DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 07/17/2026.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 8-10 are independent claims. In Amendment, claim 7 is cancelled and claim 1 is amended. This Office Action is made final.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are directed to a method, medium, device and system respectively however these claims are directing to an abstract idea under the mental process wherein the limitations “producing a reconstructed sequence…” and “determining a reconstruction error…” are functions that can be reasonably done in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation evaluation judgement and opinion under Prong I step 2A.
The other limitations in these claims are considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A wherein the limitation “obtaining an observation sequence…” recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The other limitations including “implementing…”; “medium having stored thereon instructions…”; “processor connected…”; and “a plurality of communicating devices…” recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under step 2B, these additional elements above recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). and recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, these additional elements do not recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claims 2-6 and 11-12, these claims are not integrated into the practical application as they are either further detail the abstract idea limitations under Prong I step 2A or additional elements which insignificantly amount to the judicial exception under Prong II step 2A.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4, 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mota et al. (U.S. 10,931,692 B1).
Re claim 1, Mota et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 a method for monitoring a device in a communication network (e.g. abstract and Figure 1 and col. 2 line 55 to col. 3 line 10 with specific network monitoring system), the method comprising: obtaining an observation sequence based on observations of a network flow involving the device (e.g. col. 2 line 55 to col. 3 line 10 and col. 9 lines 4-25 wherein specific network activities are monitored as temporal sequencing through the device), implementing at least one given model associated with a firmware version of at least one reference device (e.g. col. 7 lines 20-52; col. 8 lines 15-68; and col. 12 lines 16-24 wherein specific machine learning model is implemented for detection of device with a firmware), the given model being suitable for (e.g. intended use): producing a reconstructed sequence based on the observation sequence and on a preceding observation sequence (e.g. col. 8 lines 42-55 with reconstructing the input for detection), and determining a reconstruction error between the reconstructed sequence and the observation sequence, the reconstruction error being lower than a threshold indicating that the device is operating in the network with said firmware version (e.g. col. 13 lines 22-40 and col. 16 lines 4-15 wherein the reconstruction error is compared with threshold to validate/verified the model).
Re claim 2, Mota et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 implementing the at least one given model comprises implementing a plurality of models respectively associated with a respective firmware version of the at least one reference device (e.g. col. 7 lines 20-52; col. 8 lines 15-68; and col. 12 lines 16-24 wherein specific machine learning model is implemented for detection of device with a firmware), each said model being respectively suitable for produce producing a respective reconstructed sequence based on the observation sequence and on the preceding observation sequence (e.g. col. 8 lines 42-55 with reconstructing the input for detection) and for determining a respective reconstruction error between the respective reconstructed sequence and the observation sequence (e.g. col. 13 lines 22-40 and col. 16 lines 4-15 wherein the reconstruction error is compared with threshold to validate/verified the model), the reconstruction error determined when implementing the given model having the lowest value from among the respective reconstruction errors (e.g. col. 17 line 60 to col. 18 line 40).
Re claim 3, Mota et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 implementing the at least one given model comprises implementing a set of models comprising a plurality of subsets respectively associated with a respective family of reference devices and each comprising at least one model associated with a firmware version of at least one reference device of the respective family, the given model belonging to one of the subsets, the reconstruction error (e.g. col. 13 lines 22-40 and col. 16 lines 4-15 wherein the reconstruction error is compared with threshold to validate/verified the model), determined when implementing the given model, being lower than the threshold further indicating that the device belongs to the family associated with the subset comprising the given model (e.g. col. 17 line 60 to col. 18 line 40).
Re claim 4, Mota et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 a method for managing a communicating device in a communication network, the method comprising: monitoring the communicating device in accordance with the method of monitoring the communicating device in accordance with the method of claim 1 (e.g. col. 2 line 55 to col. 3 line 10 and col. 9 lines 4-25 wherein specific network activities are monitored as temporal sequencing through the device) and issuing a management instruction for the communicating device on the basis of a comparison between the reconstruction error determined when implementing the given model and the threshold (e.g. Figures 3-4 and col. 20 lines 24-50 with retraining the model).
Re claim 6, Mota et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 upon a determination that the determined reconstruction error is greater than the threshold, detecting an anomaly, wherein the management instruction is issued on the basis of the anomaly (e.g. abstract; Figures 7-8; and col. 2 lines 14-25).
Re claim 8, it is a medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 9, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 10, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 11, Mota et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 at least one given model is an artificial intelligence model (e.g. col. 6 line 59 – col. 7 line 20 with adaptive machine learning model).
Re claim 12, Mota et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 the reconstructed sequence is produced on the basis of intra-sequence relationships between elements of the observation sequence and of inter-sequence relationships between the observation sequence and the preceding observation sequence (e.g. col. 8 lines 42-55; col. 13 lines 22-40; and col. 16 lines 4-15 wherein the reconstruction error is compared with threshold to validate/verified the model).
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, 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mota et al. (U.S. 10,931,692 B1) in view of Agrawal et al. (U.S. 2022/0294715 A1).
Re claim 5, Mota et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 upon a determination that the determined reconstruction error is lower than the threshold (e.g. col. 13 lines 22-40 and col. 16 lines 4-15 wherein the reconstruction error is compared with threshold to validate/verified the model). Mota et al. fail to disclose the firmware version associated with the given model is obsolete, the management instruction comprises a recommendation to update the firmware version with which the device is operating in the network. However, Agrawal et al. disclose the firmware version associated with the given model is obsolete, the management instruction comprises a recommendation to update the firmware version with which the device is operating in the network (e.g. abstract and paragraphs [0024 and 0091-0096] wherein the firmware/software is updated as obsolete). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add the firmware version associated with the given model is obsolete, the management instruction comprises a recommendation to update the firmware version with which the device is operating in the network as seen in Agrawal et al.’s invention into Mota et al.’s invention because it would improve the network performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in pages 4-6 for claims that the cited reference fails to disclose the implementing at least one given model associated with a firmware version of at least one reference device.
The examiner respectfully submits that the current claimed language does not detail as how the model is associated or related with a firmware version of at least one reference device, under the BRI it can merely interpret as the implementing model is associated/related/connected by any mean with the firmware version of at least one reference of device. With this interpretation, it can be clearly seen in the reference by Mota as seen in col. 6 line 60 to col. 8 line 55 wherein it discloses the model to determine the errors/anomalies that can be in context of the firmware/program/application of the device in the network and obvious a firmware/program/application must have a version associated with it.
The applicant argues in page 7 for claims that Mota discloses the reconstruction error is compared with threshold to validate/verified the model is not commensurate with the recited feature which is identify a specific firmware version being used on the monitored device.
The examiner respectfully submits that nothing in the claim that would recite anything about to identifying the specific firmware version being used on the monitored device, at least in independent claim. At most it recites that the determination of reconstruction error less than a threshold would “indicate” the device is operating with said firmware version, this can be seen in the reference as the reconstruction error comparison less than a threshold which would indicate the behavior is normal and that would lead to indication of proper operation of software/firmware/application/program of the device in the network as it is designed.
The applicant argues in page 7 for claim 2 that the reference fail to disclose implementation a plurality of models, each respectively associated with a firmware version.
The examiner respectfully submits that the citations, col. 7 line 20 to col. 8 line 29 and col. 9 lines 5-25, there are multiple modes for detecting behaviors associated with firmware/software/program/application version of the devices.
The applicant argues in pages 7-8 for claim 3 that the reference fail to disclose the limitations in claim 3 with same citation.
The examiner respectfully submits that the same citation including the above citation col. 7 line 20 to col. 8 line 29 and col. 9 lines 5-25 discloses that the anomalies detection can be detected with host models. In another words, there are at least 2 models that can be or capable of detecting the anomalies/malware which can be in the same category/family.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights