit determines that re-inspection is not necessary and determines that the subsequent processing is invalidation. Li’488 teaches that a device repeat writing and/or reading processes in response to determination that a storage server malfunctions (paragraph 40). When number of times which is not able to repeat writing and/or reading processes to the storage server, the storage server is considered not unusable and the repeat writing and/or reading processes to the storage server is terminated (paragraph 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mousty’969 and LISA’328 according to the teaching of Li’488 to configure a number of time for re-scanning a file to detect viruses such that when a number of re-scanning times with respect to the file is less than the configured a number of time for re-scanning the file to detect viruses, the file is being processed to re-scan to detect viruses, and when a number of re-scanning times with respect to the file is more than the configured a number of time for re-scanning the file to detect viruses, the file is not being processed to re-scan to detect viruses but the file is being rejected and not able to access any more (in a case where a number of re-inspection times with respect to the input information is a predetermined times or less, the re-inspection determination unit determines that re-inspection is necessary and determines that the subsequent processing is inspection, and wherein, in a case where the number of re-inspection times with respect to the input information exceeds the predetermined times, the re-inspection determination unit determines that re-inspection is not necessary and determines that the subsequent processing is invalidation) because this will enhance the security of the file . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousty’969 (US 2014/0181969), LISA’328 (WO 2016/120328) and further in view of Kobayashi’880 (US 2009/0089880). With respect to claim 7 , which further limits claim 1, the combination of Mousty’969 and LISA’328 does not teach a re-inspection instruction unit configured to receive a re-inspection instruction from a system administrator, wherein the re-inspection instruction unit waits for processing until the re-inspection instruction is input and, in a case where the re-inspection instruction is input, performs re-inspection. Kobayashi’880 teaches that after the administrator has completed the initial settings, the virus-scan starts (paragraph 88). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mousty’969 and LISA’328 according to the teaching of Kobayashi’880 to include an administrator to complete the initial settings to perform re-scanning operation for detecting if a viruses in a file such that to the file is being re-scanning for viruses after the administrator gives a re-inspection instruction for the file (a re-inspection instruction unit configured to receive a re-inspection instruction from a system administrator, wherein the re-inspection instruction unit waits for processing until the re-inspection instruction is input and, in a case where the re-inspection instruction is input, performs re-inspection) because this will allow the file to scanned for viruses more effectively. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. 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. /HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/819,541 Page 2 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/819,541 Page 3 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/819,541 Page 4 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/819,541 Page 5 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/819,541 Page 6 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/819,541 Page 7 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/819,541 Page 8 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/819,541 Page 10 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/819,541 Page 11 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/819,541 Page 12 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/819,541 Page 13 Art Unit: 2682
Prosecution Insights