DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the correspondence filed on 05/07/2025. Claims 1-18 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/07/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the term "A storage medium" is directed to signal per se, thus non-statutory.
Examiner notes that “non-transitory” can be added to the term to make it one of the allowable statutory categories.
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 limitation(s) uses 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: a monitoring unit configured to monitor , a specifying unit configured to specify, and a detecting unit configured to detect in claims 1-16 and a setting changing unit configured to enhance in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations a monitoring unit configured to monitor, a specifying unit configured to specify, and a detecting unit configured to detect in claims 1-16 and a setting changing unit configured to enhance in claim 15 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification states the claimed functions of monitoring a physical input, specifying an execution condition, detecting unauthorized execution and enhancing security setting, are performed by the stated units. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform these monitoring, specifying, detecting, and enhancing functions. The use of the terms monitoring, specifying, detecting, and enhancing units are not adequate structure for performing the monitoring, specifying, detecting, and enhancing functions because they do not describe a particular structure for performing the associated functions. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the terms monitoring, specifying, detecting, and enhancing refer to performing various well-known operations like observing input data, considering relevant operations, determining an outcome, and updating data; and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed functions.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roche et al. (US Pub No. 20240232338 A1, referred to as Roche).
Regarding claims 1 and 17-18, taking claim 1 as exemplary, Roche anticipates,
1. An information processing apparatus configured to detect unauthorized execution of a process, the information processing apparatus comprising:
a monitoring unit configured to monitor a physical input to the information processing apparatus; (Roche: [0037]; the second threat management model may be a decentralized model that uses information collected (monitor) by multiple data processing systems to identify new types of threats… (ii) aggregate operation data (e.g., telemetry data) (physical input) from the data processing systems.)
a specifying unit configured to specify an execution condition of the process; and (Roche: [0087]; second potential threats are identified using the anomaly detection model. The second potential threats may be identified by classifying (specify) operations of the data processing system (that are not classified as exhibiting threats using the threat profiles) using the anomaly detection model. The anomaly detection model may classify levels of anomalousness of the operations. The levels of anomalousness may be compared to a threshold or other criteria that, if met, indicate that the corresponding operations with respect to exhibiting or not exhibit threats.)
a detecting unit configured to detect unauthorized execution of the process based on the physical input monitored by the monitoring unit and the execution condition specified by the specifying unit. (Roche: [0037]; (iv) use the anomaly detection model to identify levels of anomalousness of new operations performed by the data processing system, (v) based on the anomalousness levels, identify some new operations as likely being malicious and/or otherwise indicative of malicious activity.)
Regarding claim 2, Roche further anticipates,
2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the process is executed via the physical input performed by a user of the information processing apparatus. (Roche: [0025]; data processing systems 100 may provide the computer implemented services to users of data processing systems 100.)
Regarding claim 6, Roche further anticipates,
6. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specifying unit specifies, as the execution condition, a physical input which is a precondition for execution of the process. (Roche: [0087]; second potential threats are identified using the anomaly detection model. The second potential threats may be identified by classifying (specifies) operations of the data processing system (that are not classified as exhibiting threats using the threat profiles) using the anomaly detection model. [0083]; the anomaly detection model may be obtained by (i) obtaining access to a corpus of telemetry data (physical input) from the operably connected data processing systems.)
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 3, 5, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche in view of Koganti (US Pub No. 20210240835 A1, referred to as Koganti).
Regarding claim 3, Roche discloses,
3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Roche does not explicitly disclose, however Koganti teaches,
wherein the monitoring unit monitors a change in a physical quantity generated by a user of the information processing apparatus operating the information processing apparatus. (Koganti: [0133]; system can monitor for specific stress-related responses associated with the particular risky behavior, or can monitor a full-spectrum of events from the user entity. User reactions can include, for example, random motion of a gesture input device (e.g., mouse), closing applications abruptly, closing a lid of a laptop-type computer, changing pressure of keystrokes, faster typing (physical quantity);, changes in facial expressions, rapid eye movement, ceasing file transfers, and the like.)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Koganti into the teachings of Roche with a motivation to enhance contextual information regarding detected risk events in a networked system by monitoring various stress triggers (Koganti abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Roche discloses,
Roche does not explicitly disclose, however Koganti teaches,
5. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Roche does not explicitly disclose, however Koganti teaches,
wherein the monitoring unit records a time of generation of the physical input performed by a user of the information processing apparatus. (Koganti: [0106]; the user behavior factors 614 may include the user's access rights 616, the user's interactions 618, and the date/time/frequency 620 of those interactions 618.)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Roche and Koganti as set forth in claim 3 is equally applicable to claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, Roche discloses,
15. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1
Roche does not explicitly disclose, however Koganti teaches,
further comprising a setting changing unit configured to enhance a security setting of the information processing apparatus in a case where the detecting unit detects unauthorized execution of the process. (Koganti: [0061]; the endpoint agent 306 may be implemented to update the security analytics system 118 (enhance security setting) with user behavior and associated contextual information.)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Roche and Koganti as set forth in claim 3 is equally applicable to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Roche discloses,
16. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Roche does not explicitly disclose, however Koganti teaches,
wherein the information processing apparatus is an image forming apparatus. (Koganti: Fig. 3; [0033]; an endpoint device 304, as likewise used herein, refers to an information processing system such as a personal computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smart phone, a mobile telephone, a digital camera, a video camera, or other device capable of storing, processing and communicating data, such as information handling system 100.
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Roche and Koganti as set forth in claim 3 is equally applicable to claim 16.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche, in view of Koganti, further in view of Cutler et al. (US Pat No. 9913409 B2, referred to as Cutler).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Roche and Koganti discloses,
4. The information processing apparatus according to claim 3,
The combination of Roche and Koganti does not explicitly disclose, however Cutler teaches,
wherein the physical quantity is voltage. (Cutler: Coln. 12, l. 63 – Coln. 13, l. 5; the intrusion detection system includes a perimeter barrier; wherein at least a portion of the one or more intrusion detection modules is coupled to the perimeter barrier; wherein the one or more intrusion detection modules include at least one of an acoustic sensor, a pressure sensor, a vibration sensor, a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, a current sensor, or a fiber network integrity sensor; identifying a change in the environment by a distinct observation.)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Cutler into the combination of Roche and Koganti with a motivation to identify and prevent physical intrusion by using one or more sensors to identify the detected threat at operation (Cutler: Coln. 10, ls. 47-67).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche in view of Krause et al. (US Pub No. 20170244748 A1, referred to as Krause).
Regarding claim 8, Roche discloses,
8. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1
Roche does not explicitly disclose; however, Krause teaches,
further comprising a security measure unit configured to execute restart of the information processing apparatus and notification to an administrator in a case where the detecting unit detects unauthorized execution of the process. (Krause: [0077]; the secure computing module 106 may perform at least one remedial action to prevent or otherwise mitigate the effects of the malicious activity. Accordingly, the module 106 may initiate a remedial action such as generating a human-readable report useful for system administrators, restarting the exploited virtual machine from an earlier checkpoint state, or issuing an alert to a system administrator.)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Krause into the teachings of Roche with a motivation to use integrated security controls to ensure security of a computing environment and to remedy malicious behavior by restarting the system and alerting a system administrator when discrepancies between a node's behavior are detected (Krause abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9-14 contain allowable subject matter but remain rejected under 112 rejections. They are also objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and the stated rejection(s) are resolved.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Although prior arts Roche, Cutler, and Krause above disclose all the limitations of the prior claims (see rejections above), none of the prior arts of record alone or in combination discloses detecting an unauthorized execution of the process in a case where there is a difference between a time of generation of an execution request for the process to be executed and a time of generation of the physical input which is a precondition for execution of the process recorded; detecting an unauthorized change of administrator setting in a case where there is a difference between a time of generation of a change request for the administrator setting and a time of generation of a physical input related to a change of the administrator setting recorded; changing a remote user interface (RUI) function for executing a process by remote operation to a disabled status before detecting unauthorized execution of the process; detecting unauthorized execution of the process in a case where a process preconditioned upon the physical input is executed even though there is no reaction in the human sensor after monitoring; and detecting unauthorized execution of the process in a case where a process is executed even though a charging operation is not performed after monitoring as described in the claims.
At the effective filing date of the application, the above limitations would not have been obvious over the prior arts of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Borges; Nash US-PGPUB US 20230105087 A1 Methods for detecting malicious hands-on-keyboard activity via machine learning
Chen; Joseph et al. US-PGPUB US 20170046518 A1 Methods for detecting unknown vulnerabilities in computing processes
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KA SHAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1569. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 9AM-5:30PM EST Alternate Fridays.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/KA SHAN CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights