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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on August 27, 2024. Claim 13 has been canceled. Claims 1-12 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Examiner's note: It is recommended to amend the abstract to briefly describe the claimed invention according to the above guidelines.
Claim Interpretation
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“a communication interface for…”, “a test unit for carrying out …”, and “an evaluation unit to…” in claim 8.
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.
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
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehresh et al “Mehresh”, US-PGPub. No. 20220038487 in view of Salyers et al “Salyers”, US-PGPub. No. 20170331827.
As per claims 1 and 8, Mehresh teaches a method and a system for carrying out a security test of a device (Fig. 1, Paragraph(s) [0016]; each security assessment device (100A, 100N) may include functionality for performing any security assessment processes of the physical asset(s) (160) to assess the security risk of the physical assets), the system comprising:
a communication interface for a data connection to the device (Fig. 5 – communication interface 512, Paragraph(s) [0044], [0077-0078]);
a test unit for carrying out an information technology (IT) security test to acquire a data feedback from the device (Paragraph(s) [0002], [0038], [0048]; obtaining, by a security assessment coordination manager, a physical asset security assessment request for a set of physical assets. Alternatively, the physical asset security assessment request is obtained in response to a policy that specifies a schedule for initiating the security assessments on the set of physical assets on a frequent basis);
an evaluation unit to evaluate the data feedback in consideration of the acquired device status (Paragraph(s) [0065]; the security assessment process includes performing the series of tasks on the allocated computing devices and/or any applications installed in the security assessment device. Mehresh further teaches the administrative clients (120) may further communicate with the security assessment coordination manger (140) by providing physical asset state information associated with the physical assets being assessed (Paragraph(s) [0020])).
Mehresh fails to explicitly teach but Salyers teaches an acquisition means for optical and/or acoustic acquisition of a status of the device (Paragraph(s) [0008-0009], [0149-0150]; at least one security assessment device may comprise at least one acoustic monitoring device and at least one camera).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to combine the teachings of Mehresh and Salyers in order to allow a managed access system to detect potential threats, identify the threat, and process relevant filtering and coordinate information for display and dissemination that enables the security assessment device to appropriate mitigation actions (see Salyers – Paragraph [0150]).
As per claims 2 and 10, Mehresh fails to explicitly teach but Salyers teaches wherein acquiring a device status includes using a camera and/or a microphone (Paragraph(s) [0149-0150]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to combine the teachings of Mehresh and Salyers in order to allow a managed access system to detect potential threats, identify the threat, and process relevant filtering and coordinate information for display and dissemination that enables the security assessment device to appropriate mitigation actions (see Salyers – Paragraph [0150]).
As per claim 3, Mehresh teaches wherein the data feedback comprises feedback data, whether feedback data were received, and/or whether fewer feedback data were received than expected (Paragraph(s) [0004], [0056]).
As per claim 4, Mehresh teaches using the acquired device status to derive an item of security information from the data feedback on the device status (Paragraph(s) [0004], [0055]).
As per claim 5, Mehresh teaches using the acquired device status to operate the device based on the device status (Paragraph(s) [0057]).
As per claim 6, Mehresh teaches using the acquired device status to put the device in a safe operating mode, subject it to a software update, take it out of operation, switch it off, and/or put it in an idle status (Paragraph(s) [0057], [0059]).
As per claim 7, Mehresh fails to explicitly teach but Salyers teaches wherein acquiring the device status includes receiving an acoustic signal of the device (Paragraph(s) [0149-0150]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to combine the teachings of Mehresh and Salyers in order to allow a managed access system to detect potential threats, identify the threat, and process relevant filtering and coordinate information for display and dissemination that enables the security assessment device to appropriate mitigation actions (see Salyers – Paragraph [0150]).
As per claim 9, Mehresh teaches wherein:
the device comprises a graphic and/or acoustic user interface (Paragraph(s) [0078-0079]); and
the acquisition means monitors the user interface (Paragraph(s) [0052], [0077]).
As per claim 11, Mehresh teaches an actuator to operate the device based on the device status (Paragraph(s) [0039]).
As per claim 12, Mehresh teaches wherein the device includes a user interface (Paragraph(s) [0078]) and the actuator operates the user interface (Paragraph(s) [0039], [0078]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. 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.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights