DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed 7/21/2026 has been placed of record in the file.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 4 and 17 have been canceled.
Claim limitations previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been removed via the applicant’s claim amendments.
Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-20 are now pending.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the following new grounds of rejection.
Response to Amendment
Claims have been amended to further define a set of rule elements. The amendment proves a change in scope to the independent claims as the independent claims now explicitly state that each rule element includes a checkpoint, a recommended configuration, a configuration condition, a state, and an update operation. However, none of the amended claims show a patentable distinction over the prior art as evidenced by the following new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 14 are objected to because they do not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0026268), hereinafter referred to as Matsubara, in view of Kaluza et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0239682) as listed on the Notice of References Cited dated 4/8/2026, hereinafter referred to as Kaluza.
Matsubara disclosed techniques for rule-based diagnosis for detecting abnormalities of a target device. In an analogous art, Kaluza disclosed techniques for detecting anomalies in configuration parameters. Both systems are directed toward device security via anomaly detection.
Regarding claim 1, Matsubara discloses a diagnosis apparatus, comprising: at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: acquiring configuration information that is configuration content of a target device (paragraph 45, acquires diagnosis target data); holding a diagnostic rule for diagnosing the configuration information (paragraph 46, rule-based diagnosis); diagnosing the target device on a basis of the diagnostic rule (paragraph 46, rule-based diagnosis); and notifying a diagnosis result (paragraph 49, transmits diagnosis result), wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: holding the diagnostic rule that diagnoses whether or not the configuration information is a secure configuration from a security perspective (paragraph 65, diagnoses as normal or abnormal), wherein the diagnostic rule includes a set of rule elements for performing a series of diagnosis and update operations (paragraph 64, rule-based diagnosis criteria), and wherein each rule element includes a checkpoint, a state, and an update operation (paragraph 65, rule with upper and lower limits, and normal or abnormal result, and paragraph 82, modification of control algorithm).
Matsubara does not explicitly state wherein each rule element also includes a recommended configuration and a configuration condition. However, analyzing configuration parameters in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Kaluza. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Matsubara by adding the ability that each rule element also includes a recommended configuration and a configuration condition as provided by Kaluza (see paragraph 84, value of configuration compared to specified policy). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that managing configuration parameters in this way would assist in improving the ability to avoid problems in IT system updates (see Kaluza, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: acquiring a recommendation configuration that is recommended from the security perspective, as default configuration content for the target device (Matsubara, paragraph 73, current criteria).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: updating a configuration setting of the target device on a basis of the diagnosis result and the diagnostic rule (Matsubara, paragraph 82, modification of control algorithm).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: updating the configuration setting of the target device in response to an update of the diagnostic rule (Matsubara, paragraph 79, rule-based criteria updated).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: editing the diagnostic rule (Matsubara, paragraph 79, rule-based criteria updated).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: updating a configuration setting of the target device on a basis of the diagnosis result and the diagnostic rule (Matsubara, paragraph 82, modification of control algorithm).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: holding the diagnostic rule including a list of checkpoints (Matsubara, paragraph 64, rule-based diagnosis criteria).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: holding the diagnostic rule including a list of checkpoints (Matsubara, paragraph 64, rule-based diagnosis criteria).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: editing the diagnostic rule (Matsubara, paragraph 79, rule-based criteria updated)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: editing the diagnostic rule (Matsubara, paragraph 79, rule-based criteria updated).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: editing the diagnostic rule (Matsubara, paragraph 79, rule-based criteria updated).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses a line exchanger comprising: the diagnosis apparatus (Matsubara, paragraph 25, controller).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses a line exchanger comprising: the diagnosis apparatus (Matsubara, paragraph 25, controller).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses a line exchanger comprising: the diagnosis apparatus (Matsubara, paragraph 25, controller).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza discloses a line exchanger comprising: the diagnosis apparatus (Matsubara, paragraph 25, controller).
Regarding claim 19, Matsubara discloses a diagnostic method executed by a computer, comprising: acquiring configuration information that is configuration content of a target device (paragraph 45, acquires diagnosis target data); acquiring a diagnostic rule for diagnosing the configuration information (paragraph 46, rule-based diagnosis), the diagnostic rule diagnosing whether or not the configuration information is a secure configuration from a security perspective (paragraph 65, diagnoses as normal or abnormal); diagnosing the target device on a basis of the diagnostic rule (paragraph 46, rule-based diagnosis); and notifying a diagnosis result (paragraph 49, transmits diagnosis result), wherein the diagnostic rule includes a set of rule elements for performing a series of diagnosis and update operations (paragraph 64, rule-based diagnosis criteria), and wherein each rule element includes a checkpoint, a state, and an update operation (paragraph 65, rule with upper and lower limits, and normal or abnormal result, and paragraph 82, modification of control algorithm).
Matsubara does not explicitly state wherein each rule element also includes a recommended configuration and a configuration condition. However, analyzing configuration parameters in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Kaluza. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Matsubara by adding the ability that each rule element also includes a recommended configuration and a configuration condition as provided by Kaluza (see paragraph 84, value of configuration compared to specified policy). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that managing configuration parameters in this way would assist in improving the ability to avoid problems in IT system updates (see Kaluza, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 20, Matsubara discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute processing comprising: acquiring configuration information that is configuration content of a target device (paragraph 45, acquires diagnosis target data); acquiring a diagnostic rule for diagnosing the configuration information (paragraph 46, rule-based diagnosis), the diagnostic rule diagnosing whether or not the configuration information is a secure configuration from a security perspective (paragraph 65, diagnoses as normal or abnormal); diagnosing the target device on a basis of the diagnostic rule (paragraph 46, rule-based diagnosis); and notifying a diagnosis result (paragraph 49, transmits diagnosis result), wherein the diagnostic rule includes a set of rule elements for performing a series of diagnosis and update operations (paragraph 64, rule-based diagnosis criteria), and wherein each rule element includes a checkpoint, a state, and an update operation (paragraph 65, rule with upper and lower limits, and normal or abnormal result, and paragraph 82, modification of control algorithm).
Matsubara does not explicitly state wherein each rule element also includes a recommended configuration and a configuration condition. However, analyzing configuration parameters in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Kaluza. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Matsubara by adding the ability that each rule element also includes a recommended configuration and a configuration condition as provided by Kaluza (see paragraph 84, value of configuration compared to specified policy). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that managing configuration parameters in this way would assist in improving the ability to avoid problems in IT system updates (see Kaluza, paragraph 4).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara in view of Kaluza, further in view Varanda (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0215095).
The combination of Matsubara and Kaluza disclosed techniques for rule-based diagnosis for detecting abnormalities of a target device. In an analogous art, Varanda disclosed techniques for detecting malicious browser extensions. Both systems are directed toward device security via anomaly detection.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza does not explicitly state wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: holding a diagnostic rule regarding unauthorized registration of a telephone extension of the line exchanger. However, examining extensions in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Varanda. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Matsubara and Kaluza by adding the ability that the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: holding a diagnostic rule regarding unauthorized registration of a telephone extension of the line exchanger as provided by Varanda (see paragraph 27, detects malicious browser extension on mobile phone). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that analyzing extensions in this way would assist in preventing harm to endpoint computing devices (see Varanda, paragraph 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Victor Lesniewski whose telephone number is (571)272-2812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Victor Lesniewski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights