DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 07/27/2023. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and are examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/27/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 12, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhabra (US 2017/0286320 A1), hereinafter Chhabra in view of Walton (US 2019/0327151 A1 ), hereinafter Walton in further view of Kaufman (US 2024/0361936 A1), hereinafter Kaufman.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 14, and 19 Chhabra teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: (Chhabra ¶ 48 teaches, any of the operations described herein may be implemented in a system that includes one or more storage mediums (e.g., non-transitory storage mediums) having stored thereon, individually or in combination, instructions that when executed by one or more processors perform the methods. The storage medium may include any type of tangible medium, for example, any type of disk including hard disks)
eliminating, in at least one component of the computational system architecture, a redundant encryption process, wherein the redundant encryption process is configured to encrypt the same data as another one of the discrete encryption processes. (Chhabra ¶ 20 teaches, may cause both of encryption engines and to be skipped when the data has already been encrypted by I/O encryption engine.)
Chhabra does not appear to explicitly teach but in related art:
generating a data flow diagram for a computational system architecture, wherein the data flow diagram identifies discrete layers that interact with data in the computational system architecture; (Walton ¶ 8 teaches, the representation manager sends a set of test cases into the distributed data processing system and generates a representation of the distributed data processing system using results from sending the set of test cases into the distributed data processing system. The representation manager enables reducing a time for the computer system to generate the representation of the distributed data processing system.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Chhabra with Walton, to modify the system for avoiding redundant memory encryption in a cryptographic protection system of Chhabra with the system diagramming of Walton. The motivation to do so, Walton ¶ 7, for reducing a time for the computer system to generate the representation of the distributed data processing system.
determining discrete encryption processes occurring on same data in different layers of the data flow diagram; and (Kaufman ¶ 158 teaches, (or as to whether the current data chunk is unique (e.g., not a duplicate)). Accordingly, in one or more embodiments, if the result of the determination is YES, the method proceeds to Step (indicating that the current data chunk has been previously stored in the corresponding volume (e.g., a duplicate/existing data chunk), so the current data chunk need not be written to the corresponding volume; rather, for example, a pointer to the existing data chunk should be referenced and a pointer count indicating the number of data chunks pointing to the existing data chunk should be incremented).)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Chhabra in view of Walton with Kaufman, to modify the system for avoiding redundant memory encryption in a cryptographic protection system of Chhabra with the system diagramming of Walton with the identification of duplicate data of Kaufman. The motivation to do so, Kaufman ¶ 22, improves efficiency of production workloads (e.g., reading data, writing data, etc.) and reduces storage costs.
Regarding Claim(s) 9 Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches:
The method of claim 1, (Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches the parent claim above.) wherein the redundant encryption process is an encryption process performed on the same data in a first layer, and wherein the same data is encrypted in another discrete layer. (Kaufman ¶ 158 teaches, (or as to whether the current data chunk is unique (e.g., not a duplicate)). Accordingly, in one or more embodiments, if the result of the determination is YES, the method proceeds to Step (indicating that the current data chunk has been previously stored in the corresponding volume (e.g., a duplicate/existing data chunk), so the current data chunk need not be written to the corresponding volume; rather, for example, a pointer to the existing data chunk should be referenced and a pointer count indicating the number of data chunks pointing to the existing data chunk should be incremented).)
Regarding Claim(s) 12 Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches:
The method of claim 1, (Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches the parent claim above.) wherein the method is executed by one or more data processing systems based on computer-readable program code downloaded to the one or more data processing systems from a remote data processing system. (Walton ¶ 22 teaches, Computer-readable program instructions described herein can be downloaded to respective computing/processing devices from a computer-readable storage medium or to an external computer or external storage device via a network, for example, the Internet, a local area network, a wide area network, and/or a wireless network.)
Claims 2, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman as applied to claim 1, 14, and 19 above, and further in view of Thomas (US 12,585,713 B1), hereinafter Thomas.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, 15, and 20 Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: (Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches the parent claim above.)
Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman does not appear to explicitly teach but in related art:
displaying, on a user interface, a heatmap illustrating respective discrete encryptions for discrete portions of the data in the computational system architecture. (Thomas Col. 7 Ln. 20-51 teaches the concept, the recommendations, accompanied by visual indicators like heatmaps or color-coded alerts, guide users to focus on the most critical areas.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas with Iyer, to modify the system for avoiding redundant memory encryption in a cryptographic protection system of Chhabra with the system diagramming of Walton with the identification of duplicate data of Kaufman with the heat map visualization of Thomas. The motivation to do so, Thomas Col. 7 Ln. 49-51, enables users to make informed decisions and prioritize their investigative efforts effectively.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas as applied to claim 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Iyer (US 11,495,145 B2), hereinafter Iyer.
Regarding Claim(s) 3 and 16 Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas teaches:
The method of claim 2, (Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas teaches the parent claim above.)
Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas does not appear to explicitly teach but in related art:
wherein the heatmap includes an indication of a strongest encryption protocol implemented on data having multiple discrete encryptions. (Iyer Col. 1 Ln. 59-67 teaches, The common heat map is generated using a plurality of training datasets. The method may further include calculating, based on the relevancy grade, an encryption level associated with each of the plurality of datapoints. The method may further include selectively encrypting at least one datapoint from the plurality of datapoints based on the encryption level associated with each of the plurality of datapoints.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman with Thomas, to modify the system for avoiding redundant memory encryption in a cryptographic protection system of Chhabra with the system diagramming of Walton with the identification of duplicate data of Kaufman with the heat map visualization of Thomas with the encryption levels of Iyer. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique of determining a level of encryption needed to known devices and/or methods for redundant encryption avoidance ready for improvement to yield predictable results of insuring well sufficiently encrypted data.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas as applied to claim 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Gilburd (US 2024/0364747 A1), hereinafter Gilburd.
Regarding Claim(s) 4 and 17 Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas teaches:
The method of claim 2, (Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas teaches the parent claim above.)
Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas does not appear to explicitly teach but in related art:
wherein the heatmap includes compliance information for respective portions of the data. (Gilburd ¶ 184 teaches the concept, The customer-facing dashboard 1142 includes widgets 1142 for providing visibility into security and compliance information for the infrastructure services 1108 of the cloud infrastructure environment 1102 to the customer operators.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas with Gilbert, to modify the system for avoiding redundant memory encryption in a cryptographic protection system of Chhabra with the system diagramming of Walton with the identification of duplicate data of Kaufman with the heat map visualization of Thomas with the encryption levels of Iyer. The motivation to do so, Gilbert ¶ 184, to enhance the customer operator experience by providing quick access to frequently used functions or critical information.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas as applied to claim 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Shen (US 2021/0021343 A1, hereinafter Shen.
Regarding Claim(s) 5 and 18 Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas teaches:
The method of claim 2, (Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas teaches the parent claim above.)
Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas does not appear to explicitly teach but in related art:
wherein the heatmap includes estimated cost savings based on eliminating the redundant encryption process. (Shen ¶ 5 teaches, process to remove redundant EDFAs from the upgraded link and calculating the cost C.sub.RR saved by the redundancy removal process)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Thomas with Shen, to modify the system for avoiding redundant memory encryption in a cryptographic protection system of Chhabra with the system diagramming of Walton with the identification of duplicate data of Kaufman with the heat map visualization of Thomas with the cost savings of Shen. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique of calculating the cost of a process to known devices and/or methods for avoiding redundant memory encryption ready for improvement to yield predictable results understanding the benefits of preventing a redundant process.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen (US 2021/0021343 A1, hereinafter Shen.
Regarding Claim(s) 6 Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: (Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches the parent claim above.)
determining a cost associated with interacting with the data at each discrete layer. (Shen ¶ 5 teaches, process to remove redundant EDFAs from the upgraded link and calculating the cost C.sub.RR saved by the redundancy removal process)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman with Shen, to modify the system for avoiding redundant memory encryption in a cryptographic protection system of Chhabra with the system diagramming of Walton with the identification of duplicate data of Kaufman with the cost savings of Shen. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique of calculating the cost of a process to known devices and/or methods for avoiding redundant memory encryption ready for improvement to yield predictable results understanding the benefits of preventing a redundant process.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Shen as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Aygar (US 2023/0137255 A1), hereinafter Aygar.
Regarding Claim(s) 7 Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Shen teaches:
The method of claim 6, further comprising: (Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Shen teaches the parent claim above.)
Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Shen does not appear to explicitly teach, determining a security strength on an effectiveness of security controls, but in related art:
determining a security strength of each discrete layer based on an effectiveness of security controls implemented on each discrete layer. (Aygar ¶ 119 teaches, the HA controller engine tracks the health of all network controllers under its domain via network monitors and using the heartbeat mechanism for collecting telemetry data from edge devices serving as worker nodes in a container orchestration platform. The second element is dynamic context of the workload and its dependent components, which can include the telemetry used to determine their performance, cost, and availably status on the current node and how far they are meeting their respective service level objective (SLO) (e.g., cost, performance, security, and availability) needs. The third element is tolerance threshold for the service level objectives (SLOs) for each component. If any of the dependent component's SLO is breached beyond the tolerance threshold. (i.e., if threshold is breaches security effectiveness is not sufficient))
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Shen with Aygar, to modify the system for avoiding redundant memory encryption in a cryptographic protection system of Chhabra with the system diagramming of Walton with the identification of duplicate data of Kaufman with the cost savings of Shen with the health scanning and SLO thresholds of Aygar. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique of determining system security to known devices and/or methods for avoiding redundant memory encryption ready for improvement to yield predictable results ensuring security for different layers.
Regarding Claim(s) 8 Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Shen-Aygar teaches:
The method of claim 7, (Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman-Shen teaches the parent claim above.) wherein the redundant encryption process is associated with a layer having a metric that does not satisfy a threshold, wherein the metric relates security control effectiveness to the associated cost. (Aygar ¶ 119 teaches, the second element is dynamic context of the workload and its dependent components, which can include the telemetry used to determine their performance, cost, and availably status on the current node and how far they are meeting their respective service level objective (SLO) (e.g., cost, performance, security, and availability) needs. The third element is tolerance threshold for the service level objectives (SLOs) for each component. If any of the dependent component's SLO is breached beyond the tolerance threshold. (i.e., if the cost and security SLOs go above threshold an action occurs.))
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Acharya (US 2020/0106702 A1), hereinafter Acharya.
Regarding Claim(s) 10 Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: (Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches the parent claim above.)
Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman does not appear to explicitly teach but in related art:
maintaining an encryption process for a second layer where a portion of the data is not otherwise encrypted. (Acharya ¶ 116 teaches, the encryption type information is analyzed to determine what portion of the network traffic data unit is to be encrypted. (i.e., portion of data is encrypted and a portion is not) In one or more embodiments, encryption type information indicates a location for where the encrypting device should begin encrypting the network traffic data unit (e.g., the portion to be encrypted).)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman with Acharya, to modify the system for avoiding redundant memory encryption in a cryptographic protection system of Chhabra with the system diagramming of Walton with the portion encryption of Acharya. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique of partially encrypting data to known devices and/or methods for avoiding redundant memory encryption ready for improvement to yield predictable results protecting only necessary data.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aygar.
Regarding Claim(s) 11 Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: (Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches the parent claim above.)
maintaining an encryption process for a second layer where a metric for the second layer satisfies a threshold, wherein the metric relates security control effectiveness to an associated cost. (Aygar ¶ 119 teaches, the second element is dynamic context of the workload and its dependent components, which can include the telemetry used to determine their performance, cost, and availably status on the current node and how far they are meeting their respective service level objective (SLO) (e.g., cost, performance, security, and availability) needs. The third element is tolerance threshold for the service level objectives (SLOs) for each component. If any of the dependent component's SLO is breached beyond the tolerance threshold. (i.e., if the cost and security SLOs go above threshold an action occurs.))
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman with Aygar, to modify the system for avoiding redundant memory encryption in a cryptographic protection system of Chhabra with the system diagramming of Walton with the identification of duplicate data of Kaufman with the health scanning and SLO thresholds of Aygar. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique of determining system security to known devices and/or methods for avoiding redundant memory encryption ready for improvement to yield predictable results ensuring security for different layers.
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deo (US 2021/0105331 A1), hereinafter Deo.
Regarding Claim(s) 13 Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the method further comprises: (Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman teaches the parent claim above)
Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman does not appear to explicitly teach but in related art:
metering usage of the computer-readable program code; and generating an invoice based on metering the usage of the computer-readable program code. (Deo ¶ 36 teaches, the third-party user data that is transmitted from cloud network to on-premises network can be metered (e.g., monitored or tracked for the purpose of charging the company associated with on-premises network). For example, profile meter is implemented using executable code that, when executed by a server, tracks the requests for third-party user data that are transmitted out of on-premises network using API (e.g., representing the company's usage statistics). then reconciliation system (or any other hardware component) can generate an invoice with the fee for charging the company associated with on-premises network.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Chhabra-Walton-Kaufman with Deo, to modify the system for avoiding redundant memory encryption in a cryptographic protection system of Chhabra with the system diagramming of Walton with the metering and invoice of Deo. The motivation to do so, Deo ¶ 36, to track the requests for data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0168647 A1 - An apparatus and method for transmitting data of vehicle communication (V2X) services and a communication system. The apparatus includes: a first generating unit configured in a media access control (MAC) layer of the terminal equipment and configured to generate at least one protocol data unit (PDU) in a mode identical to a transmission mode to which a service data unit (SDU) contained in a PDU corresponds
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENEDICT KNACKSTEDT whose telephone number is (703)756-5608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached on (571) 270-5440. 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.
/J.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/CHAU LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights