DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Reasons for allowance will be provided in the event the application becomes in condition for allowance.
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(s) 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayko et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0377044) in view of Cox (“Configure Port Forwarding/Port Triggering/NAT on RV34x Series Routers”, copy provided, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Sayko et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0377044) discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
one or more controllers (paragraphs [0024]-[0025], [0028], [0038], [0046], [0060] AS as controller, processor, other computing components); an operation acceptor (paragraph [0054], [0059]-[0060]); a displayer (paragraph [0059]-[0060]); and a communicator that provides a network port for connecting to a network (paragraphs [0053]-[0054]), wherein
the one or more controllers accept an instruction to disable a first function via the operation acceptor (paragraph [0054], a communication session associated with the application is terminated), determine existence or non-existence of a second function that uses the network port used by the first function and that is different from the first function (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], the system determines the other endpoint device still needs the ports), and decide whether or not to disable the network port, based on a result of the determination (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], the ports are not disabled, but instead reallocated)
Even assuming arguendo that Sayko et al. does not disclose and that the claim requires (note alternative language used above regarding “existence or non-existence” and “whether or not to disable”):
deciding whether or not to disable the network port
Cox (“Configure Port Forwarding/Port Triggering/NAT on RV34x Series Routers”) discloses:
the one or more controllers accept an instruction to disable a first function via the operation acceptor, determine existence or non-existence of a second function that uses the network port used by the first function and that is different from the first function, and decide whether or not to disable the network port, based on a result of the determination (pages 44-45, for applications such as video conferencing programs, interactive gaming, etc. that are using a port number, the system will close the port if no outgoing traffic is detected from an application through that port)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Cox with the system of Sayko such that the system would be configured to decide whether or not to disable the network port in the manner described in Cox. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of implementing “a safer method for opening specific ports….[in which they] are not held open constantly or erroneously left open via the router administrator and exposed for potential hackers to discover” (page 44 of the Cox reference).
Regarding claim 5, Sayko et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the one or more controllers decide whether or not to disable both the first function and the network port, depending on a result of the determination (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], a communication session associated with the application is terminated and the ports are not disabled, but instead reallocated)
Regarding claim 7, the structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 7. Thus, claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayko et al. in view of Cox in further view of Rodriguez-Bravo et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0356667).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sayko et al. and Cox discloses the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
The combination of Sayko et al. and Cox does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more controllers display, on the displayer, a message inquiring whether or not to disable the network port, based on a result of the determination, and decide whether or not to disable the network port, based on an instruction being input via the operation acceptor in response to the message.
Rodriguez-Bravo et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0356667) discloses:
wherein the one or more controllers display, on the displayer, a message inquiring whether or not to disable the network port, based on a result of the determination, and decide whether or not to disable the network port, based on an instruction being input via the operation acceptor in response to the message (paragraph [0041], the user can be displayed an on screen challenge/warning prompting them to confirm an action such as closing a network port)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Rodriguez-Bravo et al with the combination of Sayko et al. and Cox such that the system would be configured to display a message inquiring whether or not to disable the network port, based on a result of the determination, and decide whether or not to disable the network port, based on an instruction being input via the operation acceptor in response to the message as described in Rodriguez-Bravo et al. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “identifying potential malicious activity….[and] mitigate or entirely prevent damage from that activity” (paragraph [0021] of the Rodriguez-Bravo reference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights