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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see Remarks, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, and is persuasive. However, a second Final is being issued herewith based on a newly found prior art, Madden, US 2023/0092395.
Grossman in combination with Madden teaches the amended 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, 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, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-PGPUB No. 2018/0018462 A1 to Grossman, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2023/0092395 A1 to Madden
Regarding claim 1:
Grossman discloses:
A system for proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention (see Fig. 1, Cybersecurity System 100, and ¶112: “network defenders can practice cyber mitigation techniques in a virtual environment. When there is actual cyber activity of a malicious nature in the CBS, network defenders can quickly understand the potential effects of their mitigation actions, before these actions are actually performed.”), the system comprising:
a memory (¶129: “memory”); and
a processor in communication with the memory (¶129: “processor”), the processor being configured to perform operations comprising:
However, Grossman does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Madden:
receiving guidance information from one or more devices (Madden, ¶56: “… the XR device 140 receives data from embedded cameras and sensors.”), wherein the one or more devices are in a physical environment surrounding a user (Madden, ¶36: “a camera 111 may be installed in or near the space 101.”);
generating a virtual reality (VR) environment based on the physical environment surrounding the user (Madden, ¶96: “The server 320 can generate an XR environment for presentation to the user 310 as an XR image displayed through the XR device 340.”);
Simulating, in the VR environment, the user performing guidance of the guidance information in the physical environment surrounding the user (Madden, ¶106: “… user 310 tries to move a virtual structure to a location in the XR environment …”, see Fig. 3, virtual chair 314, and virtual table 312, and a virtual bookcase 316 ), wherein the guidance is guidance provided to the user via VR to perform one or more actions in the physical environment surrounding the user (Madden, see Fig. 3, virtual chair 314, and virtual table 312, and a virtual bookcase 316 given to user 310 via XR environment 350 );
determining whether the guidance of the guidance information is performable in the physical environment surrounding the user based on the simulating (Madden, ¶106: “If the user 310 tries to move a virtual structure to a location in the XR environment where the corresponding real-world feature would not fit, …”);
and notifying a user of the performability of the guidance in the physical environment surrounding the user (Madden, ¶106: “… the XR application can generate a warning for the user 310, … by refusing to move the virtual structure to the location indicated by the user 310.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Grossman to incorporate the functionality of the method for receiving information from devices (camera) in the a physical environment (space) and generating virtual objects in a virtual environment corresponding to physical objects in the physical environment that would allow to perform actions in the virtual environment that can be translated into actions in the physical environment, as disclosed by Madden, such modification would enable the system to provide a real time virtual view of physical objects in the virtual environment, and enable users to control the physical objects from the virtual environment in real time.
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 substantially recites the same limitations as claim 1 in the form of a method implementing the functionalities of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15:
Grossman discloses:
A computer program product for proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations (¶36: “… one or more executable programs or portion(s) of an executable program for execution by a computer processor such as the processor 1112 … The program may be embodied in software stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium …”), the operations comprising:
In addition to the above limitation, claim 15 substantially recites the same limitations as claim 1 in the form of a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium for storing program instructions of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman, Madden, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2022/0139049 A1 to Stephen et al. (hereinafter “Stephen”)
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Grossman and Madden discloses:
The system of claim 1, where determining whether the guidance is performable includes:
analyzing the simulation of the guidance (Madden, ¶106: “… the XR application can perform one or more actions to indicate to the user 310 that the selected feature cannot be moved to the desired location.”);
and predicting that an error will occur in the physical environment if the guidance is performed in the physical (Madden, ¶106: “… If the user 310 tries to move a virtual structure to a location in the XR environment where the corresponding real-world feature would not fit,”),
The combination of Grossman and Madden does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Stephen:
wherein the error is predicted to occur based on an error threshold (Stephen, ¶89: “… overall pass/fail remediation thresholds are either preconfigured by an administrator or weighted by pre-defined importance (i.e., breakage, danger).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Grossman and Madden to incorporate the functionality of the chatbot configured to provide interactive voice response (IVR) to users to provide immediate interactive feedback, including a possible dangerous action, as disclosed by Stephen, such modification would enable the system to take proactive protective measures to protect the system from failure.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 substantially recites the same limitation as claim 2 in the form of a method implementing the functionalities of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 substantially recites the same limitation as claim 2 in the form of a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium for storing program instructions of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman, Madden, Stephen, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2013/0227681 A1 to Hong
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Grossman, Madden and Stephen discloses the system of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Hong:
wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining whether the error is from the guidance information including incorrect code (Hong, ¶33: “… Augmented reality (AR) information refers to information in which the object and the tag information have been synthesized, and refers to information that may be provided to a user of an AR service. Security may refer to determining whether malicious code, … are present in data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Grossman, Madden and Stephen to incorporate the functionality of the method to perform security verification of a tag information, wherein the tag information includes viewing guides in an augmented reality service, as disclosed by Hong, such modification would enable the system to protect the system and personal information from being compromised.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 substantially recites the same limitation as claim 3 in the form of a method implementing the functionalities of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 substantially recites the same limitation as claim 3 in the form of a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium for storing program instructions of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman, Madden, Stephen, Hong, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2017/0235951 A1 to Harrison et al. (hereinafter “Harrison”)
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Grossman, Madden, Stephen and Hong discloses the system of claim 3, but does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Harrison:
wherein determining whether the error is from incorrect code includes:
analyzing the guidance information (Harrison, ¶34: “The security management facility 122 may provide host intrusion prevention through behavioral based protection, which may guard against unknown threats by analyzing behavior before software code executes. Behavioral based protection may monitor code when it runs and intervene if the code is deemed to be suspicious or malicious.”);
identifying the incorrect code within the guidance information (Harrison, ¶34: “… behavioral protection can identify malicious code”); and
performing a remediation action (Harrison, ¶34: “… behavioral protection can identify malicious code … and delete the code before it can reach endpoint computers and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Grossman, Madden, Stephen and Hong to incorporate the functionality of the security management facility to provide host intrusion prevention through behavioral based protection, by identifying and deleting malicious code, as disclosed by Harrison, such modification would provide the system with intrusion prevention capability to guard against unknown threats by analyzing behavior before the software code executes.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 substantially recites the same limitation as claim 4 in the form of a method implementing the functionalities of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 substantially recites the same limitation as claim 4 in the form of a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium for storing program instructions of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman, Madden, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2017/0326457 A1 to Tilton et al. (hereinafter “Tilton”)
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Grossman and Madden discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Tilton:
wherein notifying the user of the performability of the guidance includes overlaying one or more notifications over one or more simulated objects in the VR environment (Tilton, ¶67: “… the co-presence virtual environment modification data can include instructions for VR user device 135 to generate notification overlay 380 showing the permitted space for avatar 310. For example, FIG. 3C shows notification overlay 380 which indicates the area of co-presence virtual environment 300 the avatar must return so that co-presence virtual environment 300 returns to its default or normal state, for example, color and undistorted audio.”, see Fig. 3C, item 370).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Grossman and Madden to incorporate the functionality of the method to generate notification overlay showing permitted space for avatar, as disclosed by Tilton, such modification would enable the system to display notifications in a non-intrusive way, blending seamlessly with the virtual environment while still being easily noticeable.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 substantially recites the same limitations as claim 5 in the form of a method implementing the functionalities of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 substantially recites the same limitations as claim 5 in the form of a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium for storing program instructions of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman, Madden, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2018/0068577 A1 to Javanbakht
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Grossman and Madden discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Javanbakht:
wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
storing the guidance information in a repository (Javanbakht, ¶47: “Guidance information may be received and displayed by user interface 114 and stored in memory 108, database 122, or a combination thereof.”); and
tagging the guidance information with an indicator (Javanbakht, see Fig. 3, guidance information displayed on user interface 114 tagged with indicators 208a-d), wherein the indicator indicates the performability of the guidance (Javanbakht, ¶37: “guidance indicators 208 providing visual guidance in response to user reactions of user 101 or 103”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Grossman and Madden to incorporate the functionality of the method to receive and display guidance information on a user interface tagged with indicators, and store the guidance information in a database, as disclosed by Javanbakht, such modification would enable the system to provide the user with indicators indicating a level of speed, distance, direction, or force for the user to move or apply.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 substantially recites the same limitations as claim 6 in the form of a method implementing the functionalities of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 substantially recites the same limitations as claim 6 in the form of a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium for storing program instructions of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman, Madden, Javanbakht, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2021/0014078 A1 to Thompson et al. (hereinafter “Thompson”)
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Grossman, Madden and Javanbakht discloses the system of claim 6, but fails to explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Thompson:
wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving second guidance information (Thompson, ¶11: “… the media guidance application may receive, at the second time from the network-connected device, one or more packets indicating the sensor state of the sensor associated with the network-connected device.”);
accessing the repository (Thompson, ¶11: “… a sensor state received by the media guidance application at a time prior to the second time, stored in memory …”);
comparing the second guidance information to the guidance information (Thompson, ¶11: “The media guidance application may compare the sensor state received in the packet with a previous sensor state …”);
identifying that the second guidance information and the guidance information perform the same guidance (Thompson, ¶11: “… the media guidance application determines that there is no difference between the current sensor state and the previous sensor state …”);
and automatically performing a remediation action (Thompson, ¶20: “… the media guidance application may automatically adjust the setting of the media consumption device in a manner consistent with the environmental condition.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Grossman, Madden and Javanbakht to incorporate the functionality of the media guidance application to compare sensor state received in a packet with a previous sensor state (e.g., a sensor state received by the media guidance application at a time prior to the second time), as disclosed by Thompson, such modification would enable the system to determine if the value of the current state differs from the value of the previous state to take appropriate action based on the determination.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 substantially recites the same limitations as claim 7 in the form of a method implementing the functionalities of the proactive simulation based cyber-threat prevention. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS HABTEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1916. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, William R. Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHIAS HABTEGEORGIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights