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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 1/26/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
{ 4 }
Response to Arguments
These remarks are provided to summarize the appeal conference in response to the Appeal Brief filed 7/22/2025.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/22/2025, with respect to the § 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims do not represent a mental process. The § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20-25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/22/2025, with respect to the § 112(b) rejection of “static analysis of a cloud object on a security graph” have been fully considered and are persuasive. See App. Br. filed 1/26/2026, pp. 19-24. The § 112(b) of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20-25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/22/2025, with respect to the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 20-25 in view of Oracle Cloud Infrastructure Documentation in view of Choi (US 2019/0327258) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the Appeal Conference determined that the cited references do not disclose a “graph” or show by illustration a graph structure. See App. Br. p. 33. The § 103 rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 20-25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/22/2025, with respect to the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20-25 in view of Cody (US 2024/0146818) in view of Oracle Cloud Infrastructure Documentation have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the Appeal Conference determined that the cited references do not disclose a “graph” or show by illustration a graph structure. See App. Br. p. 38. The § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20-25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/22/2025, with respect to the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20-25 in view of Kurtz (US 2003/0217039) in view of Oracle Cloud Infrastructure Documentation have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the Appeal Conference determined that the cited references do not disclose a “graph” or show by illustration a graph structure. See App. Br. p. 41. The § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20-25 has been withdrawn.
In summary, all rejections of the Office Action mailed 8/26/2025 have been withdrawn.
Note the new 112(b) and 112(d) rejections detailed below due to determinations of the Appeal Conference.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Due to the determinations of the Appeal Conference all rejections have been withdrawn. As such, claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are in condition for allowance.
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 20-25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Each of claims 20-25 require a “reachable resource” without the definite article “the”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Independent claims 1 and 11 require the response to be “not an error” whereas dependent claims 3 and 13 require the response to be “an error”. Claims 3 and 13 do not require each and every element of claims 1 and 11 and are not proper dependents. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W CHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-5165. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F 8-5.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492 /RUPAL DHARIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights