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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2)
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0022577 A1).
Fu’s patent application meets all the limitations for claims 1-20 recited in the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, Fu et al disclose a system for an automated real-time intrusion detection based on predictive analytics of intrusion-related data (see abstract, figures 1-2, par. 0102), comprising: a processor of an intrusion detection (ID) node configured to host a machine learning (ML) module and connected to at least one captured data source entity node over a network; and a memory on which are stored machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor (figure 1, pars. 0108-0114, figure 2, pars. 0145-0145), cause the processor to: acquire intrusion-related captured data from the at least one captured data source entity node; parse the captured data to derive a plurality of key features (figure1, pars. 0108-0109, figure 3A, par. 0173); query a local intrusions’ database to retrieve local historical intrusions’- related data associated with previous intrusion detection parameters based on the plurality of key features; generate at least one feature vector based on the plurality of key features and the local historical intrusions’-related data (figure 1, pars. 0105-0106, 0111, 0120-0121, figure 3B, pars. 0174-0175); provide the at least one feature vector to the ML module for generating a predictive model configured to produce at least one intrusion detection parameter for generation of an intrusion detection verdict; continuously monitor incoming captured data to determine if at least one variable of the incoming captured data deviates from a value of previous intrusions’- related data by a margin exceeding a pre-set threshold value; and responsive to the at least one variable of the incoming captured data deviating from the value of previous intrusions’-related data by the margin exceeding the pre- set threshold value, generate an updated feature vector based on the incoming captured data and generate an updated intrusion detection verdict based on at least one updated intrusion detection parameter produced by the predictive model in response to the updated feature vector (figure1, pars. 0112-0119, figures 4-5, pars. 0176-0186).
As to claim 2, Fu et al disclose that the instructions further cause the processor to derive a language indicator from the captured data comprising audio data and to parse the audio data based on the language indicator to derive a plurality of key language features (figures 1-2, pars. 0156-0157).
As to claim 3, Fu et al disclose that the instructions further cause the processor to generate the feature vector based on the plurality of key features combined with the key language features and the local historical intrusions’-related data (figures 1-2, pars. 0106, 0146, figures 3A-3B, pars. 0173-0174).
As to claim 4, Fu et al disclose that the instructions further cause the processor to retrieve remote historical intrusions’-related data from at least one remote intrusions’ database based on the local historical intrusions’-related data, wherein the remote historical intrusions’-related data is collected at third-party security entities (pars. 0120-0121, 0146-0148, 0163-0164).
As to claim 5, Fu et al disclose that the instructions further cause the processor to generate the at least one feature vector based on the plurality of key features, the local historical intrusions’-related data combined with the remote historical intrusions’-related data (pars. 105-107, 0146, 0170-0175).
As to claim 6, Fu et al disclose that the instructions further cause the processor to parse the captured data to derive a plurality of key features comprising intruder behavioral variables comprising movements and speech parameters (pars. 0109-0113 & 0173).
As to claims 7-8, Fu et al disclose that the instructions further cause the processor to record the at least one intrusion detection parameter on a blockchain ledger along with the key features retrieved from the captured data and retrieve the at least one intrusion detection parameter from the blockchain responsive to a consensus among the ID node and at least one security entity node (figure 4, pars.0176-0181).
As to claims 9-10, Fu et al disclose that the instructions further cause the processor to execute a smart contract to record data reflecting generation of the intrusion detection verdict associated with the captured data and at least one security entity node on the blockchain for future audits and map the at least one intrusion detection parameter to at least one intruder behavior reference rule (figure 5, pars. 0182-0186).
As to claims 11-13, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-3 and 9 above, since claims 11-13 are merely the method of operations for the apparatus defined in the claims 1-3 and 9 and claims 11-13 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-3 and 9.
As to claims 14-20, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-5, 7, and 9-10 above, since claims 14-20 are merely a program product for the apparatus defined in the claims 1-5, 7, and 9-10 and claims 14-20 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-5, 7, and 9-10.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recited the limitations “derive a plurality of key features” and “generate at least one feature vector” which are not clearly define in the claims and also unclear about the features related/associated with data or information (please clarify the language to properly define the claimed limitations); therefore, the claims 1 and 11 are is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Other dependent claims, which are not specifically cited above are also rejected because of the deficiencies of their respective parent claims.
Additional References
The examiner as of general interest cites the following references.
a. Aron, U.S. Patent No. 12,425,434 B1.
b. Wang et al, U.S. Patent No. 10,462,170 B1.
c. Jiang et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0414175 A1.
d. Sims et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0089968 A1.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453September 17, 2025