DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Amendment filed on 05/04/2026. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are amended. Claims 3 and 11 are canceled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-21 remain pending in the application.
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 arguments (pg. 2-4), filed on 05/04/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “monitoring, by one or more servers, a value graph corresponding to the network environment, the value graph comprising a representation of the network environment using the entity, the attribute, and the value; detecting, by the one or more servers responsive to monitoring the network environment, a change in one of the entity, the attribute or the value by detecting the change in one of the entity, the attribute, or the value in the value graph; generating, by the one or more servers responsive to the detection, an updated one or more rules for security of the network environment based at least on the change” as Applicant’s amended claim 1 recites. However, Sandepudi et al. (US 2020/0334679 A1) discloses generating updated version of security rule based on detecting updated threshold values (Sandepudi: [0021], [0025], [0030], [0037], [0045]), and Cooley et al. (US 2022/0147008 A1) discloses utilizing graph database representing device nodes and associated values for detecting state changes based on monitored network events. Therefore, the prior art of record teaches the amended claim limitations in combination. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandepudi et al. (US 2020/0334679 A1, hereinafter “Sandepudi”) in view of Cooley et al. (US 2022/0147008 A1, hereinafter “Cooley”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 17), Sandepudi discloses:
A method comprising:
establishing, by one or more servers, one or more rules for security of a network environment, each of the one or more rules identifying an entity, an attribute of the entity and a value of the attribute (establishing security rules including evaluation criterion and threshold values, Sandepudi: [0021], [0037], [0045]);
detecting, by the one or more servers detecting updated threshold values, Sandepudi: [0021], [0025], [0030], [0045]);
generating, by the one or more servers responsive to the detection, an updated one or more rules for security of the network environment based at least on the change (generating updated version of security rule based on updated threshold value, Sandepudi: [0030]);
applying, by the one or more servers, the updated one or more rules to previous network traffic to which the one or more rules were applied (comparing performance of updated version of security rule and existing security rule, Sandepudi: [0031]);
determining, by the one or more servers, that an effectiveness of the updated one or more rules is greater than effectiveness of the one or more rules (determining that performance of updated version of security rule exceeds performance of existing security rule, Sandepudi: [0031], [0032]);
providing, by the one or more servers responsive to the determination, a recommendation to use the updated one or more rules (sending suggested update to security rule based on performance of updated version of security rule, Sandepudi: [0032]).
Sandepudi does not explicitly disclose:
monitoring, by one or more servers, a value graph corresponding to the network environment, the value graph comprising a representation of the network environment using the entity, the attribute, and the value;
detecting, by the one or more servers responsive to monitoring the network environment, a change in one of the entity, the attribute or the value by detecting the change in one of the entity, the attribute, or the value in the value graph.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cooley teaches:
monitoring, by one or more servers, a value graph corresponding to the network environment, the value graph comprising a representation of the network environment using the entity, the attribute, and the value (utilizing graph database representing device nodes and associated values for monitoring network events, Cooley: [0054], [0055]);
detecting, by the one or more servers responsive to monitoring the network environment, a change in one of the entity, the attribute or the value by detecting the change in one of the entity, the attribute, or the value in the value graph (utilizing graph database for detecting state changes based on monitored network events, Cooley: [0054], [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sandepudi in view of Cooley in order to further modify the method of recommending updated security rule generated based on updated threshold values from the teachings of Sandepudi with the method of utilizing graph database for detecting value changes based on monitored network events from the teachings of Cooley.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have optimized operations (Cooley: [0108]).
Regarding claim 2, Sandepudi-Cooley teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Sandepudi-Cooley further discloses:
further comprising detecting, by the one or more servers, the change in one of the entity, the attribute or the value based on a comparison of an updated state of one of the entity, the attribute or the value and a prior state of the one of the entity, the attribute or the value (detecting updated threshold values in comparison to existing threshold values, Sandepudi: [0021], [0025], [0030], [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Sandepudi-Cooley teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Sandepudi-Cooley further discloses:
further comprising generating, by the one or more servers, the updated one or more rules using at least one of the entity or the attribute of the one or more rules (generating updated version of security rule based on updated threshold value, Sandepudi: [0030]).
Regarding claim 5, Sandepudi-Cooley teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Sandepudi-Cooley further discloses:
further comprising generating, by the one or more servers, the updated one or more rules responsive to detecting that the change in one of the entity, the attribute or the value is greater than a threshold (generating updated version of security rule based on detecting updated threshold values, Sandepudi: [0021], [0025], [0030], [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Sandepudi-Cooley teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Sandepudi-Cooley further discloses:
further comprising applying, by the one or more servers, the updated one or more rules to current network traffic (applying updated version of security rule for testing, Sandepudi: [0031], [0044]).
Regarding claim 7, Sandepudi-Cooley teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Sandepudi-Cooley further discloses:
further comprising determining, by the one or more servers, that a difference between the effectiveness of the updated one or more rules and the effectiveness of the one or more rules is greater than a threshold (determining that performance of updated version of security rule exceeds performance of existing security rule, Sandepudi: [0031], [0032]).
Regarding claim 8, Sandepudi-Cooley teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Sandepudi-Cooley further discloses:
further comprising providing, by the one or more servers, for display a comparison of the effectiveness of the updated one or more rules and the effectiveness of the one or more rules (displaying performance indication based on comparison of performance of updated version of security rule and existing security rule, Sandepudi: [0031], [0032]).
Regarding claims 10, 12-16, and 18-20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 2 and 4-8. Therefore, claims 10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2 and 4-8 above.
Regarding claim 21, Sandepudi-Cooley teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Sandepudi-Cooley further discloses:
wherein the value graph comprises one or more of: a customer node associated with a customer; an entity node representing devices, operating systems, and/or networks associated with the customer; and/or a value node associated with the entity node representing features of the devices, operating systems, and/or networks (graph representing device nodes and associated values, Cooley: [0054], [0055]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Deb et al. (US 2023/0164044 A1: Read0Write Network Visualization) and Kelley et al. (US 2020/0013203 A1: Systems for Collecting, Aggregating, and Storing Data, Generating Interactive User Interfaces for Analyzing Data, and Generating Alerts Based Upon Collected Data).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm EST.
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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights