DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/203157, filed on 05/08/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
As per the Preliminary Amendment filed on 05/15/2025 claims 1-6 are pending in this application; claims 1, 5, and 6 are independent.
Priority/Continuity
PCT Application No. PCT/JP2022/042443, filed on 11/15/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 05/16/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claims 1, 5, and 6, the claims recite the limitations, “IoT device,” without reciting the full meaning of the acronym “IoT” at least once.
Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Claim Interpretations
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.
Claims 1-5 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, if any, 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a request module,” “a creation module,” “a creation module,” “a transmission module,” with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, respectively, and “a setting module” and “a start request module,” with respect to claims 3 and, respectively.
A review of the specification shows that the paragraphs 0025-30, 34-38, and 45-47, of the specification discloses a limited description of the corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/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 the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 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.
As to the independent claim 1, the claim cites, in line 5, a term, “normal communication,” which is a relative term, and renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal communication” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim nor the specification captures scope of any “abnormal communication” either, for making a reasonable differentiation of “normal” opposite of “abnormal.”
For examination purpose, the Examiner interprets that with the term “normal communication,” the claim meant to cover a scope any form of non-malicious communication.
As to the independent claims 5 and 6, the claims are rejected for the same reason set forth above for claim 1.
As to the dependent claims 2-4, the claims are dependent on either claim 1, and therefore, inherit 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues of the parent claims.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (“Nomura et al,” US 2020/0374290, patented on 11/20/2020), in view of Kuramoto et al (“Kuramoto,” WO2021/186810, published on 09/23/2021, for mapping purpose, used US 2023/0155918, as an English Translation version, filed on 09/06/2022, with respect to PCT filling PCT/JP2020/046061).
As to claim 1, Nomura teaches a communication control system comprising a gateway and an IoT device connected to the gateway (Nomura: pars 0007, 0021-0024, a system and method for network configuration and controlling management. Where, a number of IoT devices are connected to a IoT gateway), wherein the gateway includes:
from the IoT device, information regarding normal communication performed by the IoT device (Nomura: pars 0007, 0021-0024, the IoT gateway device periodically collect the information on the IoT devices); and
a creation module configured to create a whitelist in which details of communication permitted for each IoT device are designated on a basis of the information regarding normal communication performed by the IoT device, which is transmitted from the IoT device (Nomura: pars 0007, 0021-0024, 0036, 0070-0071, a creation apparatus [i.e., creation module], separately connected with the gateway over the network or mounted into the gateway. Where the creation apparatus creates whitelist applied to the respective IoT gateways with the collected information on IoT devices that are connected with the gateway. Where the white lists serving to specify communication contents permitted for the respective IoT devices), and
the IoT device includes [ ] to transmit the information regarding normal communication performed by the IoT device to the gateway (Nomura: pars 0007, 0021-0024, the IoT gateway device periodically collect the information on the IoT devices).
Nomura does not explicitly teach a request module configured to request, and the IoT device includes a transmission module configured to transmit, in response to a request from the request module.
However, in an analogous art, Kuramoto teaches a request module configured to request, and the IoT device includes a transmission module configured to transmit, in response to a request from the request module (Kuramoto: pars 0073-0075, a device identifier acquisition unit that acquires the device identifier of a first device from the communication between the first device connected to the first gateway device using a port-PU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuramoto with the method/system of Nomura to include the limitation(s), a request module configured to request, and the IoT device includes a transmission module configured to transmit, in response to a request from the request module, where one would have been motivated for the benefit of collecting information on IoT devices that are connected with the gateway using appropriated hardware and configuration for the transmission/communication (Kuramoto: pars 0073-0075).
As to claim 2, the combination of Nomura and Kuramoto teaches the communication control system according to claim 1,
Nomura and Kuramoto further teaches wherein the request module requests a Network Secure Transparency Object (NSTO) as the information regarding normal communication performed by the IoT device (Nomura: pars 0007, 0051, 0057, 0063, the IoT device information that is collected includes, device identifier, port identifier, IP address or MAC address for IP, etc. [i.e. NSTO information]).
As to claim 3, the combination of Nomura and Kuramoto teaches the communication control system according to claim 1,
Nomura and Kuramoto further teaches wherein the gateway further includes a setting module configured to set the whitelist created by the creation module (Nomura: pars 0007, 0021-0024, 0036, 0070-0071, the IoT devicesare connected to the IoT gateways, the respective IoT gateways enable access control using the white list information on the IoT device. An extraction unit that extracts white lists of IoT devices that satisfies a prescribed condition related to the number of the IoT devices).
As to claim 4, the combination of Nomura and Kuramoto teaches the communication control system according to claim 1,
Kuramoto further teaches wherein the IoT device further includes a start request module configured to request the gateway to start communication, and the request module receives a request to start communication from the start request module and requests, from the IoT device, the information regarding normal communication performed by the IoT device (Kuramoto: pars 0057, 0073-0075, the device identifier acquisition unit that acquires the device identifier of a first device during the communication process between the first device connected to the first gateway device using a port-PU. The communication process relays data from the device 10 connected to the first gateway device).
As to claim 5, Nomura teaches a gateway (Nomura: pars 0007, 0021-0024, a system and method for network configuration and controlling management. Where, a number of IoT devices are connected to a IoT gateway) comprising:
from an IoT device, information regarding normal communication performed by the IoT device (Nomura: pars 0007, 0021-0024, the IoT gateway device periodically collect the information on the IoT devices); and
a creation module configured to create a whitelist in which details of communication permitted for each IoT device are designated on a basis of the information regarding normal communication performed by the IoT device, which is transmitted from the IoT device (Nomura: pars 0007, 0021-0024, 0036, 0070-0071, a creation apparatus [i.e., creation module], separately connected with the gateway over the network or mounted into the gateway. Where the creation apparatus creates whitelist applied to the respective IoT gateways with the collected information on IoT devices that are connected with the gateway. Where the white lists serving to specify communication contents permitted for the respective IoT devices).
Nomura does not explicitly teach a request module configured to request.
However, in an analogous art, Kuramoto teaches a request module configured to request (Kuramoto: pars 0073-0075, a device identifier acquisition unit that acquires the device identifier of a first device from the communication between the first device connected to the first gateway device using a port-PU)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuramoto with the method/system of Nomura to include the limitation(s), a request module configured to request, where one would have been motivated for the benefit of collecting information on IoT devices that are connected with the gateway using appropriated hardware and configuration for the transmission/communication (Kuramoto: pars 0073-0075).
As to claim 6, the claim is directed to a method, and the scope of the claim limitations is similar to the system claim 1, and therefore, rejected for the same reason set forth above for claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Jahangir Kabir whose telephone number is (571) 270-3355. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9:00- 5:00 Mon-Thu.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. The fax 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAHANGIR KABIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights