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.
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending in this office action.
Priority
Foreign priority claimed to KR10-2022-0173601, filed 12/13/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS's) submitted on 06/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
As to claims 1-3 claim limitation that claims various units, viz. network connection unit, storage unit, control unit, wireless communication unit, packet pattern information collection unit, illegal device detection unit, illegal device blocking unit and input/output control unit have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that storage unit, control unit and wireless communication unit are interpreted as hardware units comprising storage mediums, CPU and mechanism to transmit signals wirelessly (para 29, 31), for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 1, the claim recites a non-limiting or vague phrase - “such as hidden cameras”. The exemplary claim language using “such as” has been held to be indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language ("for example," "such as") [R-07.2015]), thereby rendering the claim indefinite and has been rejected accordingly.
For claims 1-3, the specification does not disclose the structure for achieving the recited limitations around “network connection unit, packet pattern information collection unit, illegal device detection unit, illegal device blocking unit and input/output control unit”, which has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because each limitation uses a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language, or the means-plus-function structure allowed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, wherein the pertinent limitations of instant claims utilize “engine” for performing certain “function”. However, under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the means described in the claims must have adequate structural description in the specification. Through consulting the specification, a sufficient structure for the means to achieve respective function is lacking. Furthermore, the generic placeholder “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier. Therefore, the claims lack corresponding structure in the specification, as there is no description of the structure which performs the claimed invention. As such, the claims are indefinite.
If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that the phrase “means for” or “step for” or the generic placeholder is clearly not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, or may present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2006/0236376 A1, hereinafter Liu), in view of Setia et al. (US 2008/0126531 A1, Setia hereinafter).
For claim 1, Liu teaches an illegal device detection and blocking apparatus configured to detect and block illegal devices, such as hidden cameras, that may be installed on a pre-existing monitored network (para 0003, 0005, 0015, 0025-0026 – monitoring for authorized/unauthorized device detection), comprising:
a network connection unit configured to connect to the wireless LAN of the monitored network (Fig. 1-2; para 0019, 0025, 0038);
a storage unit for storing a MAC list (para 0004-0005, 0007, 0023, 0032 – MAC addresses list in the storage); and
a control unit configured to receive the MAC addresses of devices connected to the network through the network connection unit, and to block data transmission of illegal devices if an illegal MAC address is detected (para 0005, 0025-0026, 0028, 0032 – data transfer from devices connected with unauthorized MAC addresses are denied);
a wireless communication unit for transmitting and receiving signals between the control unit and a user terminal (para 0005, 0014, 0020, 0025-0026, 0028 – user interface or client terminal is connected to unit that controls devices with specific MAC addresses as per criteria);
wherein the control unit includes: an information collection unit configured to acquire MAC addresses of nearby Wi-Fi devices present in the monitored wireless network by the network connection unit is in monitor mode (para 0005, 0025-0026, 0028, 0032 – monitoring for authorized/unauthorized device detection); an illegal device detection unit configured to compare the MAC addresses collected in monitor mode from the wireless LAN with the MAC addresses stored in the MAC list of the storage unit to detect wireless illegal devices, and to present the detection result on the user terminal via the wireless communication unit when an illegal wireless device is detected (Fig. 1-2; para 0007, 0019, 0023, 0025-0026, 0028-0029, 0032, 0036 – device MAC address comparison against MAC address list to determined authorized or unauthorized state of access, and displaying device states on UI for further action).
Although Liu teaches detection of unauthorized device connections based on criteria such as MAC address comparisons, wherein monitoring is inherent part of detection process, Liu does not explicitly teach, whereas Setia teaches a packet pattern information collection unit configured to acquire MAC addresses of nearby Wi-Fi devices while the network connection unit is in monitor mode, and to transmit the detection result to the user terminal via the wireless communication unit when an illegal wireless device is detected (para 0012, 0022, 0026, 0030, 0033-0034, 0043 – packet patterns and MAC address as attribute for unauthorized MAC address comparisons, and transmitting the dissociation result to the client terminal). Based on Liu in view of Setia, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize teachings of Setia in the system of Liu, in order to incorporate well-known features of monitoring of network for unauthorized devices, and communicating information regarding detected unauthorized devices to the user, thereby improving system’s security features pertaining to detection and proactive prevention or mitigation of security risks.
For claim 2, Liu in view of Setia teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Liu does not explicitly teach, whereas Setia teaches wherein the control unit further comprises: an illegal device blocking unit configured to transmit a de-authentication packet to the wireless network to block the wireless illegal device from connecting to an access point, thereby preventing data transmission from the illegal device (Setia – Fig. 1-2; para 0011, 0022, 0033, 0049-0050 – de-authentication and disassociation to prevent access to AP for illegal devices). Based on Liu in view of Setia, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize teachings of Setia in the system of Liu, to incorporate well-known features of monitoring and blocking unauthorized devices connections, thereby minimizing threats and intrusions and thus securing the system.
For claim 3, Liu in view of Setia teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above in claim 2. Liu further teaches wherein the control unit further comprises: an input/output control unit configured to, upon detection of an illegal device, transmit information about the illegal device to the user terminal via the wireless communication unit, retrieve the MAC list from the user terminal and perform the blocking operation (Fig. 1-2; para 0007, 0019, 0023, 0025-0026, 0028-0029, 0032, 0036 – device MAC address comparison against MAC address list to determined authorized or unauthorized state of access, and displaying device states on UI for further action). Liu further teaches upon detection of an illegal device, transmit information about the illegal device to the user terminal via the wireless communication unit, and, upon receiving a command from the user terminal through the wireless communication unit, retrieve the MAC list from the user terminal and perform the blocking operation (para 0007, 0026-0029, 0032 – device MAC address comparison against MAC address list to determined authorized or unauthorized state of access, and displaying device states on UI, wherein the UI allows specifying of authorized or unauthorized devices with respect to MAC address lists).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2006/0236376 A1, hereinafter Liu), in view of Setia et al. (US 2008/0126531 A1, Setia hereinafter), and further in view of Benitez (US 2018/0097821 A1).
For claim 6, Liu in view of Setia teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above in claim 2. Liu in view of Setia does not appear to explicitly disclose, however Benitez discloses wherein the illegal device detection and blocking apparatus is configured as a portable device including a rechargeable battery, the wireless communication unit is configured to interoperate with the user terminal via Bluetooth communication, and the apparatus is controllable through a user interface of the user terminal operated by the user (para 0041-0043, 0068, 0084-0088 – portable detection device with rechargeable battery and Bluetooth communication interface). Based on Liu in view of Setia and Benitez, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize teachings of Benitez in the system of Liu in view of Setia, to incorporate well-known aspects of device portability in the process of intrusion detection and prevention, thereby improving system’s features, flexibility and security.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if incorporated in the base claim 1 including all of the limitations of the base claim 1 and any intervening claims, in addition to overcoming the above-mentioned rejections associated therewith.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (1) Isola - US-20170034161-A1 (Device blocking tool); (2) Brindza - US-9119070-B2 (method for detecting unauthorized wireless devices); (3) Mighdoll - CA-2852902-A1 (system for managing network connected thermostats) - are cited to show methods, computer program products and systems pertinent to peripheral device authorization and prevention of unauthorized access.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH JHAVERI whose telephone number is (571)270-7584. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM to 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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on (571)272-6798. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAYESH M JHAVERI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights