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
No information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) has been filed before the mailing date of this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see Remarks, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claims 1 and 18 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but are considered moot because of the new rejection of claims 1-2 and 18-19 based on newly found prior arts Hengst, US 2007/0135989, and Rados, US 2015/0067816.
With regards to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101, the amendments overcome the rejections, and thus the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendment to overcome the 112(b) antecedent issues overcomes the issues, and thus those rejections have been withdrawn. However, with regards to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 112(b) that stem from the 112(f) interpretation, the Applicant did not address (argue) the rejection in the Remarks, and none of the amendments overcome the rejection. As indicated in the most recent non-final office action, the claim limitation(s): “a message extraction module” and “a ZT risk assessment module” in claim 1 are not explicitly indicated to be hardware, nor is their structure specifically disclosed. Paragraph [0038] of the Applicant’s Specification teaches that the invention may take an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or an embodiment including both hardware and software elements, making the claimed module’s indefinite. Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 112(b) is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a message extraction module” and “a ZT risk assessment module” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim limitation (claim 1) “a message extraction module to extract message operational content …; and a ZT risk assessment module to, … identify potential risk …” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph [0038] of the Applicant’s Specification teaches the invention may take the form of an entirely software embodiment, “[0038] Some embodiments of the invention, may for example take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or an embodiment including both hardware and software elements. Some embodiments may be implemented in software, which includes but is not limited to, any combination of: firmware, resident software, microcode, or the like. Some embodiments may be implemented in hardware, which includes but is not limited to, any combination of: a processor, memory and data storage components, a power source, communication circuitry, I/O interfaces, cards and devices, programmable arrays, systems on chip, or the like. Some embodiments may be implemented using a combination of hardware and software, which includes but is not limited to, any combination of the above hardware and software types and components.”. Thus, the Specification does not explicitly indicate that the “message extraction module” and the “ZT risk assessment module” are implemented as hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite, and claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-PGPUB No. 2020/0145382 A1 to Shmueli et al. (hereinafter “Shmueli”), US-PGPUB No. 2007/0135989 A1 to Hengst, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2015/0067816 A1 to Rados et al. (hereinafter “O'Connell”)
Regarding claim 1:
Shmueli discloses:
A system for context aware [Zero Trust (ZT)] monitoring of operational communications between management units of operational infrastructure (¶64: “… a cyber security system for providing security to a railway, the system comprising: a data monitoring and processing hub;”, see the system of Fig. 4), said system comprising:
monitoring agents (¶07: “… data collection agents …”) to capture data packets carrying messages with operational content to and from management units (¶07-08: “The data collection agents which may be referred to as “cyber-snitches”, … Onboard cyber-snitches transmit data they acquire from communications that they monitor to onboard aggregator nodes in data messages. … Infrastructure cyber-snitches also transmit data they acquire from communications that they monitor to RBC aggregators in data messages.”),
However, Shmueli does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Shcherbakov:
wherein at least one agent of said monitoring agents comprises:
a message extraction module (Hengst, ¶07: “a processing unit …”) to extract message operational content from the captured packets (Hengst, ¶07: “a processing unit for retrieving vehicular operational data (e.g., velocity, angular velocity, acceleration rate, deceleration rate, braking pressure, weight, pointing vector, etc.) and executing flow control system software instructions, and a vehicular flow control communications protocol that enables the communication of various flow control parameters between vehicles”) […]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Shmueli to incorporate the functionality of the processing unit for retrieving vehicular operational data and executing flow control system software instructions, as disclosed by Hengst, such modification would enable the system to monitor vehicular traffic flow with increased throughput, and avoid collision.
The combination of Shmueli and Hengst does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Rados:
Zero Trust (ZT) [monitoring] … (Rados, p-55: “process 500 for detecting and remedying a potential security threat.”, see Fig. 5, Process 500, received traffic is processed and actions taken before being transmitted to destination)
[…] and identify a destination management unit of the message from its respective packets metadata (Rados, ¶56: “ASGW 220 may analyze the traffic to determine, … an identifier of the intended destination of the traffic,”); and
a ZT risk assessment module (Rados, see Fig. 3, Traffic analysis component 325) to, based on the operational content extracted from within the message of the captured data packets and a classification of the destination management unit, identify potential risk to the operational infrastructure from the operational content in the message reaching its destination management unit and triggering operational content specified action by the destination management unit (Rados, ¶43: “Traffic analysis component 325 may receive and/or analyze traffic, outputted by user devices 210, and may determine whether the traffic should be allowed to be forwarded to its intended destination, or whether remedial action (such as blocking the traffic, reporting the potential security threat, etc.) should be taken.”, ¶60: “if traffic analysis component 325 identifies that a particular user device 210 (e.g., a temperature sensor) is outputting unauthorized traffic (e.g., traffic that is unrelated to temperature sensor functionality, and/or traffic to a destination that is not an authorized destination for temperature sensor information, etc.), then traffic analysis component 325 may determine that remedial action should be taken.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Shmueli and Hengst to incorporate the functionality of the analysis component for receiving and/or analyzing traffic, and determining whether the traffic should be allowed to be forwarded to its intended destination, or whether remedial action should be taken, as disclosed by Rados, such modification would enable the system to prevent traffic from being forwarded to a destination before being analyzed and checked for a security threat, and to take remedial action when the security threat exists .
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 in the form of a system implementing the corresponding functionality. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shmueli, Hengst, Rados, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2015/0350234 A1 to Reno et al. (hereinafter “Reno”)
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Shmueli, Hengst and Rados discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Reno:
wherein said ZT risk assessment module identifies risk by comparing actual timing of specific captured messages with timing parameters associated with operational rules relating to source or destination units associated with the message (Reno, ¶53: “… the source computer application controls timing between when individual ones of the API requests in the sequence are output from the source computer based on a timing that the risk assessment system 120 is expecting to observe between its interception of the individual ones of the API requests in the sequence, to indicate its level of trustworthiness to the risk assessment system 120. … The PDP 124 generates (block 804) the risk assessment score based on comparison of the timing that is determined and the expected timing.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Shmueli, Hengst and Rados to incorporate the functionality of the PDP ( policy decision point ) to generate a risk assessment score based on comparison of a timing that is determined and the expected timing, as disclosed by Reno, such modification would enable the system to determine whether the source is outputting the requests with the expected pattern of timings and, thereby, may more accurately determine the trustworthiness of the source.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 recites substantially the same limitation as claims 2 in the form of a system implementing the corresponding functionality. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS HABTEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1916. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, William R. Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights