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
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
“the memory device stores agent software capable of executing a plurality of the management functions of the apparatus”;
“stores consent information indicating whether use of each of the plurality of management functions is permitted”;
“executes a management function use of which is permitted by the consent information, among the plurality of management functions, rejects execution of a management function use of which is prohibited by the consent information”;
“updates the agent software without obtaining a consent of an administrator of the apparatus”
Each of these limitations would be practical to perform in the mind with the aid of pencil and paper, thus directed towards a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Each of these limitations work together to an agent executes management functions if there is a consent and rejects to execute the management functions if there is prohibition and updating this agent without any administrator’s consent. This is the type of analysis that goes into device management and can reasonably be done in the human mind. As result, the limitations listed recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites “a processor; and a memory device” and “memory device stores agent software”. The claimed a processor; and a memory device is a generic computer component that is being claimed as just a tool to perform the claimed mental steps. Performing an abstract idea on a computer tool does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Claim 1 also recites “updates the agent software without obtaining a consent of an administrator of the apparatus”. The updating the agent without obtaining administrator’s consent is an updating step which uses the updated information to update the agent to perform the mental process. The claimed updating step is insignificant extra solution activity and does not transform the claimed abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). The additional elements have been considered alone, and in combination with the claimed invention as a whole, but does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As result, the invention is directed towards an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the memory device stores agent software amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As result, the claim is not patent eligible.
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.
3. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (US pat. App. Pub. 20150358526) and in view of Hulick, JR. hereinafter Hulick (US pat. App. Pub. 20210034772).
4. As per claims 1, and 9, Cronin discloses an apparatus, and a method for providing a management function, the apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory device, wherein the memory device stores agent software capable of executing a plurality of the management functions of the apparatus, and also stores consent information indicating whether use of each of the plurality of management functions is permitted (paragraphs: 8, 24-26, and 83, wherein it emphasizes that a device executing pluralities of management functions and authorizes each of the management functions to use), and the processor executes a management function use of which is permitted by the consent information, among the plurality of management functions, rejects execution of a management function use of which is prohibited by the consent information, and updates the agent software without obtaining a consent of an administrator of the apparatus (paragraphs: 9, 13-15, and 79-80, wherein it elaborates the device allows to execute the management function which is permitted to use by the setting policy and restricts execution of those management functions which are prohibited. The setting of the device will be updated). Cronin discusses updating the setting of the device (paragraph: 15). He does not teaches that updating the setting of the device requires administrator authorization. Any ordinary skill in the art would understand this teaching of Cronin indeed teaches the limitation of updates the agent software without obtaining a consent of an administrator of the apparatus. Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Hulick further discloses updates the agent software without obtaining a consent of an administrator of the apparatus (paragraphs: 9, 23, 26, and 42).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Hulick’s teachings of updates the agent software without obtaining a consent of an administrator of the apparatus with the teachings of Cronin, for the purpose of effectively protecting the agent from any unauthorized intruders.
5. As per claim 2, Cronin in view of Hulick discloses the apparatus, wherein the processor receives a designation pertinent to the consent information from the administrator, and the consent information specifies whether use of each of the plurality of management functions is permitted, in accordance with the designation from the administrator (Cronin, paragraphs: 26, 38).
6. As per claim 3, Cronin in view of Hulick discloses the apparatus, wherein the processor reflects a consented scope of another apparatus that has been designated in advance, to the consent information (Cronin, paragraphs: 68, 77, and 83).
7. As per claim 4, Cronin in view of Hulick discloses the apparatus, wherein the processor transmits a designation of the other apparatus to a service device, the service device manages consent information of a plurality of apparatuses, and the processor receives a consented scope of the other apparatus from the service device and reflects the consented scope to the consent information (Cronin, paragraphs: 13-14, and 26).
8. As per claim 5, Cronin in view of Hulick discloses the apparatus, wherein, when there is a change in the consented scope of the other apparatus, the processor reflects the change in the consented scope, to the consent information (Cronin, paragraphs: 41, 51, and 56).
9. As per claim 6, Cronin in view of Hulick discloses the apparatus, wherein the memory device stores trust information, the trust information includes information of a user of the plurality of management functions, the consent information includes information on whether use of each of the plurality of management functions subsequent to a change in the trust information is to be permitted, and the processor executes, in response to a change in the trust information, a function use of which subsequent to a change in the trust information is permitted by the consent information, and rejects execution of a management function use of which subsequent to a change in the trust information is prohibited by the consent information (Cronin, paragraphs: 8, 15, and 79).
10. As per claim 7, Cronin in view of Hulick discloses a system comprising: the apparatus; and a service device, wherein the service device retains the consent information, and the service device controls use of the plurality of management functions by a user, in accordance with the consent information (Cronin, paragraphs: 9, 14, and 26).
11. As per claim 8, Cronin in view of Hulick discloses the system, wherein the service device excludes a management function use of which is prohibited by the consent information, from a display for allowing the user to make a selection (Cronin, paragraphs: 37-38, and 42-43).
Citation of References
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
TERPSTRA et al (US pat. app. Pub. 20230333864): discusses identify, at a management software application, a set of managed mixed-reality devices and validate a device management license against a managed mixed-reality device in the set of managed mixed-reality devices. Whether a software application installed or to be installed on the managed mixed-reality device is amenable to a software management function is verified based at least in part upon an operation mode of the managed mixed-reality device and a profile that is applied to the managed mixed-reality device or is associated with the authorized user. The software management function is programmatically performed by the management software application for the software application based at least in part upon a result of verifying whether the software application is amenable to the software management operation.
Van Der Ploeg et al (US pat. App. Pub. 20130151421): elaborates that a user may have a limited set of privileges to update the project plan compared to a manager. The manager may provide a threshold value relating to a type of change that may be made to a master version project plan. Next, the user may access the master project plan, and provide an input relating to a proposed change. From the change, a change value may be derived, and the change value may be compared to the threshold value to determine whether the change value violates the threshold value. If the change value violates the threshold value, a change exception may be generated, and the manager may be notified that the proposed change requires review. If the change value does not violate the threshold value, then the master project plan may be immediately updated.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD W REZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cathy Thiaw can be reached on 571-270-1138. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMAD W REZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights