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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are present in this application. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
This office action is NON-FINAL.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 05/30/23 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The Specification filed on 05/30/23 is acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 05/30/23 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites, “generate a knowledge graph comprising a plurality of nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with (i) a respective asset of the plurality of assets or (ii) a respective space of the plurality of spaces; determine a respective initial ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes; determine a count of outgoing links for each node of the plurality of nodes; perform a node ranking based on the initial ranking values and based on the counts of outgoing links to determine a respective updated ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes; determine a respective criticality measure for each node of the plurality of nodes based on the respective updated ranking value; compare the respective criticality measure with a predetermined criticality threshold; and generate, in response to determining that the respective criticality measure is greater than the predetermined criticality threshold, a signal indicative of the respective asset associated with the respective criticality measure”.
The limitation of “generate a knowledge graph comprising a plurality of nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with (i) a respective asset of the plurality of assets or (ii) a respective space of the plurality of spaces; determine a respective initial ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes; determine a count of outgoing links for each node of the plurality of nodes; perform a node ranking based on the initial ranking values and based on the counts of outgoing links to determine a respective updated ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes; determine a respective criticality measure for each node of the plurality of nodes based on the respective updated ranking value; compare the respective criticality measure with a predetermined criticality threshold; and generate, in response to determining that the respective criticality measure is greater than the predetermined criticality threshold, a signal indicative of the respective asset associated with the respective criticality measure”. That is, other than reciting, “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform, generating, determining. Performing, comparing and generating
generating, determining and generating steps. The processor in each steps
is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere
instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly,
this 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
claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that
are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed
above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the
additional element of using a processor to perform, generating, determining, performing, comparing and generating, determining and generating 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.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim
2 recites determine the count of outgoing links for a particular node of the plurality of nodes, the one or more processors are further configured to determine a number of other nodes to which the particular node delivers one or more of data, a material, or power in claim 2. But determine a number of other nodes to which the particular node delivers one or more of data, a material, or power does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. There are no additional components in the claim that would make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim
3 recites determine the count of outgoing links for a particular node of the plurality of nodes, the one or more processors are further configured to determine a number of other nodes connected downstream of the particular node in claim 3. But determine a number of other nodes connected downstream of the particular node does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. There are no additional components in the claim that would make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim
4 recites determine the respective initial ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes, the one or more processors are configured to determine the respective initial ranking value based on a respective installation cost and a respective maintenance cost for each node associated with a respective asset of the plurality of assets in claim 4. But determine the respective initial ranking value based on a respective installation cost and a respective maintenance cost for each node associated with a respective asset of the plurality of assets does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. There are no additional components in the claim that would make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim
5 recites determine the respective initial ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes, the one or more processors are further configured to assign a respective initial ranking value of magnitude 1 to each node associated with a respective space of the plurality of spaces in claim 5. But assign a respective initial ranking value of magnitude 1 to each node associated with a respective space of the plurality of spaces does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. There are no additional components in the claim that would make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1
Claim 6 recites, “wherein to perform the node ranking, the one or more processors are configured to determine a respective interim ranking value for each node Ti of the plurality of nodes according to: NR(Ti) = 1-d+d(NRT1CT1+…NRTnCTn), wherein NR(Ti) is the interim ranking value of the node Ti and T1 to Tn correspond to nodes from which the node Ti has incoming links, d is a damping factor from 0 to 1, NR(Tn) is a previous rank of a node Tn linked to the node Ti, and C(Tn) is a count of outgoing links from the node Tn.”.
The limitation of “wherein to perform the node ranking, the one or more processors are configured to determine a respective interim ranking value for each node Ti of the plurality of nodes according to: NR(Ti) = 1-d+d(NRT1CT1+…NRTnCTn), wherein NR(Ti) is the interim ranking value of the node Ti and T1 to Tn correspond to nodes from which the node Ti has incoming links, d is a damping factor from 0 to 1, NR(Tn) is a previous rank of a node Tn linked to the node Ti, and C(Tn) is a count of outgoing links from the node Tn”. That is, other than reciting, “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being mental process and mathematical concept. A combination of judicial exceptions is still a recitation of an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This combination of judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform, ranking and damping factor steps. The processor in each steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform ranking and damping factor 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.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6. Claim
7 recites perform the node ranking by iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values until convergence in claim 7. But perform the node ranking by iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values until convergence does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. There are no additional components in the claim that would make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6. Claim
8 recites perform the node ranking by iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values for a predetermined number of iterations in claim 8. But perform the node ranking by iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values for a predetermined number of iterations does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. There are no additional components in the claim that would make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim
9 recites determine the count of outgoing links for each node of the plurality of nodes based on the knowledge graph in claim 9. But determine the count of outgoing links for each node of the plurality of nodes based on the knowledge graph does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. There are no additional components in the claim that would make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 10 recites a first signal, and the one or more processors are further configured to generate a second signal indicative of the respective criticality measure.in claim 10 . But a first signal, and the one or more processors are further configured to generate a second signal indicative of the respective criticality measure does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. There are no additional components in the claim that would make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 11 recites store an extensible object model comprising the knowledge graph in the memory in claim 11 . But store an extensible object model comprising the knowledge graph in the memory does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. There are no additional components in the claim that would make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 12 recites wherein the knowledge graph comprises a semantic object model in claim 12 . But wherein the knowledge graph comprises a semantic object model does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. There are no additional components in the claim that would make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 13 recites one or more cloud-based computing devices comprising the memory and the one or more processors in claim 13 . But one or more cloud-based computing devices comprising the memory and the one or more processors model does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. There are no additional components in the claim that would make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites the same limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore,
Claim 14 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claim 15 recites the same limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore,
Claim 15 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claim 16 recites the same limitations as claim 3 above. Therefore,
Claim 16 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claim 17 recites the same limitations as claim 4 above. Therefore,
Claim 17 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claim 18 recites the same limitations as claim 5 above. Therefore,
Claim 18 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claim 19 recites the same limitations as claim 6 above. Therefore,
Claim 19 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claim 20 is dependent on claim 19 and includes all the limitations of claim 19. Claim 20 recites performing the node ranking comprises iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values in claim 20 . But performing the node ranking comprises iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. There are no additional components in the claim that would make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
6. 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.
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.
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:
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cam (US 2016/0248794 A1) in view of Haahr et al. (US Patent No.
8, 719, 276 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Cam a system for monitoring a plurality of assets associated with a plurality of spaces, the system comprising:
a memory; (See Cam paragraph [0027], memory 230,), and
one or more processors coupled to the memory, implemented in circuitry, and configured to, (See Cam paragraph [0005], The computer system 120 comprises a processor 122, various support circuits 124, and memory 126):
generate a knowledge graph comprising a plurality of nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with (i) a respective asset of the plurality of assets or (ii) a respective space of the plurality of spaces, (See Cam paragraph [0038], a directed graph, the graph nodes represent random variables, and edges show dependencies among nodes that represent the cyber assets of an individual host machine (e.g., a node) from the nodes 101);
determine a respective initial ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes, (See Cam paragraph [0024], The ranking module 108 determines the ranking of cyber assets by considering the control, resilience and intrusion asset values of each node);
determine a respective criticality measure for each node of the plurality of nodes based on the respective updated ranking value, (See Cam paragraph [0023], a criticality surface is produced by coupling the ranking of nodes to the critical surface module 112, where the criticality surface is a computation of the aggregated value of all those metrics that are considered important in determining criticality of assets over networks);
compare the respective criticality measure with a predetermined criticality threshold, (See Cam paragraph [0063], the process of nominating critical nodes. Multiple node attributes are ranked as primary attributes, secondary attributes, tertiary attributes…the primary attribute values of nodes are considered first for comparison and nomination. If the primary attribute values of two nodes happen to be very close to each other according to its threshold, then the next high-ranking attribute (i.e., secondary attribute) values of these two nodes are compared to break the tie); and
generate, in response to determining that the respective criticality measure is greater than the predetermined criticality threshold, (See Cam paragraph [0062], The criticality module 110 receives the ranking outcome 602 and a closeness threshold of attributes 700 and determines the critical nodes 702 from the nodes 101. The criticality module 110), a signal indicative of the respective asset associated with the respective criticality measure, (See Cam paragraph [0005], techniques that measure individual and cumulative criticalities of cyber security assets in network nodes and then determine their criticality surface to enhance cyber defense).
Cam does not explicitly disclose determine a count of outgoing links for each node of the plurality of nodes, perform a node ranking based on the initial ranking values and based on the counts of outgoing links, to determine a respective updated ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes
However, Haahr teaches determine a count of outgoing links for each node of the plurality of nodes, (See Haahr Col. 6 lines 33-39, The rank for a given node is calculated based on the nodes that link to the given node. More particularly, each node that links to the given node casts a "vote" for the given node….a vote from a node with a high rank counts more than a vote from a node with a low rank); perform a node ranking based on the initial ranking values and based on the counts of outgoing links, (See Haahr Col. 6 lines 36-39, The weight assigned to each vote varies based on the rank of the voting node. Generally, a vote from a node with a high rank counts more than a vote from a node with a low rank), to determine a respective updated ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes, (See Haahr Col. 6 lines 20-29, each pass in calculating the ranks may change the ranks from the previous pass. Ranking component 340 may continue to repeat the calculation of the ranks in act 503 until the ranks have sufficiently converged (act 504). "Sufficiently converged" can be determined when the ranks generally stop changing, within a certain error tolerance, from one pass to the next. Ranks for typical graphs converge within 100 iterations).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify determine a count of outgoing links for each node of the plurality of nodes, perform a node ranking based on the initial ranking values and based on the counts of outgoing links, to determine a respective updated ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes of Haahr in order to assigning ranking values to a set of linked nodes.
Claim 14 recites the same limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore,
Claim 14 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 2, Cam taught the system of claim 1, as described.
Cam further teaches
Cam does not explicitly disclose wherein to determine the count of outgoing links for a particular node of the plurality of nodes, the one or more processors are further configured to determine a number of other nodes to which the particular node delivers one or more of data, a material, or power.
However, Haahr teaches wherein to determine the count of outgoing links for a particular node of the plurality of nodes, (See Haahr Column 6 lines 35-36, The weight assigned to each vote varies based on the rank of the voting node. Generally, a vote from a node with a high rank counts more than a vote from a node with a low rank), the one or more processors are further configured to determine a number of other nodes to which the particular node delivers one or more of data, a material, or power, (See Haahr Column 7 lines 5-9, calculates the vote value the node contributes to the nodes to which it has an outbound link. In acts 606-612, ranking component 340 determines the new ranks for each of the nodes in set 400 based on the determined vote values).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify wherein to determine the count of outgoing links for a particular node of the plurality of nodes, the one or more processors are further configured to determine a number of other nodes to which the particular node delivers one or more of data, a material, or power of Haahr in order to assigning ranking values to a set of linked nodes.
Claim 15 recites the same limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore,
Claim 15 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 3, Cam taught the system of claim 1, as described.
Cam further teaches
Cam does not explicitly disclose wherein to determine the count of outgoing links for a particular node of the plurality of nodes, the one or more processors are further configured to determine a number of other nodes connected downstream of the particular node.
However, Haahr teaches wherein to determine the count of outgoing links for a particular node of the plurality of nodes, (See Haahr Column 6 lines 35-36, The weight assigned to each vote varies based on the rank of the voting node. Generally, a vote from a node with a high rank counts more than a vote from a node with a low rank), the one or more processors are further configured to determine a number of other nodes connected downstream of the particular node, (See Haahr Column 6 lines 23-30, The nodes in set 400 can be thought of as forming a network graph in which the nodes are connected by their links. When nodes 400 represent web pages, the links may be in the form of hyperlinks. In FIG. 4, lines with arrows are used to indicate links. A line originating from a first node and leading to a second node may be called a forward or outbound link relative to the first node and indicate that the first node is a linking node).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made,to modify wherein to determine the count of outgoing links for a particular node of the plurality of nodes, the one or more processors are further configured to determine a number of other nodes connected downstream of the particular node of Haahr in order to assigning ranking values to a set of linked nodes.
Claim 16 recites the same limitations as claim 3 above. Therefore,
Claim 16 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 5, Cam taught the system of claim 1, as described.
Cam does not explicitly disclose wherein to determine the respective initial ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes, the one or more processors are further configured to, assign a respective initial ranking value of magnitude 1 to each node associated with a respective space of the plurality of spaces.
However, Haahr teaches wherein to determine the respective initial ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes, (See Haahr Column 2 lines 12-14, a plurality of linked nodes and assigning ranking values to the linked nodes based on the links between the nodes), the one or more processors are further configured to, (See Haahr Column 4 line 14, a processor 220), assign a respective initial ranking value of magnitude 1 to each node associated with a respective space of the plurality of spaces, (See Haahr Column 4 line 14, assigning ranking values to the linked nodes based on the links between the nodes).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify wherein to determine the respective initial ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes, the one or more processors are further configured to, assign a respective initial ranking value of magnitude 1 to each node associated with a respective space of the plurality of spaces of Haahr in order to assigning ranking values to a set of linked nodes.
Claim 18 recites the same limitations as claim 5 above. Therefore,
Claim 18 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 6, Cam taught the system of claim 1, as described.
Cam does not explicitly disclose wherein to perform the node ranking, the one or more processors are configured, to determine a respective interim ranking value for each node Ti of the plurality of nodes according to: NR(Ti) = 1 d+d(NRT1CT1+…NRTnCTn), wherein NR(Ti) is the interim ranking value of the node Ti and T1 to Tn correspond to nodes from which the node Ti has incoming links, d is a damping factor from 0 to 1, NR(Tn) is a previous rank of a node Tn linked to the node Ti, and C(Tn) is a count of outgoing links from the node Tn.
However, Haahr teaches wherein to perform the node ranking, the one or more processors are configured, (See Haahr Col. 6 lines 50-54, The "damping factor" and the "authority decay exponent" are additional parameters used in calculating the ranks. The damping factor generally operates to reduce a propagated rank to prevent cycles in the network graph from becoming sources of infinite rank), to determine a respective interim ranking value for each node Ti of the plurality of nodes according to: NR(Ti) = 1-d+d(NRT1CT1+…NRTnCTn), wherein NR(Ti) is the interim ranking value of the node Ti and T1 to Tn correspond to nodes from which the node Ti has incoming links, d is a damping factor from 0 to 1, NR(Tn) is a previous rank of a node Tn linked to the node Ti, and C(Tn) is a count of outgoing links from the node Tn, (See Haahr Col. 7 lines 10-17, the nodes initial vote value is calculated as the maximum of: (1) the rank of the node divided by the number of outbound links from the node and multiplied by the damping factor, and (2) the rank of the node divided by the trusted authority threshold, raised to the power of the authority decay exponent, and multiplied by the full vote value. Value (2) is a vote value based on a full vote but that falls off from a full vote exponentially as the node is less like a trusted authority node).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify wherein to perform the node ranking, the one or more processors are configured, to determine a respective interim ranking value for each node Ti of the plurality of nodes according to: NR(Ti) = 1 d+d(NRT1CT1+…NRTnCTn), wherein NR(Ti) is the interim ranking value of the node Ti and T1 to Tn correspond to nodes from which the node Ti has incoming links, d is a damping factor from 0 to 1, NR(Tn) is a previous rank of a node Tn linked to the node Ti, and C(Tn) is a count of outgoing links from the node Tn. of Haahr in order to assigning ranking values to a set of linked nodes.
Claim 19 recites the same limitations as claim 6 above. Therefore,
Claim 19 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 7, Cam taught the system of claim 6, as described.
Cam does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the node ranking by iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values until convergence.
However, Haahr teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the node ranking by iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values until convergence, (See Haahr Column 6 lines 19-24, an iterative one that is based on links between nodes 401-409. That is, each pass in calculating the ranks may change the ranks from the previous pass. Ranking component 340 may continue to repeat the calculation of the ranks in act 503 until the ranks have sufficiently converged (act 504)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the node ranking by iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values until convergence of Haahr in order to assigning ranking values to a set of linked nodes.
Regarding claim 8, Cam taught the system of claim 6, as described.
Cam does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the node ranking by iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values for a predetermined number of iterations. However, Haahr teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the node ranking by iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values for a predetermined number of iterations, (See Haahr Col. 8 lines 37-45, The rank may be computed as the sum of just node 405. In other possible implementations, instead of just taking the maximum vote value, other combination functions may be used. Acts 607-611 may be repeated for each node in set 400 (acts 612 and 613). In this manner, the rank for each node in the network may be calculated. As previously discussed with reference to FIG. 5, the rank calculated via the operations illustrated in FIG. 6 may then be repeated a number of times until the ranks stabilize over different iterations).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the node ranking by iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values for a predetermined number of iterations of Haahr in order to assigning ranking values to a set of linked nodes.
Regarding claim 10, Cam taught the system of claim 1, as described.
Cam further teaches wherein the signal comprises a first signal, and the one or more processors are further configured to generate a second signal indicative of the respective criticality measure, (See Cam paragraph [0005], measure individual and cumulative criticalities of cyber security assets in network nodes and then determine their criticality surface to enhance cyber defense).
Regarding claim 20, Cam taught the system of claim 19, as described.
Cam does not explicitly disclose wherein performing the node ranking comprises iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values.
However, Haahr teaches wherein performing the node ranking comprises iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values, (See Haahr Column 6 lines 19-24, an iterative one that is based on links between nodes 401-409. That is, each pass in calculating the ranks may change the ranks from the previous pass. Ranking component 340 may continue to repeat the calculation of the ranks in act 503 until the ranks have sufficiently converged (act 504)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify wherein performing the node ranking comprises iteratively determining a plurality of successive interim ranking values of Haahr in order to assigning ranking values to a set of linked nodes.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Cam (US 2016/0248794 A1) in view of Haahr et al. (US Patent No.
8, 719, 276 B1) and further in view of Korsedal et al. (US 2018/0060832 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Cam taught the system of claim 1, as described.
Cam further teaches wherein to determine the respective initial ranking value for each node of the plurality of nodes, (See Cam paragraph [0023], The asset value module 102 determines asset value for each node in the network of nodes 101. The asset values are then output to the criticality module 110, which determines the ranking of each node based on their asset value).
Cam together with Haahr does not explicitly disclose the one or more processors are configured to determine the respective initial ranking value based on a respective installation cost, and a respective maintenance cost for each node associated with a respective asset of the plurality of assets.
However, Korsedal teaches the one or more processors are configured to determine the respective initial ranking value based on a respective installation cost, (See Korsedal paragraph [0036], detection options that may require installation of additional sensors or similar upgrades. Actions recommended field 546 may use an iterative analysis of ranking changes, cost/benefit analysis), and a respective maintenance cost for each node associated with a respective asset of the plurality of assets, (See Korsedal paragraph [0036], asset management output field structure 500. For example, the asset maintenance output displayed through asset maintenance UI 358 in FIG. 3 may be presented in such a structure to a user or for use by another function or computing system).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the one or more processors are configured to determine the respective initial ranking value based on a respective installation cost, and a respective maintenance cost for each node associated with a respective asset of the plurality of assets of Korsedal for determining a criticality surface of assets to enhance cyber defense.
Claim 17 recites the same limitations as claim 4 above. Therefore,
Claim 17 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claims 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Cam (US 2016/0248794 A1) in view of Haahr et al. (US Patent No.
8, 719, 276 B1) and further in view of PLOENNIGS et al. (US 2023/0153646 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Cam together with Haahr taught the system of claim 1, as described.
Cam together with Haahr does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the count of outgoing links for each node of the plurality of nodes based on the knowledge graph.
However, PLOENNIGS teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the count of outgoing links for each node of the plurality of nodes based on the knowledge graph, (See PLOENNIGS paragraph [0021], a knowledge graphs for digital twins (also known as digital threads) that link to related data assets in one or more legacy systems and databases).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the count of outgoing links for each node of the plurality of nodes based on the knowledge graph of PLOENNIGS for identifying relevant graph patterns in a knowledge graph using a computing processor.
Regarding claim 11, Cam taught the system of claim 1, as described.
Cam together with Haahr does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to store an extensible object model comprising the knowledge graph in the memory.
However, PLOENNIGS teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to store an extensible object model comprising the knowledge graph in the memory, (See PLOENNIGS paragraph [0072], the processor 420 and memory 430 may be internal and/or external to the knowledge graph service 410).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify wherein the one or more processors are further configured to store an extensible object model comprising the knowledge graph in the memory of PLOENNIGS for identifying relevant graph patterns in a knowledge graph using a computing processor.
Regarding claim 12, Cam taught the system of claim 1, as described.
Cam together with Haahr does not explicitly disclose wherein the knowledge graph comprises a semantic object model.
However, PLOENNIGS teaches wherein the knowledge graph comprises a semantic object model, (See PLOENNIGS paragraph [0017], a semantic knowledge graph that models available data in the various legacy applications. The semantic knowledge graph).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify wherein the knowledge graph comprises a semantic object model of PLOENNIGS for identifying relevant graph patterns in a knowledge graph using a computing processor.
Regarding claim 13, Cam taught the system of claim 1, as described.
Cam further teaches
Cam together with Haahr does not explicitly disclose further comprising: one or more cloud-based computing devices comprising the memory and the one or more processors.
However, PLOENNIGS teaches further comprising: one or more cloud-based computing devices comprising the memory and the one or more processors, (See PLOENNIGS paragraph [0052], computer system/server 12 in cloud computing node 10 is shown in the form of a general-purpose computing device. The components of computer system/server 12 may include, but are not limited to, one or more processors or processing units 16).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify further comprising: one or more cloud-based computing devices comprising the memory and the one or more processors of PLOENNIGS for identifying relevant graph patterns in a knowledge graph using a computing processor.
Conclusions/Points of Contacts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Beshai et al. (US 2014/0362737 A1), A link may be a physical transmission medium between two nodes, for example an optical fiber, or selected wavelengths in an optical fiber. Links may have different capacities and different associated costs. As well, the number of links emanating from each node may vary from one node to another. The capacity of a link may be changed dynamically by adding channels, for instance by assigning new wavelengths in an optical network.
Chitrapura et al. (US 2006/0136098 A1) The directed graph G(V,E,L) is a mathematical object in which V is the set of nodes, E is the set of edges, and L is a label function that maps edges to labels. Probabilistic rankings concerning nodes and labels are determined based upon the described computations that allow the determination of probabilistic measures
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUEMEBET GURMU whose telephone number is (571)270-7095. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 5712724078. 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.
/MULUEMEBET GURMU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163