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 with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 35 USC 101 rejections to claim 7 is withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,348. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
18/235,779
US 12,450,348
Claim 1: A method of providing cyber threat information (CTI), the method comprising:
Claim 1:A method of providing cyber threat information (CTI), the method comprising:
receiving a CTI analysis request for a file from a client
Claim 1: receiving a CTI analysis request for assembly code from a client
analyzing the file to obtain analysis information of the CTI for the file, wherein the analysis information of CTI includes an attack technique, an attack group, an attack campaign of the file
Claim 1: analyzing the assembly code to obtain analysis information of the CTI for the assembly code;
Claim 2: wherein the analysis information of the CTI comprises at least one of whether the assembly code is malicious, an attack technique related to the assembly code, an attack group related to the assembly code, an attack campaign related to the assembly code, a target industry of a cyberattack related to the assembly code, or target nation information of the cyberattack related to the assembly code
generating a CTI query related to the file based on the analysis information of CTI and delivering the CTI query to a natural language model
Claim 1: generating a CTI query based on an analyzed CTI and delivering the CTI query to a natural language model, wherein the CTI query includes a keyword of the analyzed CTI or a supplementary query generated from the analyzed CTI
providing natural language description information according to the CTI query obtained from the CTI for the analyzed file and the natural language model to the client as visualization information based on a Web service, wherein the natural language description information includes a degree of maliciousness. damage severity according to the degree of maliciousness with a basis reason and a description of the attack technique
Claim 1: providing natural language description information according to the CTI query obtained from the CTI for the assembly code and the natural language model.
Claim 2: wherein the analysis information of the CTI comprises at least one of whether the assembly code is malicious, an attack technique related to the assembly code, an attack group related to the assembly code, an attack campaign related to the assembly code, a target industry of a cyberattack related to the assembly code, or target nation information of the cyberattack related to the assembly code
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 is rejected under 102(a)(a) based on SOCRadar, (ChatGPT for CTI Professionals, 05/23/2023, 12 pages):
Claim 1. (Currently amended) A method of providing cyber threat information (CTI), (By leveraging ChatGPT’s capabilities, Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) professionals can use it to gather, analyze, and generate insights from a wide range of information sources, including threat feeds, dark web forums, and security blogs, SOCRadar, page 1) the method comprising:
receiving a CTI analysis request for a file from a client (ChatGPT can extract the desired information from any article forwarded to it; in the example below, when we ask how a CTI professional would benefit from SOCRadar’s Sandworm threat actor article, it lists essential information as output. SOCRadar, page 2);
analyzing the file to obtain analysis information of the CTI for the file (Once data has been obtained, it must be analyzed to extract meaningful insights and develop actionable intelligence. SOCRadar, page 11), wherein the analysis information of CTI includes an attack technique, an attack group, an attack campaign of the file (Certainly! As a CTI (Cyber Threat Intelligence) professional, the following information from SOCRadar's blog post about Sandworm can be considered vital:
1. Attribution: The blog post provides information on the group responsible for the attacks -Sandworm. Understanding the motivations and tactics of the threat actor is essential for CTI professionals to develop effective countermeasures.
2. Targeted Sectors: The blog post mentions that Sandworm primarily targets energy and industrial sectors. This information is crucial for CTI professionals to identify potential targets and prioritize their defenses accordingly.
3. Attack Techniques: The blog post provides detailed information about the attack techniques used by Sandworm, including spear-phishing and malware deployment. Understanding the specific methods used by the threat actor can help CTI professionals identify potential indicators of compromise (IOCs) and proactively defend against future attacks.
4. Tools and Malware: The blog post highlights the various tools and malware used by Sandworm, including the use of the BlackEnergy and lndustroyer malware. Knowing the specific tools and malware used by the threat actor can help CTI professionals identify potential IOCs and develop effective mitigation strategies.
5. Mitigation Strategies: Finally, the blog post provides recommendations on how to mitigate the risk of attacks by Sandworm. CTI professionals should pay close attention to these strategies to develop an effective defense against this threat actor. SOCRadar, page 3);
generating a CTI query related to the file based on the analysis information of CTI and delivering the CTI query to a natural language model (Hey, our researchers found IP addresses, file hashes and URLs belonging to the Lockbit” group that runs ransomware operations; SOCRadar, page 6); and
providing natural language description information according to the CTI query obtained from the CTI for the analyzed file and the natural language model to the client as visualization information based on a Web service, wherein the natural language description information includes a degree of maliciousness. damage severity according to the degree of maliciousness with a basis reason and a description of the attack technique (
PNG
media_image1.png
451
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SOCRadar, page 10).
Claim 2. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the visualization information comprises summary information of the CTI of the analyzed file (SOCRadar, page 10).
Claim 8. (New) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: acquiring natural language description information as an answer to a CTI query for a file analyzed by the natural language model, wherein the natural language model provides data as evidence for the answer and answer candidates (SOCRadar, pages 4, 6, 10).
Claims 3-7 and 9-15 have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection, and are met by the references as discussed above, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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 RUPAL DHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-3880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-3pm 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.
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.
/RUPAL DHARIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights