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 .
Detail Action
2. This office action is response to the application filed on . Claims 1-35 are pending in this communication.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
4. This is in response to the amendments filed on 03/05/2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, and 35 have been amended. Claims 1- 35 are currently pending and have been considered below.
The 112(b) rejection to the claim 26-30 has been reconsidered and withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to claim limitations tiles/textual titles have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
6. Claims 1-2,7,9-12,14,19,21-22,24,26-27,29,31-32 and 34 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korakin et al (US 20220279009 A1) in view of Sites et al. (US 20210400077 A1) and further in view of Hebbagodi et al. (US 20230396641 A1)
Regarding Claim 1:
Korakin discloses:
a. A method of operating a component, (Claim 15; “method …obtaining …. permissions information indicative of permissions of users of an organizational network”) comprising:
b. determining a role associated with a digital identity, (Para.0005, Para.0004, Para.0050; “obtain roles information indicative of a role of each of the users in the organization… roles of the users having access to the given asset according to the permissions information,”, “the permission information is obtained from …. an Active Directory (AD) of the organization…” user accounts are implied by the "Active Directory", an Active Directory (AD) of the organization is construed as digital identity, “… have permissions can access the …..organizational assets…. certain organizational asset …accessible only by the organization's Chief Executive Officer (CEO)”) the role comprising a set of permissions associated with at least one asset, (Para.0104, Para.0103; “an asset …only accessible by the CEO ….”, “roles of the users …. having access to the given asset according to the permissions information” CEO has access to certain assets is construed as CEO/certain role comprises set of permission or higher permissions level associated with the asset of an organization) a network, (Para.0017; “permissions of users of an …. organization to access assets accessible via the organizational network”) or both;
c. determining a ….associated with the digital identity; (Para.0050; “a certain organizational asset …. accessible only by the organization's Chief Executive Officer (CEO)”)
determining a set of …. that are analogous to the … associated with the digital identity; (Para.0050, Para.0093; “a certain organizational asset that is accessible only by the organization's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and by the organization's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) has higher business value than another organizational asset that is accessible only by the organization's Human Resource (HR) manager's secretary”, “a respective business value …. indicative of the importance of such organizational assets/assets … to the business)” Chief Financial Officer and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) have access to organizational assets containing higher business value indicative of the importance of such organizational assets, while another organizational asset is accessible only by the organization's Human Resource (HR) manager's secretary. Human Resource (HR) manager's secretary and CFO have similar but not exactly same job responsibilities as CEO, also both (HR) manager's secretary and CFO have similar but different level of permission to access organizational assets, which is construed as ‘determining a set of …. that are analogous to the … associated with the digital identity’)
d. determining a management structure associated with the digital identity, (Para.0004, Para.0006; “permission information is obtained from …. Active Directory (AD)”, “the roles information is derived from hierarchy information indicative of hierarchical positions of each of the users in the organization”) the management structure comprising a first set of digital identities subordinate to the digital identity, (Para.0104; “…. the roles is determined based on the hierarchical positions of the users in the organization….. first users …. having first hierarchical positions … For example, an asset that is only accessible by the CEO ….” first users are construed as first set of digital identities who are subordinate to the digital identity/Identity Management system) a second set of digital identities to which the digital identity is subordinate, (Para.0104; “…. second users … having …. lower …. second hierarchical positions …. For example, …. asset …. accessible by subordinates …. of the CEO” second users are construed as second set of digital identities) or a combination thereof;
e. determining a job criticality of the digital identity based on the role associated with the digital identity, (Para.0050; “the permissions to access the organizational assets…. For example, a certain organizational asset that is accessible only by the organization's Chief Executive Officer (CEO)” organization's Chief Executive Officer/CEO have higher permissions level associated with the asset of an organization, thus the job criticality of CEO is based on the role/higher permissions level associated with the asset of an organization) … associated with the digital identity, the set of …. that are analogous to the ….associated with the digital identity, (Para.0050; “a certain organizational asset …. accessible only by the organization's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and by the organization's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) …. another organizational asset …..accessible …. by the organization's Human Resource (HR) manager's secretary”) and the management structure associated with the digital identity; (Para.0051, Para.0102; “Active Directory (AD) …. enables control of access to the organizational assets”, “the roles information … derived from hierarchy information indicative of hierarchical positions of each …. user in the organization, … each entity, except the CEO, is subordinate to a single other entity”) and
f. ….. job criticality of the digital identity ... (disclosed in limitation e)
however, Korakin does not explicitly disclose:
c. determining a textual title associated with the ….. identity;
determining …. textual titles …. associated with the ….. identity; …..
e. determining …. criticality of the …. identity based on …. the textual title associated with the …. Identity…. the textual title associated with the …. identity,
f. …. performing one or more security functions based on the job …. of the …..identity.
In an analogous reference Sites discloses:
f. …. performing one or more security functions (Para.0198, Para.0002; “vulnerability testing systems…. produce information about the threats that an organization or an individual has been exposed to”, “the level of risk with respect to cybersecurity threats…. associated with a user's position within their organization, from the user's job ….”) based on the job ….of the …..identity. (Para.0093, Para.0079; “Based on their job function, users with more responsibility … assigned a higher risk…”, “A user risk …. is determined by …. the job, position or role that the user has in an organization”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Korakin’s method of obtaining permissions information indicative of permissions of users of an organizational network by enhancing Korakin’s method to include Sites’s method for determine Job Scores Indicating Cybersecurity Vulnerability from Job Titles.
The motivation: Performing security functions based on job criticality in an organization, offers numerous benefits that strengthen organization’s security and improve operational efficiency.
however, Korakin in view of Sites does not explicitly disclose:
c. determining a textual title associated with the ….. identity;
determining …. textual titles …. associated with the ….. identity; …..
e. determining …. criticality of the …. identity based on ….the textual title associated with the …. Identity…. the textual title associated with the …. identity,
In an analogous reference Hebbagodi discloses:
c. determining a textual title associated with the ……identity; (Para.0073, Para.0071; “analysis on characters or text associated with an entity indicating … attributes (e.g., such as a department) ...”, “entity attributes, indicating critical …. identity roles, permissions, and titles”)
determining …. textual titles …. associated with the ….. identity; ….. (disclosed in previous citation)
e. determining …. criticality of the …. identity based on …. the textual title associated with the …. identity, (Para.0087, Para.0071; “characters or text entity indicating …. attributes (e.g., such as department), to infer an entity's value for an organization”, “entity attributes, indicating critical …. identity roles, permissions, and titles”) …. textual titles ….. associated with the digital identity, (disclosed above)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Korakin in view of Sites’s method of obtaining permissions information indicative of permissions of users of an organizational network by enhancing Korakin in view of Sites’s method to include Hebbagodi’s method for identifying computer risks.
The motivation: text-based attributes/titles can determine high value assets which are targets for the attackers.
With respect to independent claims 21,26 and 31, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 1; therefore, claims 21,26 and 31 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
Korakin in view of Sites and further in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determination of the job criticality of the digital identity comprises:
determining a set of scores associated with the set of permissions; (Korakin, Abstract, Para.0014; “…. score for a user …. calculated based on one or more of a frequency score for the user, a propensity score for the user, a severity score for the user, and a job score for the user”, “score …. representing the responsibility that the user has, the access to organizational systems that the user has….”) and
deriving a role score based on the set of scores, (Para.0011, Para.0017, Para.0083, Para.0085; “determine a user job score …. based on their …. job, position or role that a user has in an organization … indicative of how frequently the user is presented with a malicious attack, how likely a user is to respond to a malicious attack, or how the potential severity of consequences of a malicious attack based on the degree of access the user has …. of their organization”, “determine, using … the job score of the user….. the user's risk score”, “a user risk score …. determined ….. based on one or more of a frequency score, a propensity score, a severity score, and a job score”, “a frequency score for a user…. predicts the frequency at which the user is likely to be targeted by a malicious attack…. a propensity score that identifies the propensity of the user to respond to a malicious attack…..a severity score that identifies how severe the outcome of the user's response to the malicious attack” job score is construed as role score, using the job score, the user’s risk score of an organization is determined. User job score or risk score is determined based on how frequently the user is presented with a malicious attack/frequency score, how likely a user is to respond to a malicious attack/a propensity score, or how the potential severity of consequences of a malicious attack based on the degree of access the user has/severity score)
wherein the job criticality of the digital identity is a function of the role score. (Para.0093, Para.0011; “Job function—Based on their job function, users with more responsibility may be assigned a higher risk”, “determine a user job score that indicates the level of risk that a user presents to an organization based on their role in the organization. The job, position or role that a user has in an organization …. indicative of how frequently the user is presented with a malicious attack, how likely a user is to respond to a malicious attack, …of their organization”)
With respect to dependent claims 22,27 and 32, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 2; therefore, claims 22,27 and 32 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 7:
Korakin in view of Sites and further in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determination of the job criticality of the digital identity comprises:
deriving a management score for the digital identity based on a number of digital identities in the first set of digital identities, the second set of digital identities, (Korakin, Para.0031, Para.0006; “determining….an importance score for each given asset …. based on the permissions information”, “an importance of the roles is determined …. wherein the importance score of the first …. assets accessible by first users of the users is higher than the importance score of the second …. assets accessible by the second users of the users ….”) or both,
wherein the job criticality of the digital identity is a function of the management score. (Para.0104; “an importance of the roles is determined based on the hierarchical positions of the users in the organization….For example, an asset that is only accessible by the CEO will have an importance score higher than an importance score of another asset that is only accessible by subordinates (whether direct subordinates or indirect subordinates) of the CEO”)
With respect to dependent claims 24,29 and 34, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 7; therefore, claims 24,29 and 34 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim.
Regarding Claim 9:
Korakin in view of Sites and further in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the role associated with the digital identity is defined in accordance with a role based access control (RBAC) system. (Korakin, Para.0014; “organizations' Active Directory …. shown that …. name of departments (e.g., accounting | finance), …. associated with the name of a position (e.g., …. CEO…. in job titles. The result is a job score …. representing the responsibility that the user has, the access to organizational systems that the user has…. Accordingly, …. systems …. for determining user job scores…..”)
Regarding Claim 10:
Korakin in view of Sites and further in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein … job criticality… (Korakin, disclosed in claim 1)
… the …..title is input as a string and the job ….is output as a numeric value or a numeric label. (Sites, Para.0268, Para.0165, Para.0015; “each node of the …. organization graphs from …. organizations to train an artificial intelligence model …. used to accept as inputs …. titles, and output job scores”, “A numeric label or score is assigned to each node which represents a user within an organization, wherein the numeric label or score represents users' importance within the organization”, “using an artificial intelligence model …. read a user's ….. title ….. detect patterns …. and output a job score according to the …. title”)
…the textual title…… (Hebbagodi, disclosed in claim 1)
Regarding Claim 11:
Korakin in view of Sites and further in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the set of permissions associated with at least one asset, a network, or both, (Korakin, Abstract;“obtain…permissions…indicative of permissions of users of an organizational network ……to access assets accessible via the organizational network”) comprises a set of entitlements. (Para.0012; “for users based on their job, position, or role in any organization…. Job titles that refer to …. roles and positions …..”)
Regarding Claim 12:
Korakin in view of Sites and further in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 11, wherein each entitlement of the set of entitlements is associated with one or more actions permitted in association with the at least one asset, the network, or both. (Korakin, Para.0092; “to perform …. actions manipulating the …. organizational assets… actions …. include …. changing internal permissions …. changing external permissions (e.g. permissions to access organizational assets other than the organizational asset that is manipulated), closing connections to external organizational assets….”)
Regarding Claim 14:
Korakin in view of Sites and further in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 12, wherein the one or more actions are each ranked in accordance with an action ranking table. (Sites, Para.0082, Para.0119, Para.0121; “user's response to …. malicious attacks … given a score or a ranking, for example, a user's response …. given a low score (for example, 0 or 1), representing the ….response….”, “user responses can include a ….. user actions, for example …. opening a message, clicking on a link in a message, replying to a message, opening an attachment to a message…..”, “ system uses information in a table to learn how the user responded to a specific ….. malicious attack given their history at the time of the attack”)
Regarding Claim 19:
Korakin in view of Sites and further in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the job criticality of the digital identity is not based on any vulnerability or exploit associated with the at least one asset, the network, or both. (Korakin, Para.0050; “the permissions to access the organizational assets…. For example, a certain organizational asset that is accessible only by the organization's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and by the organization's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) …. another organizational asset …..accessible …. by the organization's Human Resource (HR) manager's secretary”)
Claims 3-6,8,23,25,28,30,33 and 35 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korakin et al (US 20220279009 A1) in view of Sites et al. (US 20210400077 A1) also in view of Hebbagodi et al. (US 20230396641 A1) and further in view of Choudhury et. Al (US 20210350078 A1)
Regarding Claim 3:
Korakin in view of Sites and further in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determination of the job criticality of the digital identity comprises: generating the set of …. that are analogous to the ….. associated with the digital identity….(Korakin, disclosed in claim 1)
generating the …. textual titles ….. associated with the … identity using a machine-learning (ML) model; (Hebbagodi, Para.0006, Para.0084, Para.0071; “machine learned algorithms for processing input signals”, “text-based attributes (e.g., of the input signals)”, “entity attributes, indicating critical …. identity roles, permissions, and titles”)) ….
…..textual title ….. via a natural language processing (NPL) model to produce …. Scores… (Hebbagodi, Para.0073; “determine a score for a threat or attack …. by analyzing…..outcomes from entity classification as high-value assets….natural language processing (NLP) analysis on …. text associated with an entity indicating …. attributes (e.g., such as a department), to infer an entity's value for an organization…..”)
…. deriving a textual title ….. for the textual title associated with the …..identity based on the …. scores,
wherein the …. criticality of the …. identity is a function of the ……score. (Hebbagodi, Para.0154, Para.0156, Para.0084, Para.0088; “derive …. attack graph corresponding to the …. risk …. inputs”, “determine a risk score based on the derived attack graph”, “relationships through graph …. of the input signal …. used …. while text-based attributes (e.g., of the input signals) may be captured”, “text entity indicating …. attributes (e.g., such as department), to infer an entity's value for an organization”)
however, Korakin in view of Sites and further in view of Hebbagodi does not explicitly disclose:
…. tokenizing each ….title in the set of …..titles via a natural language processing (NPL) model to produce a set of token scores associated with each extracted token;
deriving a set of …..title scores for the set of ….titles based on the set of token scores for the respective ……title; and
deriving a …..title score for the ……title associated with the …..identity based on the set of …..title scores,
wherein the job criticality of the …. identity is a function of the ……title score.
In an analogous reference Choudhury discloses:
…. tokenizing each…. title in the set of …..titles via a natural language processing (NPL) model (Para.0032, Para.0033, Para.0038; “job title …. are received for analysis …. in the following order: word tokenization (e.g., where a job title is segmented into single-word tokens) ……”, “Word tokenization …. a process by which a text string (i.e., the job title) is split into the individual words (e.g., tokens) ….. so that natural language processing …. done on each token”, “For example, two job titles, “Principal Data Engineer” and “Senior Machine Learning Engineer” ….”) to produce a set of token scores associated with each extracted token; (Para.0059, Para.0055, Para.0042; “a similarity score of the job titles may be computed”, “a similarity score is computed…. extracted from the job title”, “Once a job title is pre-processed …..then each token (i.e., word) of the job title …. classified into….” similarity score is construed as token scores)
deriving a set of ….title scores for the set of …..titles (Para.0062, Para.0041, Para.0039; “a final match assessment detailing the generated match scores”, “A matching of all three semantic elements of the job title …. result in a match score ….. relatedness of the job titles is higher ….. being a perfect or equal match”, “A job title may be a combination of semantic elements, including …. a job role (e.g., a manager, an engineer, or an analyst, etc.), a job level (e.g., junior, senior, lead, etc.), and/or a job domain or functional area (e.g., software, energy, etc..” match scores are construed as set of title scores) based on the set of token scores for the respective…. title; (Para.0003, Para.0055; “computing a similarity score for each of the ….. semantic element of the job title…. before making a final match assessment”, “compute three different similarity scores; a job role similarity score, a job domain similarity score, and a job level similarity score.” three different similarity scores are construed as set of token scores, set of token scores are computed before making a final match assessment/before creating match scores or set of title scores which is construed as deriving a set of title scores for the set of titles based on the set of token scores for the respective title) and
deriving a …title score for the …..title associated with the ….identity based on the set of …..title scores, (Para.0055; “job level terms … extracted from the job title and classified into four groups … and …. a match score … computed”)
wherein the job criticality of the ….identity is a function of the…… title score. (Para.0062, Para.0039, Para.0041; “The final match assessment …. determined.…. that the functions of the two jobs (i.e., the job roles) are the same.”, “semantic decomposition …. of the job title …. including ….job role (e.g., a manager, an engineer, or an analyst, etc.), a job level (e.g., junior, senior, lead, etc.), and/or a job domain or functional area (e.g., software, energy, etc.)”, “A matching of all three semantic elements of the job title ….result in a match score”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Korakin in view of Sites and further in view of Hebbagodi’s method of obtaining permissions information indicative of permissions of users of an organizational network by enhancing Korakin in view of Sites and further in view of Hebbagodi’s method to include Choudhury’s method for semantic matching.
The motivation: Tokenizing titles within an organization using an NLP model offers several significant benefits, such as breaking down complexity, enabling meaningful analysis, supporting various NLP tasks and enhanced accuracy and efficiency.
With respect to dependent claims 23,28 and 33, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 3; therefore, claims 23,28 and 33 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4:
Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi and further in view of Choudhury discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein …. textual title …. associated with the …. identity …... (Hebbagodi, disclosed in claim 1)
…..the deriving of the…. title score for the…. title associated with the digital identity is based on a weighting of each title score of the set of …..title scores (Choudhury, Para.0062, Para.0060; “generated match scores”, “differential weighted scores are applied to job elements and a final match assessment is made…. If the job roles are …. manager, engineer… then the job …score …achieve a higher weight ….”) is that is based on a similarity confidence level between the…. title associated with the digital identity and the respective …..title from the set of ….titles. (Para.0062, Para.0065, Para.0041; “the final match assessment … indicate … two job titles …. functions of the two jobs (i.e., the job roles) are the same”, “A match score … computed based on the job …. similarity score”, “A matching of all three semantic elements of the job title …result in a match score which is close to 1, …. where a match score is a range from 0-1 with 1 being a perfect or equal match)”)
Regarding Claim 5:
Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi and further in view of Choudhury discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein …. textual title …. (Hebbagodi, disclosed in claim 1)
….the tokenizing comprises extracting, from each …..title in the set of …..titles, (Choudhury, Para.0032, Para.0042; “…..word tokenization (e.g., where a job title is segmented into single-word tokens)”, “each token (i.e., word) of the job title … classified into a level, a role, and/or a domain”) one or more responsibility tokens, one or more function tokens, one or more scope tokens, (Para.0045; “job role: engineer; job domain: machine learning; job level: senior”) or any combination thereof, and assigning each extracted token a respective token score. (Para.0064; “the job role 306, job domain 308, and job level 310 … extracted from the Job Titles A and B. A job role similarity score … a job domain similarity score … and a job level similarity score …. computed”)
Regarding Claim 6:
Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi and further in view of Choudhury discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein the ML model comprises a neutral network (NN). (Sites, Para.0033; “predictions of job scores for multiple job titles ….. using a recursive neural net artificial intelligence ensemble model”)
Regarding Claim 8:
Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the job criticality of the digital identity is based on:
a role score that is based on the role associated with the digital identity, (Sites, Para.0011; “determine a user job score …. based on their …. job, position or role that a user has in an organization”)
…. textual title …. associated with the …. identity …... (Hebbagodi, disclosed in claim 1)
a management score that is based on the management structure associated with the digital identity. (Korakin, Para.0104; “an importance of the roles is determined based on the hierarchical positions of the users in the organization…. For example, an asset that is only accessible by the CEO will have an importance score higher than an importance score of another asset that is only accessible by subordinates (whether direct subordinates or indirect subordinates) of the CEO” importance score is construed as management score)
however, Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi does not explicitly disclose:
…. a …title score that is based on the ….title associated with the …..identity,
In an analogous reference Choudhury discloses:
…. a ….title score that is based on the ….title associated with the ….identity,
(Para.0062, Para.0041, Para.0039; “a final match assessment detailing the generated match scores”, “A matching of all three semantic elements of the job title …. result in a match score ….. relatedness of the job titles is higher ….. being a perfect or equal match”, “A job title may be a combination of semantic elements, including …. a job role (e.g., a manager, an engineer, or an analyst, etc.), a job level (e.g., junior, senior, lead, etc.), and/or a job domain or functional area (e.g., software, energy, etc.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi’s method of obtaining permissions information indicative of permissions of users of an organizational network by enhancing Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi’s method to include Choudhury’s method for semantic matching.
The motivation: title score that is based on the title associated with the digital identity provides the benefit of reduced Identity theft and fraud, improved authentication and authorization and faster and more accurate verification.
With respect to dependent claims 25,30 and 35, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 8; therefore, claims 25,30 and 35 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 8.
Claim 13 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korakin et al (US 20220279009 A1) in view of Sites et al. (US 20210400077 A1) also in view of Hebbagodi et al. (US 20230396641 A1) and further in view of Baikalov et. Al (US 20120047575 A1)
Regarding Claim 13:
Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 12, ……
however, Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi does not explicitly disclose:
…… the one or more actions comprise a read action, a restricted read action, a write action, a delete action, a restore action, an enable action, a disable action, an update action, a manage action, or any combination thereof.
In an analogous reference Baikalov discloses:
…… the one or more actions comprise a read action, a restricted read action, a write action, (Paraq.0002; “Access entitlements are permissions granted …. to allow an …. employee to perform a …. task…..For example, a user/employee may have read-only access entitlement to a specific document and/or the user/employee may have read and write access to another specific document”) a delete action, a restore action, an enable action, a disable action, (Para.0010; “managers … provide ….approvals of entitlements rather than …. disabling important functions …..”) an update action, a manage action, or any combination thereof
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi’s method of obtaining permissions information indicative of permissions of users of an organizational network by enhancing Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi’s method to include Baikalov’s method for access entitlement reviews that demonstrate and measure a reduction in risk.
The motivation: managing entitlements associated with read and write actions on assets in an organization helps control who has access to specific resources and what actions they can perform.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korakin et al (US 20220279009 A1) in view of Sites et al. (US 20210400077 A1) also in view of Hebbagodi et al. (US 20230396641 A1) and further in view of Badawy et. Al (US 20220086162 A1)
Regarding Claim 15:
Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 12…. job criticality of the digital identity…..
however, Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi does not explicitly disclose:
……deriving an entitlement score based on the set of entitlements, the determination of the job …. of the …identity is based on the entitlement score.
In an analogous reference Badawy discloses:
…. deriving an entitlement score based on the set of entitlements, (Para.0064, Para.0062, Para.0061; “present an assessment metric for these roles, where the metric is a reflection…. of the quality … of the structure of the set of roles”, “…. A role …. may be a collection of entitlements. These roles …. assigned a name or identifiers (e.g., manager, engineer, team leader) by an enterprise that designate the type of user or identity …. assigned such a role”, “An entitlement may be the ability to perform or access a function ….. including, …. accessing computing systems, applications, file systems ….”) the determination of the job …. of the …. identity is based on the entitlement score. (Para.0214, Para.0169; “collections of entitlements … associated with enterprise and an assessment metric (also refer to as a score) for a set of these roles … determined, where the metric is a reflection…. of the quality ….of the structure of the set of roles”, “Users may have various roles, job functions, responsibilities, etc. to perform …. tasks associated with enterprise environment…”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi’s method of obtaining permissions information indicative of permissions of users of an organizational network by enhancing Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi’s method to include Badawy’s method for determine Job Scores Indicating Cybersecurity Vulnerability from Job Titles.
The motivation: an entitlement score based on the set of entitlements in an organization provide significant benefits, particularly in the areas of security, compliance, and operational efficiency.
Regarding Claim 16:
Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi and further in view of Badawy discloses:
The method of claim 15, wherein the entitlement score is derived based on a neural network applied with respect to each of the one or more actions. (Badawy, Para.0131, Para.0068, Para.0085; “machine learning techniques such ….neural networks, ….used to determine …. a value for …. clustered into ….. groups of …. entitlements ….and a … assessment metric determined …. based on the ….. determined …groups”, “metrics … determined for assessing the quality ….. of the role structure of an enterprise based on an access role”, Entitlements …. define the actions a user can take …. including, …. accessing computing systems, applications, file systems… with respect to …. computer environments”)
Regarding Claim 17:
Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi and further in view of Badawy discloses:
The method of claim 16, wherein the neural network outputs an embedding for each of the one or more actions, (Sites, Para.0015, Para.0158, Para.0076; “an artificial intelligence model …. to read a user's job ….. and output a job score according to the job …wherein the job score is indicative of the risk level of the user ….. associated with their job or position in the organization”, “For example the CEO of an organization …. being more likely to be attacked ….”, “In artificial intelligence models …. words …. represented (also described as embedded) as vectors. ….”) wherein each embedding comprises a vector that encodes semantic information of the respective action in a mathematical space. (Para.0076, Para.0158, Para.0009; “In artificial intelligence models … Vector space models (VSMs) represent or embed words in a continuous vector space where semantically similar words are mapped to nearby points (are embedded nearby each other)”, “the CEO of an organization ….. likely to be attacked due to a …. vector called CEO Fraud”, “a user's overall risk or vulnerability can be characterized…. from actions that the user ….. make in the future”)
Regarding Claim 18:
Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi and further in view of Badawy discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein each embedding is input to a clustering algorithm (Badawy, Para.0072, Para.0073, Para.0071; “data identifying roles …. (e.g., alphanumeric identifiers for the …. entitlements associated with those roles). Clustering of …. peer grouping of identities…. clustering data of numerical type”, “… numerical data…. number of entitlements, when combining the numerical, …. a clustering algorithm to yield meaningful outputs”, “to group or cluster the identities of an enterprise …. such that the identities in a peer group are similar with respect to the set of entitlements ….”) that assigns each action to a cluster in a set of clusters, (Para.0090, Para.0085; “it is desirable to group or cluster the identities or entitlements of an enterprise … into peer groups such that…. the identities in a peer group are similar with respect to the set of entitlements assigned to the identities of that group”, “an entitlement may be a specific permission granted …. such as access to a particular building … access to files and folders…. Entitlements …. define the actions a user can take against the items they have access to”)
wherein each cluster is associated with a particular group of similar actions, (Para.0095, Para.0085; “cluster the identities into peer groups of identities or to cluster the entitlements into peer groups of entitlements”, “Entitlements …. define the actions a user can take against the items they have access to, including…. accessing computing systems, applications, file systems….”) wherein each cluster is associated with a cluster score, (Para.0078, Para.0068; “the clustering of identities or entitlements …. based on a …. assessment metric...”, “metrics … determined for assessing the quality ….. of the role structure of an enterprise based on an access role” assessment metric is construed as score) and
wherein each cluster score for each action is factored into the respective entitlement score. (Para.0145, Para.0065, Para.0078; “The cluster ….metric ….defined as the ratio between the number of ….edges within a graph cluster to the maximum possible number of edges with the same number of nodes within the cluster….and may equal N*(N−1)/2”, “edges representing …. roles (e.g., represented by the nodes). These edges …..comprise a…..weight ….based on,…shared entitlements between the roles ….e.g., a number of identities that share those roles”, “clustering of …. entitlements based on a peer group assessment metric…..”)
Regarding Claim 20:
Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi discloses:
The method of claim 1, …. job criticality….
however, Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi does not explicitly disclose:
……. the one or more security functions comprise:
allocating a …. criticality-based priority to vulnerability and/or exploit remediation to one or more assets associated with the …..identity.
In an analogous reference Badawy discloses:
……. the one or more security functions comprise:
allocating a …. criticality-based priority to vulnerability (Para.0281, Para.0321; “Consider the case of Jane D., a senior analyst … for 10 or more years….. she had accumulated hundreds of access entitlements……. if any of Jane's accounts is compromised, the damage might be hard to contain”, “identify identities with anomalous usage patterns …. who utilize their privileged access …. Such usage patterns …. indicative of serious vulnerabilities”) and/or exploit remediation to one or more assets associated with the ……identity. (Para.0281, Para.0310; “recommending a proper action, e.g. triggering special certification event, revoking unutilized access, ….will improve security by mitigating the risks from these anomalous identities”, “Recommending a proper action (e.g., re-certifying entitlements or recommending to add missing entitlements) ….. minimize and mitigate risk to the enterprise”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi’s method of obtaining permissions information indicative of permissions of users of an organizational network by enhancing Korakin in view of Sites also in view of Hebbagodi’s method to include Badawy’s method for determine Job Scores Indicating Cybersecurity Vulnerability from Job Titles.
The motivation: Allocating job criticality-based priority to vulnerabilities within an organization offers several key benefits, primarily centering on improved risk management, resource optimization, and overall security posture enhancement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAYEDA SALMA NAHAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached on (571) 270-3351. 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.
/SAYEDA SALMA NAHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/BEEMNET W DADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights