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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2026 and 04/06/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 11 and 16-20 have been amended. No Claims have been newly added. No Claims has been/remains canceled. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 8-10 of the remark filed on 02/13/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent Claims 1: “obtaining, from the activity log, a security risk level of the data processing system”, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 9 that the cited references fail to teach telemetry data sources. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Dubynskiy teaches on Col. 1 lines 40-67 and Col. 2 lines 1-35 telemetry data as event types and reports based on events. Examiner states that the instant application on Par. (0053-0054) of the specification telemetry data is described to include event data, statistics regarding data and messages. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted in light of the specification that event data and data corresponding to data processing such as reports, or statistics corresponds to telemetry data. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
However Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 8-10 of the remark filed on 02/13/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent claim 1 “obtaining telemetry data from an activity log using an access credential,”, arguments are persuasive.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Brannon et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210314364) further in view of Dubynskiy et al. (U.S No. 11516308)), has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the following prior art: Parekh et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220294817) in conjunction Brannon et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210314364) and Dubynskiy et al. (U.S No. 11516308)). Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below for a detailed explanation.
For the reasons stated above and the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, see Applicant’s Remarks Page 8-10, regarding allowance of the application. Examiner asserts that claims 1-20 are rejected for the reasons stated above in conjunction with the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Conclusion: Brannon-Parekh- Dubynskiy teaches the aforementioned limitations of independent claims and 1, 11 and 16 rendering the claim limitations obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention.
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, 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 1-2, 11-12 and 16-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brannon et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210314364, hereinafter referred to as “Brannon”) and Parekh et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220294817, hereinafter referred to as “Parekh”) further in view of Dubynskiy et al. (U.S No. 11516308, hereinafter referred to as “Dubynskiy”)
In regards to Claim 1, Brannon teaches a method of authenticating a data processing system by a network core throughout a distributed environment, the method comprising: (Par. (0093) a network core (one or more computer networks) throughout a distributed environment (one or more computer networks communicating between data model servers, databases etc.), (Figure 1 labels 115 (network core) throughout distributed environment (labels 150, 130, 120, 110, 140, 160))
obtaining, from the activity log, a security risk level of the data processing system; (Par. (0260-0261); obtaining from the activity log a security risk level (risk score calculated from data transfer record), (Par. (0270-0272); risk level and score is determined and obtained by system))
obtaining at least one security question based on the selected feature; (Par. (0015); receiving obtaining request to first question with selected feature (personal data and type of user), (Par. (0351-0352); receiving question and answer to question based on entity privacy and personal data))
obtaining a security questionnaire using, at least in part, the at least one security question and the security risk level; (Par. (0016-0018); obtaining questionnaire with plurality of questions of user personal data)), (Par. (0227-0228); questionnaire corresponding to risk level)
performing a validation of the data processing system using the security questionnaire. (Par. (0349-0350); performing a validation (required authentication performed) of the data processing system (of the second entity in system) using the security questionnaire (using questionnaire)) (Par. (0352); comparing and authentication based on questionnaire and answer to question), (Par. (0014-0016); comparison of questions associated with questionnaire and multi-factor authentication))
Brannon does not explicitly teach obtaining telemetry data from an activity log using an access credential, the activity log being based on historic activities performed by the data processing system; selecting a feature of the telemetry data based on a variability score associated with the feature, the variability score indicating an extent to which the feature follows a predictable pattern;
Wherein Parekh teaches obtaining telemetry data from an activity log using an access credential, (Par. (0157-0158); using credentials then given access to telemetry data))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon to incorporate the teaching of Parekh to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of telemetry data associated with risk assessment, with the motivation of creating trust in the network with access credentials to regulate proper access to prevent malware and securely protect the data. (Parekh Par. (0031, 0066-0067 and 0100))
Brannon and Parekh do not explicitly teach the activity log being based on historic activities performed by the data processing system; selecting a feature of the telemetry data based on a variability score associated with the feature, the variability score indicating an extent to which the feature follows a predictable pattern;
Wherein Dubynskiy teaches obtaining telemetry data from an activity log, the activity log being based on historic activities performed by the data processing system; (Col. 1 lines 40-67 and Col. 2 lines 1-35; obtaining telemetry data corresponding to event types and reports based on events)), (Col. 8 lines 36-67; receiving telemetry data; from an activity log, the activity log being based on historic activities (first entry and second entry based on events over time period))
selecting a feature of the telemetry data based on a variability score associated with the feature,(Col. 8 lines 14-36; selecting a feature (sampling the telemetry data with event and feature of error) based on variability score (variability associated with metric and event type/error)) (Examiner Note: In the instant application the specification states on Par. (0055)) “feature” to be an event over time or error messages. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as such.)
the variability score indicating an extent to which the feature follows a predictable pattern; (Col.4 lines 28-50; variability score (metric) used for intelligent predicting with collection of telemetry data)) (Col. 8 lines 14-36; variability score (metric) indicating an extent (estimated metric and simulation of 5%, 10% etc. pattern))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon and Parekh to incorporate the teaching of Dubynskiy to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of telemetry data and secure distribution of sensitive data for security purposes, with the motivation of implementing a variability score to asses telemetry data, collect insight and identify patterns through prediction to improve software and assets in the system. (Dubynskiy Col. 1 lines 5-35))
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy teach the method of claim 1, Dubynskiy further teaches after obtaining the telemetry data: (Col. 1 lines 40-67 and Col. 2 lines 1-35; obtaining telemetry data corresponding to event types and reports based on events)), (Col. 8 lines 36-67; receiving telemetry data; from an activity log, the activity log being based on historic activities (first entry and second entry based on events over time period))
for each feature of the telemetry data: performing a variability analysis on a subset of the telemetry data associated with the feature to obtain a corresponding variability score. (Col. 2 lines 24-55; subset of telemetry data is received and one or more metric values is determined) (Col.4 lines 28-50; variability score (metric) used for intelligent predicting with collection of telemetry data)) (Col. 8 lines 14-36; variability score (metric) indicating an extent (estimated metric and simulation of 5%, 10% etc. pattern))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon and Parekh to incorporate the teaching of Dubynskiy for the reasons stated in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claims 11 and 16, claims 11 and 16 are independent claims that recite similar limitations to independent claim 1 and the teaching of Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy teach all the limitations discussed in independent claim 1 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
In regards to Claims 12 and 17, claims 12 and 17 are dependent claims that recite similar limitations to dependent claim 2 and the teaching of Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy teach all the limitations discussed in dependent claim 2 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claims 3-4, 13-14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brannon et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210314364, hereinafter referred to as “Brannon”), Parekh et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220294817, hereinafter referred to as “Parekh”) and Dubynskiy et al. (U.S No. 11516308, hereinafter referred to as “Dubynskiy”) further in view of Agarwal et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230409876, hereinafter referred to as “Agarwal”)
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy teach the method of claim 1, Dubynskiy further teaches wherein performing the variability analysis comprises: obtaining the subset of the telemetry data; (Col. 1 lines 40-67 and Col. 2 lines 1-35; obtaining telemetry data corresponding to event types and reports based on events)), (Col. 8 lines 36-67; receiving telemetry data; from an activity log, the activity log being based on historic activities (first entry and second entry based on events over time period))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon and Parekh to incorporate the teaching of Dubynskiy to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of telemetry data and secure distribution of sensitive data for security purposes, with the motivation of implementing a variability score to asses telemetry data, collect insight and identify patterns through prediction to improve software and assets in the system. (Dubynskiy Col. 1 lines 5-35))
Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy do not explicitly teach fitting a function to the subset of the telemetry data to obtain a fitting parameter; and obtaining the corresponding variability score based on the fitting parameter.
Wherein Agarwal teaches fitting a function to the subset of the telemetry data to obtain a fitting parameter; and (Par. (0017); subset of telemetry data with fitting function (error prediction input)), (Par. (0050-0051); fitting a function (input output parameters with error prediction) to obtain fitting parameters ( probability of error prediction with input/output), (Par. (0102); fitting parameter and function of (0.03) corresponding to prediction and error))
obtaining the corresponding variability score based on the fitting parameter. (Par. (0101-0102); receiving a ranking of probability of error based on fitting parameter (error prediction corresponding to function))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy to incorporate the teaching of Agarwal to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of telemetry data and error prediction, with the motivation of implementing parameters associated with variability score or probability score to allow the user in the system to identify possible errors and failure and enhance nodes performances and transfer of data from centers more effectively. (Agarwal Par. (0002))
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy do not explicitly teach wherein the fitting parameter comprises a coefficient of determination representing the function's ability to predict the subset of the telemetry data associated with the feature.
Wherein Agarwal teaches wherein the fitting parameter comprises a coefficient of determination representing the function's ability to predict the subset of the telemetry data associated with the feature. (Par. (0083-0086); fitting parameter (error prediction) corresponding to equations with coefficients and predicting error with telemetry data)) (Par. (0102,0115); predicting subset of telemetry data))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy to incorporate the teaching of Agarwal to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of telemetry data and error prediction, with the motivation of implementing parameters associated with variability score or probability score to allow the user in the system to identify possible errors and failure and enhance nodes performances and transfer of data from centers more effectively. (Agarwal Par. (0002))
In regards to Claims 13-14 and 18-19, claims 13-14 and 18-19 are dependent claims that recite similar limitations to dependent claims 3-4 and the teaching of Brannon, Parekh, Dubynskiy and Agarwal teach all the limitations discussed in dependent claims 3-4 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claims 5, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brannon et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210314364, hereinafter referred to as “Brannon”), Parekh et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220294817, hereinafter referred to as “Parekh”)
Dubynskiy et al. (U.S No. 11516308, hereinafter referred to as “Dubynskiy”) and Agarwal et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230409876, hereinafter referred to as “Agarwal”) further in view of Khanna et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220210065, hereinafter referred to as “Khanna”)
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy do not explicitly teach wherein obtaining the corresponding variability score based on the fitting parameter comprises: making a determination regarding whether the fitting parameter exceeds a fitting parameter threshold; in a first instance of the determination in which the fitting parameter exceeds the fitting parameter threshold: modifying the variability score to indicate that the subset of the telemetry data follows a more predictable pattern; and in a second instance of the determination in which the fitting parameter does not exceed the fitting parameter threshold: modifying the variability score to indicate that the subset of the telemetry data follows a less predictable pattern.
Wherein Agarwal teaches wherein obtaining the corresponding variability score based on the fitting parameter comprises: (Par. (0101-0102); receiving a ranking of probability of error based on fitting parameter (error prediction corresponding to function))
making a determination regarding whether the fitting parameter exceeds a fitting parameter threshold; (Par. (0110-0112); fitting parameter (error prediction) exceeds threshold (exceeds predetermined threshold))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy to incorporate the teaching of Agarwal to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of telemetry data and error prediction, with the motivation of implementing parameters associated with variability score or probability score to allow the user in the system to identify possible errors and failure and enhance nodes performances and transfer of data from centers more effectively. (Agarwal Par. (0002))
Brannon, Parekh Dubynskiy and Agarwal do not explicitly teach in a first instance of the determination in which the fitting parameter exceeds the fitting parameter threshold: modifying the variability score to indicate that the subset of the telemetry data follows a more predictable pattern; and in a second instance of the determination in which the fitting parameter does not exceed the fitting parameter threshold: modifying the variability score to indicate that the subset of the telemetry data follows a less predictable pattern.
Wherein Khanna teaches in a first instance of the determination in which the fitting parameter exceeds the fitting parameter threshold: (Par. (0055-0056); fitting parameter (precision metric corresponding to prediction) exceeds threshold (probability threshold is higher than metric is increased)
modifying the variability score to indicate that the subset of the telemetry data follows a more predictable pattern; and (Par. (0055-0056); fitting parameter (precision metric corresponding to prediction) exceeds threshold (probability threshold is higher than metric is increased corresponding to telemetry data (IoT data))
in a second instance of the determination in which the fitting parameter does not exceed the fitting parameter threshold: (Par. (0055-0056); fitting parameter (precision metric corresponding to prediction) does not exceed threshold (probability threshold is lower than desired than metric is increased corresponding to telemetry data (IoT data))
modifying the variability score to indicate that the subset of the telemetry data follows a less predictable pattern. (Par. (0055-0056); fitting parameter (precision metric corresponding to prediction) does not exceed threshold (probability threshold is lower than desired than metric is decreased corresponding to telemetry data (IoT data))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon, Parekh, Dubynskiy and Agarwal to incorporate the teaching of Agarwal to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of telemetry data and scoring using prediction based analysis, with the motivation of implementing a threshold coupled with a metric scoring to aid the IoT and telemetry system for determining data is send through authentic and accurate destination and in return securely protecting from vulnerabilities in the system based on a comparison of threshold values. (Khanna Par. (0003-0004))
In regards to Claims 15 and 20, claims 15 and 20 are dependent claims that recite similar limitations to dependent claim 5 and the teaching of Brannon, Parekh, Dubynskiy, Agarwal and Khanna teach all the limitations discussed in dependent claim 5 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brannon et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210314364, hereinafter referred to as “Brannon”), Parekh et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220294817, hereinafter referred to as “Parekh”), Dubynskiy et al. (U.S No. 11516308, hereinafter referred to as “Dubynskiy”) and McDaniel et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240073250, hereinafter referred to as “McDaniel”) further in view of Brutsche et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220014518, hereinafter referred to as “Brutsche”)
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy do not explicitly teach wherein selecting the feature of the telemetry data comprises: obtaining a variability score threshold based on a shared knowledge requirement, the shared knowledge requirement indicating a cardinality and a distribution of the security questions; performing a lookup process using a variability score lookup table and the variability score threshold as a key for the variability score lookup table to obtain a set of candidate features; and selecting the feature from the set of the candidate features.
Wherein McDaniels teaches wherein selecting the feature of the telemetry data comprises: obtaining a variability score threshold based on a shared knowledge requirement, (Par. (0047-0048); probability score threshold based on shared knowledge requirement (password and authentication requirement/input)
the shared knowledge requirement indicating a cardinality and a distribution of the security questions; (Par. (0018); authentication input corresponding to security question), (Par. (0076-0081); probability score threshold and one or more security questions associated with authentication requirement))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy to incorporate the teaching of McDaniels to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of security requirements in a system, with the motivation of utilizing a variability score with shared knowledge to further enhance the authentication process and safeguard against malicious attackers based on a determination and score outputted to prevent further cyber damage on the system. (McDaniels Par. (0004-0006))
Brannon, Parekh, Dubynskiy and McDaniels do not explicitly teach performing a lookup process using a variability score lookup table and the variability score threshold as a key for the variability score lookup table to obtain a set of candidate features; and selecting the feature from the set of the candidate features.
Wherein Brutsche teaches performing a lookup process using a variability score lookup table and the variability score threshold as a key for the variability score lookup table to obtain a set of candidate features; and (Par. (0064-0065); lookup tables and database with confidence score and probability associated with candidate features of audio file), (Par. (0003-0004 and 0015); probability metrics and confidence scores with threshold within database)
selecting the feature from the set of the candidate features. (Par. (0076-0078); approved attributes of candidate from set of attributes ( video audio, data etc.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon, Parekh, Dubynskiy and McDaniels to incorporate the teaching of Agarwal to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of metric scoring with telemetry data, with the motivation of using a lookup table associated with metric scoring to identify features and help determine true identities of individuals in communication and select candidates based on an accurate score. (Brutsche Par. (0013-0015))
Claims 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brannon et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210314364, hereinafter referred to as “Brannon”), Parekh et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220294817, hereinafter referred to as “Parekh”) and Dubynskiy et al. (U.S No. 11516308, hereinafter referred to as “Dubynskiy”) further in view of Theodore et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190068382, hereinafter referred to as “Theodore”)
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy do not explicitly teach wherein the activity log comprises shared knowledge known to the data processing system and the network core, the shared knowledge being obtained prior to a loss of a root of trust between the data processing system and the network core.
Wherein Theodore teaches wherein the activity log comprises shared knowledge known to the data processing system and the network core, (Par. (0027-0029) activity log comprises shared knowledge (occurrence of certain event with challenge (transmitted shared group secret) known to data processing system and the network core (between devices in the mesh network)), (Par. (0061); activity log (event) comprises shared knowledge (cryptographic challenge with group shared secret)), (Figures 7 labels 300, 304 and 8a-b labels 404, 400, 402 (network core with data processing systems (devices))
the shared knowledge being obtained prior to a loss of a root of trust between the data processing system and the network core. (Par. (0033-0035); shared knowledge obtained (group shared secret is accepted) prior to loss of a root of trust (malicious party have compromised peer and trustless property/ trustless authentication))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy to incorporate the teaching of Theodore to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of telemetry data with security requirements in a system, with the motivation of having shared activity logs prior to a loss of trust to securely protect and enhance cyber defenses from malicious attackers based on a detection mechanism to identify data transmitted before compromise. (Theodore Par. (0003-0007))
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy do not explicitly teach wherein the shared knowledge comprises the telemetry data and the loss of the root of trust occurs prior to obtaining the telemetry data.
Wherein Theodore teaches wherein the shared knowledge comprises the telemetry data and the loss of the root of trust occurs prior to obtaining the telemetry data. ((Par. (0027-0029); shared knowledge (challenge corresponding to shared group secret) comprises telemetry data (event occurrence associated with challenge and shared group secret), (Par. (0033-0035); shared knowledge obtained (group shared secret is accepted) prior to loss of a root of trust (malicious party have compromised peer and trustless property/ trustless authentication))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy to incorporate the teaching of Theodore to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of telemetry data with security requirements in a system, with the motivation of having shared activity logs prior to a loss of trust to securely protect and enhance cyber defenses from malicious attackers based on a detection mechanism to identify data transmitted before compromise. (Theodore Par. (0003-0007))
In regards to Claim 9, the combination of Brannon, Parekh and Dubynskiy teach the method of claim 1, Brannon further teaches the method of claim 8, wherein performing the validation of the data processing system comprises: providing the security questionnaire to the data processing system; (Par. (0015); receiving obtaining request to first question with selected feature (personal data and type of user), (Par. (0351-0352); receiving question and answer to question based on entity privacy and personal data))
obtaining a response from the data processing system, the response comprising answers to the security questions in the security questionnaire; (Par. (0022); response with answers to master questionnaire)
making a determination regarding whether each answer of the answers matches a pre- determined answer from a set of possible answers; and (Par. (0018-0022); comparing the one or more answers from mapped answers and based on comparison determining from the answers))
in an instance of the determination in which each answer of the answers matches the pre- determined answer: concluding that the data processing system is authentic. (Par. (0021-0023); based on comparison of answering generating report; concluding the data is authentic (compliance report corresponding to answers)) (Par. (0277); concluding that the data is authentic (report corresponding to level of risk))
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brannon et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210314364, hereinafter referred to as “Brannon”), Parekh et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220294817, hereinafter referred to as “Parekh”) and Dubynskiy et al. (U.S No. 11516308, hereinafter referred to as “Dubynskiy”) and Theodore et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190068382, hereinafter referred to as “Theodore”) further in view of Purushothaman et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180131709, hereinafter referred to as “Purushothaman”)
In regards to Claim 10, the combination of Brannon, Parekh, Dubynskiy and Theodore do not explicitly teach wherein the validation of the data processing system is performed without user intervention and concluding that the data processing system is authentic re- establishes the root of trust.
Wherein Purushothaman teaches wherein the validation of the data processing system is performed without user intervention and concluding that the data processing system is authentic re- establishes the root of trust. (Par. (0049-0050); authenticating identity of user with code pin data; system without user intervention verifies activity and identity) (Par. (0051-0052); concluding that the data processing system is authentic re- establishes root of trust (determining threat and re-authenticating using security question and successful authentication))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brannon, Parekh, Dubynskiy and Theodore to incorporate the teaching of Purushothaman to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of security requirements in a system, with the motivation re-establishing a root of trust after validation and no intervention to further enhance the validation system and allow users to create trust based on re-authentication and security questions to detect threats more effectively. (Purushothaman Par. (0050-0051))
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
VAN DYNE; Colette (U.S Pub. No. 20240054245) “DYNAMIC MANAGEMENT OF DATA WITH CONTEXT-BASED PROCESSING”. Considered this reference because it addressed security requirements in association with data transmitted much like the security questionnaire in the instant application.
Dahlgren; Zachary (U.S Pub. No. 20230032963) “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VALIDATING FINANCIAL EVENTS AND SECURITY EVENTS”. Considered this application because it relates to telemetry data and challenges and questionnaire transmitted for security purposes.
Michaud; Frank (U.S Pub. No. 20220255924) “MULTI-FACTOR APPROACH FOR AUTHENTICATION ATTACK DETECTION”. Considered this application because it addressed multi-factor authentication of telemetry data.
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 HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2497 /ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights