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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received August 19, 2025.
Claims 1-5 are amended. Claims 1-5 are pending and have been examined.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 4, and 5 recite(s)
acquire system information related to an information system and device information related to each device that constitutes the information system; generate a determination rule and determination rule points based on an importance of the determination rule, according to the system information and the device information acquired; calculate an evaluation score value of the device information acquired on a basis of the determination rule and the determination rule points generated; and select the device information in which the evaluation score value of the device information calculated is equal to or greater than a set threshold.
The abstract idea in claims 1, 4, and 5, which are similar in scope, recites a mental process because each step is a mental observation or judgment. Acquiring is observation; generating a determination rule and rule points based on acquired information is a judgment; calculating an evaluation score value is a judgment; and select the device information is equal to or greater than a threshold is also a judgment. One could do these on pen and paper or even mentally because they amount to no more than information steps, wherein information can be observed or “generated” (by a mental judgment, and this is an unpatentable mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are instructions to apply generic computing components to the above-identified abstract idea. Taken alone, in combination, and with the claims as a whole, they amount to no more than instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements are:
Claim 1:
An information management apparatus comprising: a memory; and processing circuitry configured to:
Claim 4:
executed by an information management apparatus,
Claim 5:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein an information management program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the reasoning in the above section (practical application) is carried over. For the same reasons that the additional elements, alone, in combination, and considering the claims as a whole are not a practical application, they are not significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2105(II) where the findings in prong 2 are carried over for MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The dependent claims if incorporated into the independent claims merely further describe the abstract idea and therefore would be rejected under 101.
Therefore, claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Furuyama et al., WO-2024069877-A1, effective filing date 2022-09-29 (“Furuyama”).
Note, the pages are the pages in the attached PDF which has the translation then the original WIPO document.
Per claims 1, 4, and 5, which are similar in scope, Furuyama teaches
Per claim 1 specifically Furuyama teaches An information management apparatus comprising: a memory and processing circuitry configured to in pages 2-3: “The CPU 501 runs an operating system to control the entire evaluation device 100 according to the first embodiment of the present invention. The CPU 501 also reads programs and data from a recording medium 506 mounted in, for example, a drive device 507 into memory. The CPU 501 also functions as the evaluation index acquisition unit 101, device information acquisition unit 102, inspection unit 103, evaluation unit 104, output unit 105, or parts of these in the first embodiment, and executes the processes or commands in the flowchart shown in FIG. 3, which will be described later, based on the programs.“
Per claim 4, specifically Furuyama teaches An information management method executed by an information management apparatus, the information management method comprising: in page 3: ‘. The CPU 501 also reads programs and data from a recording medium 506 mounted in, for example, a drive device 507 into memory. The CPU 501 also functions as the evaluation index acquisition unit 101, device information acquisition unit 102, inspection unit 103, evaluation unit 104, output unit 105, or parts of these in the first embodiment, and executes the processes or commands in the flowchart shown in FIG. 3, which will be described later, based on the programs.”
Per claim 5, specifically Furuyama teaches A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein an information management program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising in page 3: “The recording medium 506 is, for example, an optical disk, a flexible disk, a magneto-optical disk, an
external hard disk, or a semiconductor memory. A recording medium that is part of the storage device is a non-volatile storage device, and the program is recorded therein. The program may also be downloaded from an external computer (not shown) that is connected to a communication network.“
Then, per claims 1, 4, and 5 Furumaya teaches acquire system information related to an information system and device information related to each device that constitutes the information system in page 4: “The device information acquisition unit 102 is a means for acquiring device information of the network device to be evaluated. The device information acquisition unit 102 acquires device information of the network device to be evaluated, for example, from the device information storage device 300. Device information is information necessary to evaluate the trustworthiness of the network device, and includes configuration information and inspection information. The device information storage device 300 stores, for example, configuration information and inspection information linked to each network device. In the first embodiment, the trust evaluation index acquired by the evaluation index acquisition unit 101 is input to the evaluation device 100 via, for example, the communication I/F 508.” Trust evaluation index teaches system information related to an information system and device information teaches device information.
Then, per claims 1, 4, and 5 Furumaya teaches generate a determination rule and determination rule points based on an importance of the determination rule, according to the system information and the device information acquire in pages 3-4: "Examples of trust evaluation indicators include the following (1) to (4): (1) the presence or absence of backdoors, (2) the status of risk assessment inspections, (3) visibility of network device developers, and (4) the status of inspections in the supply chain.
In the above examples (1) to (4), the evaluation criteria for the trust evaluation index may be different. For example, in regard to (1) the presence or absence of a backdoor, the evaluation criteria may be that the binary code is analyzed and that it does not contain any functions or processes that could be a backdoor, or that the source code is analyzed and that it does not contain a backdoor. Note that a backdoor is a hidden function or additional function that the user is not aware of, and refers to an unauthorized function within the software.
(2) Regarding the inspection status of risk assessment, the evaluation criteria may be set to eliminate all detected vulnerabilities, or the evaluation criteria may be met if the risks to vulnerabilities and countermeasures are understood. Furthermore, these evaluation criteria may be set based on the degree of impact on the user business if a system that incorporates a network device stops. For example, if a system stoppage poses a risk to confidential information or to human life, the evaluation criteria applied may be stricter. Note that a vulnerability refers to a security flaw that occurs due to design errors or program malfunctions in the hardware or software of a network device, and includes information that is publicly available.
(3) Regarding visualization of developers of network devices, the evaluation criteria may be that all attributes of the developer are clearly stated, or that the evaluation criteria may be met if only parts of the developer information that are unclear are identified. In addition, the evaluation criteria may be that the developer's attributes are a specific country or business entity, or that the developer is not a specific country or business entity.
(4) Regarding the inspection status in the supply chain, the evaluation criteria may be to clarify the inspection results of all businesses in the supply chain of network devices, or the evaluation criteria may be to identify areas with no inspection results or areas that have not been inspected. In addition, the number of inspections during the development stage, rather than the final product, may be included in the trust evaluation index." Evaluation criteria teaches determination rule points. These are generated because they are based on the system and device information, such as whether or not there exists a backdoor. Where is taught above “evaluation criteria may be stricter” teaches determination rule points based on an importance of the determination rule.
Then, per claims 1, 4, and 5 Furumaya teaches calculate an evaluation score value of the device information acquired on a basis of the determination rule and the determination rule points generated in page 5: “Next, the inspection unit 103 inspects the network device using the evaluation criteria of the trust evaluation index for each created inspection item. The inspection unit 103 may display the inspection result for each trust evaluation index as a binary value of 0 or 100, or may display it as a specific rank such as A to C. The inspection unit 103 may also display the inspection result for each trust evaluation index as a numerical value (score) such as 0 to 100%.” See also “The evaluation unit 104 evaluates the trustworthiness, for example, by calculating the sum or average value of the test results of each trust evaluation index. In addition, the evaluation unit 104 may determine that the trustworthiness is not satisfied if the test result of any of the trust evaluation indexes is 0, or that the trustworthiness is not satisfied if the test result of a predetermined trust evaluation index is equal to or lower than a predetermined value. However, the method of evaluating the trustworthiness by the evaluation unit 104 is not limited to these.” The sum or average value teaches an evaluation score. It is based on the determination rule and the determination rule points generated because it is based on the evaluation criteria.
Then, per claims 1, 4, and 5 Furumaya teaches and select the device information in which the evaluation score value of the device information calculated is equal to or greater than a set threshold in page 5: “In addition, the evaluation unit 104 may determine that the trustworthiness is not satisfied if the test result of any of the trust evaluation indexes is 0, or that the trustworthiness is not satisfied if the test result of a predetermined trust evaluation index is equal to or lower than a predetermined value. However, the method of evaluating the trustworthiness by the evaluation unit 104 is not limited to these.” This teaches selected because equal to or greater is taught where the score is equal to or lower than a predetermined value. As the values are all relative, equal to or lower is equivalent to equal to or greater. Predetermined value teaches threshold.
Therefore, claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 USC 102.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuyama et al., WO-2024069877-A1, effective filing date 2022-09-29 (“Furuyama”) in view of Cutler et al., US PGPUB 20130086237 A1 (“Cutler”).
Per claim 2, Furuyama teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Furuyama does not teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate a recommended threshold according to the device information update information related to the determination rule points on the basis of a scoring result of the device information
and update information related to the recommended threshold on the basis of the set threshold
Cutler teaches determining network policy. See abstract.
Cutler teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate a recommended threshold according to the device information update information related to the determination rule points on the basis of a scoring result of the device information
and update information related to the recommended threshold on the basis of the set threshold in par 56: “Threshold rules 340 may be generated and evaluated in order of the threshold percentage of the implicit conditions. Actions 344 may broadly include session actions and flow actions. Actions 344 may also be broadly classified as notification, modification, or termination. Exemplary threshold rules 346, 347, 348, and 349 may illustrate a possible set of threshold rules. Threshold rule 346 may indicate that network policy node 136 should terminate service when the subscriber's usage has reached 100% of the quota. Threshold rule 347 may indicate that network policy node 136 should downgrade the subscriber's service, for example, by limiting bandwidth, when the subscriber has reached 90% of the quota. Threshold rule 348 may indicate that network policy node 136 should notify the subscriber when the subscriber has reached 50% of the quota. Threshold rule 349 may indicate that network policy node 136 should notify the subscriber when the subscriber is at 0% of the quota, that is, the policy is new or has been reset. It should be apparent that threshold rules 340 may be configured with additional or more complicated rules to meet the demands of subscribers and providers.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the threshold and score teaching of Furumaya with the generation of threshold and updating teaching of Cutler because Cutler teaches: “As the number of subscribers grows, there is demand for network management solutions that efficiently manage network services while allowing flexibility among different subscribers and different contexts.” See par 002. One would be motivated to modify Furumaya with Cutler for this reason because one would want based on network use to make adjustments so that an increase in use is correctly evaluated. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Furumaya with Cutler.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuyama et al., WO-2024069877-A1, effective filing date 2022-09-29 (“Furuyama”) in view of Levy, US PGPUB 20070156726 A1 (“Levy”).
Per claim 3, Furumaya teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Furumaya does not teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire, as system information, information on specifications and manuals for devices, laws and industry standards related to devices, open source intelligence (OSINT), and user usage conditions.
Levy teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire, as system information, information on specifications and manuals for devices, laws and industry standards related to devices, open source intelligence (OSINT), and user usage conditions in par 024: “For example, products have corresponding metadata in the form of product information, manuals, catalogs of related products, etc. Printed objects have metadata in the form of electronic versions of the object, ownership, source, time and location of creation, etc. Physical objects link to their metadata via an identifier on or derived from the product or related documentation (e.g., packaging, labels, etc.). Metadata management technologies, thus, need to be able to support this physical/electronic interface.” Then see par 0155: “an existing industry standard, for simplicity and interoperability. The router requirements guarantee that the system functions properly and maximizes value to vendors and users.” Then see par 0372: “The reports allow Content Providers to access CID specific usage statistics.” Then see par 096: “. There are alternative ways to implement this approach. One, as documented in CMDS embodiments, is to return to the consumer a URL or set of URLs for a metadata sources controlled by others.” This teaches open source intelligence because a URL is open source.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the threshold and score evaluation of a device teaching of Furumaya with the system information being manual, specification, open source, and user usage teaching of Levy because one would be motivated to broaden the information available to make determinations based on a device, and the information sources taught by Levy would accomplish this broadening. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Furumaya with Levy.
Therefore claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Prior Art Considered Relevant to Applicant’s Disclosure
The following prior art is considered relevant to applicant’s disclosure but not relied upon in the above rejection:
Shigeru et al., JP 2011198074 A, teaches in page 6 that Fig 2 teaches an evaluation information recording unit which records hardware type software type which teaches device information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights