DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment filed 3/2/2025 and 3/20/2026 has been fully considered.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are pending and have been examined. Claims 4-5 and 15-16 have been canceled.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment does not point to where in the specification is there support for the amendment, nor is there a statement of no new matter introduced (MPEP 2163, Methodology for determining adequacy of written description).
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or how the amendment distinguish from them.
Regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejection, Examiner notes, however, that this is not a proper reply. As per MPEP § 804(1)(B)(1) [added in 2015-07], a “complete response to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321” and that “such a filing should not be held in abeyance”. The Examiner therefore maintains the non-statutory double patenting, as well as notes the requirements for a proper reply for any future response.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Barnes (20190007447) provides for continuous monitoring of devices to detect devices security posture based on a plurality of parameters/attributes/properties.
Muddu (10986106) provides for detecting security events based on device information.
Sharifi (10812521) teaches generating security scores for devices based on plurality of threat vectors.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There does not appear to be support for “wherein the continuous security monitoring evaluation assesses adequacy of one or more computing entities of the system under test in executing security functions that support continuous security monitoring”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., Inre Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998): Inre Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Inre Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Inre Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actualor provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 etseq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eT D-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 17/301,356. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of US Patent 11,892,924 (Application No. 17/247,701). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-21, 23-30 of copending Application No. 17/247,705. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of copending Application No. 17/247,714. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of copending Application No. 17/128,471. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of copending Application No. 17/247,710. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of copending Application No. 17/247,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 17/301,352. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 17/219,561. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of copending Application No. 17/301,361. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/930,921. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 17/451,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of copending Application No. 17/447,356. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of copending Application No. 17/219,655. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functional limitations merely swap the name of a type of data the method uses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (20180324219), and further in view of Kinder (20180152480) and O’Reilly (10171510).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Xie teaches
A method comprises: / A computer readable memory comprises: a first memory section for storing operational instructions that, when executed by an analysis system, cause the analysis system to (abstract, par.112-116):
determining, by an analysis system, a system aspect of a system under test for a security monitoring evaluation,
wherein the system aspect includes at least one system element of the system under test, at least one system criteria of the system under test (par.7-9, 53-56, 74-79);
and wherein the security monitoring evaluation assesses adequacy of one or more computing entities of the system under test in executing security functions that support security monitoring (par.43-46, 52-56)
determining, by the analysis system, an operational evaluation perspective for use in performing the security monitoring evaluation on the system aspect (par.33-36, 72-73);
obtaining, by the analysis system, security monitoring data from the system aspect (par.56-60); and
calculating, by the analysis system, a security monitoring rating as a measure of security monitoring maturity for the system aspect based on the discovered security monitoring data, the disclosed security monitoring data, the desired security monitoring data, and at least one evaluation rating metric (par.33-36, 43-44, 51-54, 62-65).
Xie teaches the daemons running on the background on the different nodes/devices and determining security posture of devices/network segments (par.88-102), and determining continuous usage (par.74-76), but does not expressly disclose, however
Kinder teaches
continuous security monitoring, presentation of continuous security data, and generation of continuous security indicators (par. 6-10, 40-50),
O’Reilly teaches
determining, by the analysis system, discovered continuous security monitoring data based on the continuous security monitoring data and the operational evaluation perspective (col.6, 40-67, col.7, 1-15);
determining, by the analysis system, disclosed continuous security monitoring data based on the continuous security monitoring data and the operational evaluation perspective (col.7, 5-45, col.9, 1-55);
retrieving, by the analysis system, data from a system proficiency resource in accordance with the operational evaluation perspective to generate desired continuous security monitoring data (col.9, 30-55, col.10, 25-67, col.12, 25-67); and
calculating, by the analysis system, a continuous security monitoring rating as a measure of continuous security monitoring maturity for the system aspect based on the discovered continuous security monitoring data, the disclosed continuous security monitoring data, the desired continuous security monitoring data, and at least one evaluation rating metric (col. 12, 25-67, col.13, 45-67, col. 14, 1-35).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to continuously monitor and provide updates as taught by Kinder and to further use outside resources as taught by O’Reilly.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to present a more up to date security posture for a system/network (Kinder, par.4-11) and to provide guidance for improving security (O’Reilly, col.1-2, 17-18).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Xie/Kinder/O’Reilly teaches receiving, by the analysis system, an input, wherein the input identifies at least one of: the system aspect; and the operational evaluation perspective (Xie, par.34-38, 44-48, 66-72).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Xie/Kinder/O’Reilly teaches a system element of the at least one system element includes an enterprise identifier, an organization identifier, a division identifier, a department identifier, a group identifier, a sub-group identifier, a device identifier, a software identifier, or an internet protocol address identifier; a system criteria of the at least one system criteria being system guidelines, system requirements, system design, system build, or resulting system (Xie, par.7-8, 34-39, 49-51, Kinder, par.45-50).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Xie/Kinder/O’Reilly teaches an evaluation rating metric of the at least one evaluation rating metric being a process rating metric, a policy rating metric, a procedure rating metric, a certification rating, a documentation rating metric, or an automation rating metric (Xie, par. 6-7, 38-43, 64-66, 74-76, Kinder, par. 9-12, 41-46, 57-60).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Xie/Kinder/O’Reilly teaches wherein the obtaining the continuous security monitoring data comprises: determining data gathering parameters regarding the system aspect in accordance with the operational evaluation perspective and the at least one evaluation rating metric; identifying the at least one system element of the system aspect based on the data gathering parameters; obtaining continuous security monitoring information from the at least one system element in accordance with the data gathering parameters; and recording the continuous security monitoring information from the at least one system element to produce the continuous security monitoring data (Xie, par. 55-59, 74-79, Kinder, par. 41-46).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Xie/Kinder/O’Reilly teaches wherein the data gathering parameters is regarding at least one of: network monitoring implementation related to the system aspect (Xie, par.4-7, 43-48, Kinder, par. 41-46);
physical environment monitoring implementation related to the system aspect (Xie, par.4-7);
personnel activity monitoring implementation related to the system aspect; malicious code detection implementation related to the system aspect (Xie, par.47-51);
unauthorized mobile code detection implementation related to the system aspect (Xie, par.47-51);
external service provider activity monitoring implementation related to the system aspect; unauthorized personnel monitoring implementation related to the system aspect; unauthorized connection monitoring implementation related to the system aspect (Xie, par.52-56);
unauthorized device monitoring implementation related to the system aspect (Xie, par.54-55);
unauthorized software monitoring implementation related to the system aspect (Kinder, par.41-50); and
vulnerability scanning implementation related to the system aspect (Xie, par. 72-74).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Xie/Kinder/O’Reilly teaches
wherein the calculating the continuous security monitoring rating comprises:
selecting and performing at least two of:
based on the continuous security monitoring data and process analysis parameters, generating a process rating for the system aspect in accordance with the operational evaluation perspective, the at least one evaluation rating metric;
based on the continuous security monitoring data and policy analysis parameters, generating a policy rating for the system aspect in accordance with the operational evaluation perspective and the at least one evaluation rating metric;
based on the continuous security monitoring data and documentation analysis parameters, generating a documentation rating for the system aspect in accordance with the operational evaluation perspective and the at least one evaluation rating metric;
based on the continuous security monitoring data and automation analysis parameters, generating an automation rating for the system aspect in accordance with the operational evaluation perspective and the at least one evaluation rating metric;
based on the continuous security monitoring data and procedure analysis parameters, generating a procedure rating for the system aspect in accordance with the operational evaluation perspective and the at least one evaluation rating metric; and
based on the continuous security monitoring data and certification analysis parameters, generating a certification rating for the system aspect in accordance with the operational evaluation perspective and the at least one evaluation rating metric; and
generating the continuous security monitoring rating based on the selected and performed at least two of: the process rating, the policy rating, the documentation rating, the automation rating, the procedure rating, and the certification rating (Xie, par. 6-7, 38-43, 64-66, 74-76, Kinder, par. 9-12, 41-46, 57-60, O’Reilly, col.12-14).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Xie/Kinder/O’Reilly teaches at least one of: determining, by the analysis system, a system criteria deficiency of the system aspect based on the continuous security monitoring rating and the continuous security monitoring data; determining, by the analysis system, a system mode deficiency of the system aspect based on the continuous security monitoring rating and the continuous security monitoring data; determining, by the analysis system, an evaluation perspective deficiency of the system aspect based on the continuous security monitoring rating and the continuous security monitoring data; and determining, by the analysis system, an evaluation viewpoint deficiency of the system aspect based on the continuous security monitoring rating and the continuous security monitoring data (Xie, par.7-8, 33-36, 52-55, 59-62, Kinder, par.39-43).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Xie/Kinder/O’Reilly teaches determining, by the analysis system, a deficiency of the system aspect based on the continuous security monitoring rating and the continuous security monitoring data; determining, by the analysis system, whether the deficiency is auto-correctable; and when the deficiency is auto-correctable, auto-correcting, by the analysis system, the deficiency (Kinder, par.5-11, 35-36, 43-51).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to security monitoring os systems/devices; Devi Reddy (20170118240) teaches detection and protection of/from different unauthorized entities, users, devices, etc. Coviello (20160035198) teaches user access to secure areas. Shostack (6298445) teaches an integrated computer security system based on multiple security aspects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached on (571)270-3618. 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.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights