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 communication is a non-final action in response to application filed on 12/31/2024. Claims 1-3, 5-7 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 12/31/2024, 08/11/2025, 11/07/2025, 11/20/2025, 02/23/2026, 06/30/2026 are considered.
Claim Objection
Claims 1 is objected because the last two limitation should includes further indents. This appears to be a typo.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (US 20210075801) in view of Qiao (CN 112528297)
As per claim 1, Kitamura discloses a programmable controller, comprising:
processing circuitry to
receive an access event from an external device and perform communication through a network (0053, see also 0002 regarding PLC application);
detect the exceptional access event from a newly received access event using the
Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, but Qiao teaches:
train a model to identify an exceptional access event occurring less frequently than other access events based on a history of received access events (page 9, last paragraph to page 10 first paragraph regarding SVM used to detect illegal access. See page 7, 3rd paragraph that illegal access can mean an executed instruction where execution frequency is very small);
using the trained model to detect exceptional access event (page 9, last paragraph to page 10 first paragraph regarding SVM used to detect illegal access. See page 7, 3rd paragraph that illegal access can mean an executed instruction where execution frequency is very small);
process the detected exceptional access event, wherein
the history includes identification information identifying a communication device that has caused an received access event in the network in a manner associated with at least one of a time of the access event or a predetermined time segment including the time (see page 6, last paragraph to page 7, 3rd paragraph, where address (e.g., IP address) is logged as collected as part of behavior log. The behavior log model show regularity where hacker generally attack database at particular time such as 2 o’clock (2 am) as opposed to work time. Examiner notes this also indicate a time segment of 24-hour in each day.), and
the processing circuitry trains, for the time segment, the model to identify the exceptional access event occurring less frequently than the other access events occurring in the time segment (see page 11, 1st, 2nd, and 6th paragraph regarding training model using updated sample behavior log set. See page 7, 2nd-3rd paragraph regarding segmenting access time period on a per day basis).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to apply Qiao’s SVM to detect intrusion event to Kitamura’s access control using black/white list for the purpose of providing more effective and responsive access control to prevent intrusion.
As per claim 2, Kitamura further discloses the programmable controller according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry blocks the exceptional access event (0108, black list would prohibit access).
As per claim 3, Kitamura further discloses the programmable controller according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry indicates information about the exceptional access event through a user interface (Fig. 5, item 506, see also 0199-0200).
As per claim 5, Kitamura further discloses the programmable controller according to claim 3, wherein
the identification information is an address of the communication device in the network (See Fig. 5, black list shows IP address),
the history includes, in a manner associated with one another, the address of the communication device, a port number specified by the access event, and at least one of the time of the access event or the time segment including the time (see at least Fig. 11, security event including time. See 0263, security event further includes network address, port number), and
Kitamura does not disclose training a model but discloses having a black list showing address and port number (Fig. 5) and collect information including time, address and port number for security events (0263).
Qiao teaches training a model for the time segment to identify exception access event (see page 11, 1st, 2nd, and 6th paragraph regarding training model using updated sample behavior log set. See page 7, 2nd-3rd paragraph regarding segmenting access time period on a per day basis)
The rationale to combine would persist.
Claim 6 contains limitations substantially similar to claim 1 except with the additional step of sharing device data with another device. Kitamura teaches this limitation in 0187-0188 where notification is sent via e-mail, which would be another device. Therefore, claim would be rejected over similar rationale set forth above.
Claim 7 also includes limitation substantially similar to claim 1 and Kitamura further includes the steps of PLC is connectable to another PLC (Fig. 14, 0213-0214 regarding multiple control devices. See 0002 that control devices can be PLC) and providing first access information indicating the history to the other programmable controller and acquiring from other programmable controller, second access information indicating an access event to the other programmable controller to share the first access information and the second access information with the other programmable controller (0213-0214 regarding information collection and notification. See Fig. 14 for the flow of data).
Therefore, claim would be rejected over similar rationale set forth above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent Application 18/863,689 (‘689).
In this case, each limitation of claim 7 can be found in claim 5 of ‘689. Claim 7 is essentially broader than claim 5 of ‘689 because it does not require storing data in an distributed ledger.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights