DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the original application filed on April 17, 2023.
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 .
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea without significantly more. Claims 1-14 recite limitations that amounts to a Mental Process and/or amounts to a Mental Process using mathematical formula/equation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer, then it falls within the "Mental Process" and/or “mathematical formula/equation” grouping of abstract ideas. For example, the “receiving an input from auser …”, “recognizing components in the diagram ….”, “presenting a visual representation of the diagram to the user …..”, “enabling the user to edit, delete, and update ….”, “generating a list of threats and countermeasures …”, “assigning responsibility for specific component …”, “initiating a threat analysis of the existing computing environment ….”, validating policy implementation for specific cloud environments ……”, updating the status of threats ….”, and “exporting the list of component with corresponding threats …” amount to a Mental Process using a human being. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as put forth above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible (see MPEP 2016.05).
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 1 and 8 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.
The limitation, “receiving an input from a user, wherein the input comprises an existing data flow or network diagram of the existing computing environment or a request to create a diagram using automated means or a simple questionnaire”, is claiming many terms combined by “or” and further claiming in the next limitation, “recognize a component in the diagram …”, about the diagram. The limitation, “recognizing components in the diagram …” is not clear since the terms claimed in the “receiving an input from a user” combined with “or”.
The term “the diagram” in the limitation, “recognizing components in the diagram …” is not clear that the diagram is the claimed network diagram of the existing computing environment or the created diagram based on the request. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “the diagram” in the limitation, “presenting a visual representation of the diagram to the user …” is not clear that the diagram is the claimed network diagram of the existing computing environment or the created diagram based on the request. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 8 recites the term, “the list of components” in lines 13 and 11 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 are also rejected because of the rejected independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made or record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is Singh (US Pub. No. 2019/0294792). Singh discloses:
Systems, methods, computer-readable media, and devices are disclosed for creating a malware inference architecture. An instruction set is received at an endpoint in a network. At the endpoint, the instruction set is classified as potentially malicious or benign according to a first machine learning model based on a first parameter set. If the instruction set is determined by the first machine learning model to be potentially malicious, the instruction set is sent to a cloud system and is analyzed at the cloud system using a second machine learning model to determine if the instruction set comprises malicious code. The second machine learning model is configured to classify a type of security risk associated with the instruction set based on a second parameter set that is different from the first parameter set.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TESHOME HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-3159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Kambiz Zand can be reached on (571) 272-3811. 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.
/TESHOME HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434