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 .
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 discloses “the apparatus,” however, the scope of limitation is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis because claim 10 recites no “apparatus.”
Claim 20 discloses “the apparatus,” however, the scope of limitation is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis because claim 19 recites no “apparatus.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 8, 10, 12, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Srinivasan et al. (US 11,516,222, hereinafter Srinivasan).
Regarding claim 1, Srinivasan discloses
An apparatus comprising:
interface circuitry (Fig. 9 Network Interface 940);
machine readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to (col. 34, lines 55-59: The code 925 may particularly include configuration analysis program code 925a and/or other types of machine-readable instructions executable by one, some, or all of the processors 910a-n to implement the configuration service 120):
cause storage of records (col. 9, lines 10-16: The configuration service 120 may receive reports and other information concerning security threats, such as the vulnerability records 130 describing characteristics of software packages and applications that may incorporate particular issues, such as vulnerabilities, that could, in certain circumstances cause improper operation of the software package. In some embodiments, the vulnerability records may be stored as depicted in a database or other datastore within the computing environment 100 of the computing resource service provider 199) indicative of configuration changes made to a computing resource (col. 12, lines 53-58: the system may be configured to receive a message or otherwise detect that the configuration of computing device or other resource has changed update the vulnerability report 295 in response to that change by reevaluating vulnerabilities in light of the configuration change);
generate a time series based on the records (col. 17, lines 13-19: System activity profiles may be generated by monitoring system activity (e.g., the device activity data 270) over a period of time in which attempts to exploit a vulnerability are known to have occurred and determining characteristics of the system activity that are correlated with the attempts to exploit the vulnerability);
analyze the time series (col. 16, lines 63-65: The threat intelligence service 273 may determine that anomalous activity indicates a performance or security issue; col. 17, lines 13-19: System activity profiles may be generated by monitoring system activity (e.g., the device activity data 270) over a period of time in which attempts to exploit a vulnerability are known to have occurred and determining characteristics of the system activity that are correlated with the attempts to exploit the vulnerability) to determine if a configuration change conflict is detected (col. 12, lines 53-58: the system may be configured to receive a message or otherwise detect that the configuration of computing device or other resource has changed update the vulnerability report 295 in response to that change by reevaluating vulnerabilities in light of the configuration change); and
after detection of a configuration change conflict (col. 12, lines 53-58: the system may be configured to receive a message or otherwise detect that the configuration of computing device or other resource has changed update the vulnerability report 295 in response to that change by reevaluating vulnerabilities in light of the configuration change), generate a notification of the configuration change conflict (col. 43, lines 32-46: The method further includes determining the first device configuration information and the second device configuration information differ. The method further includes generating an updated vulnerability priority score for the vulnerability by reevaluating the vulnerability description with respect to the second device configuration information associated with the VMI. The method further includes generating an updated vulnerability report that associates the vulnerability with the updated vulnerability priority score. The method further includes determining that a change between the vulnerability priority score and the updated vulnerability priority score exceeds a predetermined threshold. The method further includes transmitting a notification to the user via the user interface prompting the user to access the vulnerability report via the user interface).
Regarding claim 10 referring to claim 1, Srinivasan discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a machine to: … (col. 34, lines 55-59: The code 925 may particularly include configuration analysis program code 925a and/or other types of machine-readable instructions executable by one, some, or all of the processors 910a-n to implement the configuration service 120).
Regarding claim 19 referring to claim 1, Srinivasan discloses A method comprising: … (See the rejection for claim 1).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 21, Srinivasan discloses
wherein the computing resource is a cloud computing resource (col. 35, lines 59-65: A network set up by an entity, such as a company or a public sector organization, to provide one or more services (such as various types of cloud-based computing or storage) accessible via the Internet and/or other networks to a distributed set of clients may be termed a provider network. Such a provider network may include numerous data centers hosting various resource pools).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Srinivasan discloses
wherein the programmable circuitry is to compare the analyzed time series (col. 16, lines 63-65: The threat intelligence service 273 may determine that anomalous activity indicates a performance or security issue; col. 17, lines 13-19: System activity profiles may be generated by monitoring system activity (e.g., the device activity data 270) over a period of time in which attempts to exploit a vulnerability are known to have occurred and determining characteristics of the system activity that are correlated with the attempts to exploit the vulnerability) to a threshold to determine if a conflict is detected (col. 43, lines 32-46: The method further includes determining the first device configuration information and the second device configuration information differ. The method further includes generating an updated vulnerability priority score for the vulnerability by reevaluating the vulnerability description with respect to the second device configuration information associated with the VMI. The method further includes generating an updated vulnerability report that associates the vulnerability with the updated vulnerability priority score. The method further includes determining that a change between the vulnerability priority score and the updated vulnerability priority score exceeds a predetermined threshold. The method further includes transmitting a notification to the user via the user interface prompting the user to access the vulnerability report via the user interface).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 20, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 11,516,222, hereinafter Srinivasan) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2016/0019224, hereinafter Ahn).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Srinivasan does not disclose wherein the configuration change conflict is triggered by a third party configuration that conflicts with a configuration state identified by the apparatus. Ahn discloses wherein the configuration change conflict is triggered by a third party configuration that conflicts with a configuration state identified by the apparatus(paragraph [0002]: A company might back up critical computing systems such as databases, file servers, web servers, and so on as part of a daily, weekly, or monthly maintenance schedule; paragraph [0216]: Scheduling parameters may specify with what frequency (e.g., hourly, weekly, daily, event-based, etc.) paragraph [0281]: the third-party archiving rules 235 may conflict with or may be incompatible the settings and/or configurations of the system 200 or the third-party archiving data agent 250. In such case, the third-party archiving rules 235 may be supplemented, changed, or superseded, for example, to the extent they conflict or are incompatible with the settings and/or configurations of the system 200 or the third-party archiving data agent 250 In one example, the third-party application 260 archives the data in a specific format that is different from a format that is used by the system 200 to archive the data. The system 200 may decide to supersede the third-party application 260 format and use the format it generally uses. Then, the system 200 may convert the archived file from the format used by the system 200 to the format used by the third-party application 260 at the time of restore. For example, the system 200 can receive a request to restore the archived file from a third-party application 260). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Srinivasan by incorporating Ahn’s superseding third-party archiving rules if the third-party archiving rules conflicts with or are incompatible the settings and/or configurations of the system and restore the archived file from a third-party application in accordance with hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly maintenance schedule. The motivation would have been to resolve conflict between the third-party archiving rules and configurations of the system (Ahn paragraph [0281]).
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 24, Srinivasan does not disclose wherein the programmable circuitry is to generate multiple time series with different periods. Ahn discloses wherein the programmable circuitry is to generate multiple time series with different periods (paragraph [0002]: A company might back up critical computing systems such as databases, file servers, web servers, and so on as part of a daily, weekly, or monthly maintenance schedule; paragraph [0216]: Scheduling parameters may specify with what frequency (e.g., hourly, weekly, daily, event-based, etc.) paragraph [0281]: the third-party archiving rules 235 may conflict with or may be incompatible the settings and/or configurations of the system 200 or the third-party archiving data agent 250. In such case, the third-party archiving rules 235 may be supplemented, changed, or superseded, for example, to the extent they conflict or are incompatible with the settings and/or configurations of the system 200 or the third-party archiving data agent 250 In one example, the third-party application 260 archives the data in a specific format that is different from a format that is used by the system 200 to archive the data. The system 200 may decide to supersede the third-party application 260 format and use the format it generally uses. Then, the system 200 may convert the archived file from the format used by the system 200 to the format used by the third-party application 260 at the time of restore. For example, the system 200 can receive a request to restore the archived file from a third-party application 260). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Srinivasan by incorporating Ahn’s superseding third-party archiving rules if the third-party archiving rules conflicts with or are incompatible the settings and/or configurations of the system and restore the archived file from a third-party application in accordance with hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly maintenance schedule. The motivation would have been to resolve conflict between the third-party archiving rules and configurations of the system (Ahn paragraph [0281]).
Regarding claims 7, 16, and 25, Srinivasan does not disclose wherein the periods are hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly. Ahn discloses wherein the periods are hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly (paragraph [0002]: A company might back up critical computing systems such as databases, file servers, web servers, and so on as part of a daily, weekly, or monthly maintenance schedule; paragraph [0216]: Scheduling parameters may specify with what frequency (e.g., hourly, weekly, daily, event-based, etc.) paragraph [0281]: the third-party archiving rules 235 may conflict with or may be incompatible the settings and/or configurations of the system 200 or the third-party archiving data agent 250. In such case, the third-party archiving rules 235 may be supplemented, changed, or superseded, for example, to the extent they conflict or are incompatible with the settings and/or configurations of the system 200 or the third-party archiving data agent 250 In one example, the third-party application 260 archives the data in a specific format that is different from a format that is used by the system 200 to archive the data. The system 200 may decide to supersede the third-party application 260 format and use the format it generally uses. Then, the system 200 may convert the archived file from the format used by the system 200 to the format used by the third-party application 260 at the time of restore. For example, the system 200 can receive a request to restore the archived file from a third-party application 260). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Srinivasan by incorporating Ahn’s superseding third-party archiving rules if the third-party archiving rules conflicts with or are incompatible the settings and/or configurations of the system and restore the archived file from a third-party application in accordance with hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly maintenance schedule. The motivation would have been to resolve conflict between the third-party archiving rules and configurations of the system (Ahn paragraph [0281]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Srinivasan does not disclose wherein, after the configuration change conflict is detected, the programmable circuitry is to block enforcement of a desired state associated with the configuration change conflict. Ahn discloses wherein, after the configuration change conflict is detected, the programmable circuitry is to block enforcement of a desired state associated with the configuration change conflict (paragraph [0002]: A company might back up critical computing systems such as databases, file servers, web servers, and so on as part of a daily, weekly, or monthly maintenance schedule; paragraph [0216]: Scheduling parameters may specify with what frequency (e.g., hourly, weekly, daily, event-based, etc.) paragraph [0281]: the third-party archiving rules 235 may conflict with or may be incompatible the settings and/or configurations of the system 200 or the third-party archiving data agent 250. In such case, the third-party archiving rules 235 may be supplemented, changed, or superseded, for example, to the extent they conflict or are incompatible with the settings and/or configurations of the system 200 or the third-party archiving data agent 250 In one example, the third-party application 260 archives the data in a specific format that is different from a format that is used by the system 200 to archive the data. The system 200 may decide to supersede the third-party application 260 format and use the format it generally uses. Then, the system 200 may convert the archived file from the format used by the system 200 to the format used by the third-party application 260 at the time of restore. For example, the system 200 can receive a request to restore the archived file from a third-party application 260). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Srinivasan by incorporating Ahn’s superseding third-party archiving rules if the third-party archiving rules conflicts with or are incompatible the settings and/or configurations of the system and restore the archived file from a third-party application in accordance with hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly maintenance schedule. The motivation would have been to resolve conflict between the third-party archiving rules and configurations of the system (Ahn paragraph [0281]).
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 11,516,222, hereinafter Srinivasan) in view of Malamut et al. (US 2023/0262081, hereinafter Malamut).
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 22, Srinivasan does not disclose wherein the programmable circuitry is to calculate an average of the time series. Malamut discloses wherein the programmable circuitry is to calculate an average of the time series (paragraph [0071]: FIG. 9A illustrates an example UI display for defining a policy under an embodiment. This definition page allows the user to enter the metric (KPI), algorithm, and thresholds to be monitored. For this example, display screen 900 includes several fields such as a name field 901 for input of a customizable name for the policy. Algorithm entry filed 902 selects the anomaly detection algorithm used (e.g., simple comparison, simple moving average, etc.)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Srinivasan by incorporating Ahn’s selecting the anomaly detection algorithm such as simple moving average. The motivation would have been to provide effective analysis and notifications (Malamut paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 23, Srinivasan does not disclose wherein the average is a simple moving average. Malamut discloses wherein the average is a simple moving average (paragraph [0071]: FIG. 9A illustrates an example UI display for defining a policy under an embodiment. This definition page allows the user to enter the metric (KPI), algorithm, and thresholds to be monitored. For this example, display screen 900 includes several fields such as a name field 901 for input of a customizable name for the policy. Algorithm entry filed 902 selects the anomaly detection algorithm used (e.g., simple comparison, simple moving average, etc.)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Srinivasan by incorporating Ahn’s selecting the anomaly detection algorithm such as simple moving average. The motivation would have been to provide effective analysis and notifications (Malamut paragraph [0047]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SISLEY N. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:30AM -7:30PM.
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, April Y. Blair can be reached on (571)270-1014. 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.
/SISLEY N KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196 11/22/2025