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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The IDS filed 11/20/2024 has been considered.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 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.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are “configuration information acquisition part,” “diagnostic rule holding part,” “diagnosis part,” “diagnostic result notification part,” “update part,” and “diagnostic rule editing reception part” in claims 1-18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Here the specification appears to disclose the corresponding structure as processing modules executed by hardware and/or software. See paragraphs 37 and 38 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsubara et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0026268), hereinafter referred to as Matsubara.
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: a configuration information acquisition part that acquires configuration information that is configuration content of a target device (paragraph 45, acquires diagnosis target data); a diagnostic rule holding part that holds a diagnostic rule for diagnosing the configuration information (paragraph 46, rule-based diagnosis); a diagnosis part that diagnoses the target device on a basis of the diagnostic rule (paragraph 46, rule-based diagnosis); and a diagnostic result notification part that notifies a diagnosis result (paragraph 49, transmits diagnosis result), wherein the diagnostic rule holding part holds 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).
Regarding claim 2, Matsubara discloses wherein the configuration information acquisition part acquires a recommendation configuration that is recommended from a security perspective, as default configuration content for a target device (paragraph 73, current criteria).
Regarding claim 3, Matsubara discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: an update part that updates a configuration of a target device on a basis of the diagnosis result and the diagnostic rule held in the diagnostic rule holding part (paragraph 82, modification of control algorithm).
Regarding claim 4, Matsubara discloses wherein the diagnostic rule holding part holds the diagnostic rule including a list of checkpoints (paragraph 64, rule-based diagnosis criteria).
Regarding claim 5, Matsubara discloses wherein the update part updates the configuration of the target device in response to an update of the diagnostic rule held in the diagnostic rule holding part (paragraph 79, rule-based criteria updated).
Regarding claim 6, Matsubara discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: a diagnostic rule editing reception part that edits the diagnostic rule in the diagnostic rule holding part (paragraph 79, rule-based criteria updated).
Regarding claim 7, Matsubara discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: an update part that updates a configuration of a target device on a basis of the diagnosis result and the diagnostic rule held in the diagnostic rule holding part (paragraph 82, modification of control algorithm).
Regarding claim 8, Matsubara discloses wherein the diagnostic rule holding part holds the diagnostic rule including a list of checkpoints (paragraph 64, rule-based diagnosis criteria).
Regarding claim 9, Matsubara discloses wherein the diagnostic rule holding part holds the diagnostic rule including a list of checkpoints (paragraph 64, rule-based diagnosis criteria).
Regarding claim 10, Matsubara discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: a diagnostic rule editing reception part that edits the diagnostic rule in the diagnostic rule holding part (paragraph 79, rule-based criteria updated).
Regarding claim 11, Matsubara discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: a diagnostic rule editing reception part that edits the diagnostic rule in the diagnostic rule holding part (paragraph 79, rule-based criteria updated).
Regarding claim 12, Matsubara discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: a diagnostic rule editing reception part that edits the diagnostic rule in the diagnostic rule holding part (paragraph 79, rule-based criteria updated).
Regarding claim 13, Matsubara discloses a line exchanger comprising: the diagnosis apparatus (paragraph 25, controller).
Regarding claim 15, Matsubara discloses a line exchanger comprising: the diagnosis apparatus (paragraph 25, controller).
Regarding claim 16, Matsubara discloses a line exchanger comprising: the diagnosis apparatus (paragraph 25, controller).
Regarding claim 17, Matsubara discloses a line exchanger comprising: the diagnosis apparatus (paragraph 25, controller).
Regarding claim 18, Matsubara discloses a line exchanger comprising: the diagnosis apparatus (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).
Regarding claim 20, Matsubara discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute processings 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara in view of Khandelwal et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0413711), hereinafter referred to as Khandelwal.
Matsubara disclosed techniques for rule-based diagnosis for detecting abnormalities of a target device. In an analogous art, Khandelwal disclosed techniques for detecting malware on a target device. Both systems are directed toward device security via anomaly detection.
Regarding claim 14, Matsubara does not explicitly state wherein the diagnostic rule holding part comprised in the diagnosis apparatus holds a diagnostic rule regarding unauthorized extension registration. However, examining extensions in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Khandelwal. 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 the diagnostic rule holding part comprised in the diagnosis apparatus holds a diagnostic rule regarding unauthorized extension registration as provided by Khandelwal (see paragraph 128, scan uses malicious file extensions data structure). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that analyzing a target device in this way would assist in detecting attacks against the device’s control code (see Khandelwal, paragraph 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaluza et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0239682) disclosed techniques for detecting anomalies in configuration parameters.
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