DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a communication filed 13 May 2026 responsive to the 12 March 2026 non-final Office action (the “Previous Action”).
Claims 1, 15 and 25 are amended.
Claims 1-3, 7, 15-17, 21-22 and 24-25 are pending. Claims 1, 15 and 25 are the independent claims.
Any unpersuasive arguments are addressed in the “Response to Arguments” section below.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection below, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-2 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nattinger (US 2005/0268288) (art of record – hereinafter Nattinger) in view of Dalcher et al. (US 2011/0145926) (art of record – hereinafter Dalcher) in view of Sehestedt et al. (US 2019/0146450) (art made of record – hereinafter Sehestedt).
As to claim 1, Nattinger discloses a measurement application device script analyzer comprising a processor configured to: (e.g., Nattinger, Fig. 3 and associated text) of:
receive a control script for at least one measurement application device; (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0078]: the graphical program that is analyzed may be created using any graphical programming development environment; par. [0097]: a graphical program to measure or control a unit under test (UUT); par. [0025]: although the method is described in terms of analyzing a graphical program, another embodiment may be utilized to analyzed a text-based program; par. [0051]: the term “software program” is intended to have its full breadth of its ordinary meaning. Example software programs include graphical programs; scripts and other types)
analyze instructions of the control script for compliance with a predetermined rule set, (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0058]: a graphical program [or textual script in one embodiment, see above] may be represented in the memory of the computer system as program instructions; abstract: a graphical program analyzer may be operable to programmatically analyze a graphical program; par. [0079]: a graphical program may be programmatically analyzed to determine whether the program adheres to certain design or style standards; par. [0152]: each of the graphical programs may be analyzed with the tests selected by the user) and to provide a respective analysis result; (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0157]: the analyzer may display information indicating results of the analysis after it has been completed. For example, the analyzer may display information indicating any problems found in the program(s). In an embodiment the analyzer, pass/fail results of the tests may be shown) a measurement application device (e.g., Nattinger, ar. [0097]: a graphical program to measure or control a unit under test (UUT); par. [0006]: the graphical program may be compiled or interpreted by a computer [a computer executing a measurement program (i.e., application) being a measurement application device]) and
to output the analysis result (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0178]: an exemplary GUI panel displaying results for a plurality of programs that were programmatically analyzed)
wherein the processor is configured to, if the analysis is negative for individual rules of the rule set or for all rules of the rule set, (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0113]: tests may discover various kinds of problems in the graphical program. The problem may comprise an error in the graphical program. The problem may comprise a problem found in adherence to a style or design standards [rules]) at least one of:
reject the control script;
modify the control script to comply with the predetermined rule set; (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0176]: the graphical program analyzer may modify the graphical program to eliminate the problem)
provide feedback on the control script to the user;
inform the user about the rule set that was not passed by the control script; or
ask for a user confirmation to accept the control script.
Nattinger does not explicitly disclose to provide a respective analysis result by executing a sandbox environment that comprises a simulated environment that simulates a measurement application device and by executing the control script with the simulated measurement application device; monitor the sandbox environment to ensure hardware component availability in the simulated measurement application device; wherein the predetermined rule set comprises rules that define at least one of: instructions that comprise parameters with the potential to damage the measurement application device, or other devices coupled to the measurement application device; instructions that may be executed without the need for human validation.
However, in an analogous art, Dalcher discloses:
to provide a respective analysis result by executing a sandbox environment that comprises a simulated environment that simulates a[n] application device and by executing the control script with the simulated application device; (e.g., Dalcher, par. [0029], an executable application can include application scripts; par. [0084]: the method continues at 420 with the sandbox execution environment 220 running the executable application; par. [0085]: the behavioral analysis module 230 performing behavioral analysis while the application is operating; par. [0035]: the sandbox environment is implemented through the use of virtualization. Virtualization can replicate the entire operating environment the process would execute in; par. [0038]: virtualization can create environments within a single hardware device that each operate as if they were separate hardware platforms).
wherein the predetermined rule set comprises rules that define (see below) at least one of:
instructions that comprise parameters with the potential to damage the application device, or other devices coupled to the measurement application device; (e.g., Dalcher, par. [0006]: what is needed is a system to analyze applications, monitor the applications and components during the operations, and prevent any suspect operations from harming [damaging] the host system; abstract: behavioral analysis module monitors execution of the application; par. [0036]: the behavioral analysis module 230 can analyze operations performed by the executable application [i.e., instructions] such as accessing the internet, and attempting to read or write configuration files or databases [the files to read or write or resources to access being parameters of the instructions of the application]; par. [0086]: the system monitors the executable application for any signs to malicious behaviours. Events watched for by the behavioral analysis module 230 can include opening a resource files or databases, accessing the internet; par. [0052]: rules may include any rule used to evaluate the collated data and determine if a detection can be made; par. [0093]: malicious behavior detected) or
instructions that may be executed without the need for human validation;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of rules to analyze a control script that runs on a measurement application device taught by Nattinger by incorporating providing a respective analysis result by executing a sandbox environment that comprises a simulated environment that simulates the device in which the control script runs, executing the control script with the simulated device and rules that define instructions that comprise parameters with the potential to damage the measurement application device, or other devices coupled to the measurement application device, as taught by Dalcher, as Dalcher would provide advantage of a means of detecting malicious script behavior while preventing malicious effects of the script execution on the system. (See Dalcher, pars [0081], [0086]).
Further, in an analogous art, Sehestedt discloses to:
monitor the sandbox environment (e.g., Sehestedt, Fig. 1 and associated text, par. [0048]: three sandboxes 41, 42, 43 in virtual machines [simulated application devices] 81, 82 and 82. In each virtual machine, an execution environment 51, 52 or 53 runs. In each environment, an instance 61, 62 or 63 of the control software can be run; par. [0033]: the redundancy manager can be designed to monitor the function of multiple instances of the control software and when an instance fails, to restart this instance and/or to activate one additional instance in a further sandbox. For example, a program error in the control software can lead to a main memory [hardware component] not being released so that available main memory is depleted at some time. The new sandbox again beings with a “clean” main memory) to ensure hardware component availability in the simulated application device; (see the immediately preceding cited portions of Sehestedt but note in the alternative that this clause only appears to be directed to non-limiting intended use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement application device and sandbox environment simulating the application device taught by Nattinger/Dalcher, to include monitoring the sandbox environment to ensure hardware component availability in the simulated application device, as taught by Sehestedt, as Sehestedt would provide the advantage of a means of temporarily alleviating a memory depletion problem with the executing software, as well as a means of making an operator aware of that problem. (See Sehestedt, par. [0033]).
As to claim 2, Nattinger/Dalcher/Sehestedt discloses the measurement application device script analyzer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Nattinger further discloses:
wherein the control script is provided in a scripting language that is interpretable by the measurement application device (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0058]: a graphical program may be represented in the memory of the computer system as data structures and/or program instructions. The graphical program, e.g., these data structures and/or program instructions, may be compiled or interpreted to produce machine language the accomplishes the desired method or process shown in the graphical program [whatever deice executes this language being a measurement application device]; par. [0097]: computer 82 may execute a graphical program to communicate with one or more instruments to measures or control a unit under test (UUT) or process 150).
As to claim 15, Nattinger discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a control script for execution by at least one measurement application device; (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0078]: the graphical program that is analyzed may be created using any graphical programming development environment [programs are necessarily for execution on a device, the computer on which the graphical program is executed would be a ; par. [0097]: a graphical program to measure or control a unit under test (UUT); par. [0025]: although the method is described in terms of analyzing a graphical program, another embodiment may be utilized to analyzed a text-based program; par. [0051]: the term “software program” is intended to have its full breadth of its ordinary meaning. Example software programs include graphical programs; scripts and other types)
analyzing instructions of the control script for compliance with a predetermined rule set (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0058]: a graphical program [or textual script in one embodiment, see above] may be represented in the memory of the computer system as program instructions; abstract: a graphical program analyzer may be operable to programmatically analyze a graphical program; par. [0079]: a graphical program may be programmatically analyzed to determine whether the program adheres to certain design or style standards; par. [0152]: each of the graphical programs may be analyzed with the tests selected by the user) the at least one measurement device (e.g., Nattinger, ar. [0097]: a graphical program to measure or control a unit under test (UUT); par. [0006]: the graphical program may be compiled or interpreted by a computer [a computer executing a measurement program (i.e., application) being a measurement application device]) and
outputting a respective analysis result (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0178]: an exemplary GUI panel displaying results for a plurality of programs that were programmatically analyzed)
wherein the analyzing comprises, if the analysis is negative for individual rules of the rule set or for all rules of the rule set, (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0113]: tests may discover various kinds of problems in the graphical program. The problem may comprise an error in the graphical program. The problem may comprise a problem found in adherence to a style or design standards [rules]) at least one of:
reject the control script;
modify the control script to comply with the predetermined rule set; (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0176]: the graphical program analyzer may modify the graphical program to eliminate the problem)
provide feedback on the control script to the user;
inform the user about the rule set that was not passed by the control script; or
ask for a user confirmation to accept the control script.
Nattinger does not explicitly disclose analyzing instructions by executing a sandbox environment that comprises a simulated environment that simulates at least one measurement application device, and by executing the control script with the simulated measurement application device; monitoring the sandbox environment to ensure hardware component availability in the simulated measurement application device; wherein the predetermined rule set comprises instructions that comprise parameters with the potential to damage the measurement application device, or instructions that may be executed without the need for human validation.
However, in an analogous art, Dalcher discloses:
analyzing instructions by executing a sandbox environment that comprises a simulated environment that simulates at least one application device, and by executing the control script with the simulated application device; (e.g., Dalcher, par. [0029], an executable application can include application scripts; par. [0084]: the method continues at 420 with the sandbox execution environment 220 running the executable application; par. [0085]: the behavioral analysis module 230 performing behavioral analysis while the application is operating; par. [0035]: the sandbox environment is implemented through the use of virtualization. Virtualization can replicate the entire operating environment the process would execute in; par. [0038]: virtualization can create environments within a single hardware device that each operate as if they were separate hardware platforms).
wherein the predetermined rule set comprises rules that define (see below) at least one of:
instructions that comprise parameters with the potential to damage the measurement application device, or other devices coupled to the measurement application device; (e.g., Dalcher, par. [0006]: what is needed is a system to analyze applications, monitor the applications and components during the operations, and prevent any suspect operations from harming [damaging] the host system; abstract: behavioral analysis module monitors execution of the application; par. [0036]: the behavioral analysis module 230 can analyze operations performed by the executable application [i.e., instructions] such as accessing the internet, and attempting to read or write configuration files or databases [the files to read or write or resources to access being parameters of the instructions of the application]; par. [0086]: the system monitors the executable application for any signs to malicious behaviours. Events watched for by the behavioral analysis module 230 can include opening a resource files or databases, accessing the internet; par. [0052]: rules may include any rule used to evaluate the collated data and determine if a detection can be made; par. [0093]: malicious behaviour detected) or
instructions that may be executed without the need for human validation;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of rules to analyze a control script that runs on a measurement application device taught by Nattinger by incorporating analyzing by executing a sandbox environment that comprises a simulated environment that simulates the device in which the control script runs, executing the control script with the simulated device and rules that define instructions that comprise parameters with the potential to damage the measurement application device, or other devices coupled to the measurement application device, as taught by Dalcher, as Dalcher would provide advantage of a means of detecting malicious script behavior while preventing malicious effects of the script execution on the system. (See Dalcher, pars [0081], [0086]).
Further, in an analogous art, Sehestedt discloses:
monitoring the sandbox environment (e.g., Sehestedt, Fig. 1 and associated text, par. [0048]: three sandboxes 41, 42, 43 in virtual machines [simulated application devices] 81, 82 and 82. In each virtual machine, an execution environment 51, 52 or 53 runs. In each environment, an instance 61, 62 or 63 of the control software can be run; par. [0033]: the redundancy manager can be designed to monitor the function of multiple instances of the control software and when an instance fails, to restart this instance and/or to activate one additional instance in a further sandbox. For example, a program error in the control software can lead to a main memory [hardware component] not being released so that available main memory is depleted at some time. The new sandbox again beings with a “clean” main memory) to ensure hardware component availability in the simulated application device; (see the immediately preceding cited portions of Sehestedt but note in the alternative that this clause only appears to be directed to non-limiting intended use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement application device and sandbox environment simulating the application device taught by Nattinger/Dalcher, to include monitoring the sandbox environment to ensure hardware component availability in the simulated application device, as taught by Sehestedt, as Sehestedt would provide the advantage of a means of temporarily alleviating a memory depletion problem with the executing software, as well as a means of making an operator aware of that problem. (See Sehestedt, par. [0033]).
As to claim 16, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 3 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nattinger (US 2005/0268288) in view of Dalcher (US 2011/0145926) in view of Sehestedt et al. (US 2019/0146450) in further view of Sutula et al. (US 5,349,660) (art of record – hereinafter Sutula).
As to claim 3, Nattinger/Dalcher/Sehestedt discloses the measurement application device script analyzer according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control script is provided as at least one of a Standard Commands for Programmable Instruments (SCPI) script, or a PYTHON script.
However, in an analogous art, Sutula discloses:
wherein the control script is provided as at least one of a Standard Commands for Programmable Instruments (SCPI) script, or a PYTHON script (e.g., Sutula, col. 4 ll. 10-13: a user enter programming commands using a text editor. These commands are then stored on the disk; col. 4 ll. 20-28: the programmed test commands, identified here as an SCPI user program 202 are input. SCPI is an acronym for Standard Commands for Programmable Instruments, and is published as an industry wide definition of commands to be used with all programmable test instruments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control script of Nattinger such that the instruction analyzer comprises an SCPI script, as taught by Sutula, as Sutula would provide the advantage of a standardized means of controlling any programmable test instrument. (See Sutula, col. 4 ll. 20-28). Nattinger also suggests the combination because it refers to analyzing programs in general, without limitation as to any particular programming language.
As to claim 17, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 7 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nattinger (US 2005/0268288) in view of Dalcher (US 2011/0145926) in view of Sehestedt (US 2019/0146450) in further view of Petersen et al. (US 2003/0237026) (art of record – hereinafter Peterson)
As to claim 7, Nattinger/Dalcher/Sehestedt discloses the measurement application device script analyzer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and further discloses the script input interface and control script (see rejection of claim 1 above) but Nattinger does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to receive a measurement application description with the control script, and analyze the control script based on the measurement application description.
However, in an analogous art, Peterson discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a measurement application description with the control program, (e.g., Peterson, par. [0080]: the device or instrument may execute the graphical program [control program] to measure, or control a unit under test (UUT) or process 150; par. [0120]: the method may query the target device to determine software resident on the target device. This information [measurement application description] may be used in determining whether any of the elements in the graphical program [control program] are supported) and
analyze the control program based on the measurement application description (e.g., Peterson, par. [0120]: the method may query the target device to determine software resident on the target device. This information [measurement application description] may be used in determining whether any of the elements in the graphical program [control program] are supported; par. [0122]: the method may be operable to analyze the graphical program to determine whether the graphical program utilizes construct patterns that are unsupported for the intended target device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the control program comprising a script and input interface of Nattinger such that the interface inputs a measurement application description and uses it to analyze the control program, as taught by Peterson, as Peterson would provide the advantage of means of ensuring the control program executes correctly on an intended target device. (See Peterson, par. [0024]).
As to claim 21, it is a device claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nattinger (US 2005/0268288) in view of Dalcher (US 2011/0145926) in view of Sehestedt (US 2019/0146450) in further view of Bolkhovitin et al. (US 10,565,014) (art of record – hereinafter Bolkhovitin).
As to claim 22, Nattinger/Dalcher/Sehestedt discloses the measurement application device script analyzer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Nattinger further discloses:
wherein threshold values are defined for at least one of the rules, and the measurement application device script analyzer is configured to perform the analysis of the control script based on the threshold values (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0367]: the following tests may analyze the performance of the block diagram, e.g., may analyze graphical program code that affects performance of the block diagram par. [0375]: checks whether the block diagram includes structures that contain more than the user-specified maximum number of frames; par. [0423]: compares the file size of a VI to the maximum allowable size that the user specifies) a measurement application device script analyzer, a measurement application, measurement application devices used in the measurement application (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0097]: computer 82 may execute a graphical program to measure or control a unit under test (UUT); Fi. 1 and associated text, par. [0098]: system 100 [with various devices] may be used in a test and measurement application).
Nattinger/Dalcher/Sehestedt does not explicitly disclose wherein the measurement application device script analyzer is configured to apply the rules of the rule set without specific knowledge about a measurement application, or about the measurement application devices used in the measurement application.
However, in an analogous art, Bolkhovitin discloses:
wherein the script analyzer is configured to apply the rules of the rule set without specific knowledge about a measurement application, or about the application devices used in the application (e.g., Bolkhovitin, col. 15 ll. 35-40: the translator may include a subprogram that verifies and ensures that the received source code and/or bytecode do not violate security rules, thus making the data processing system 100 more secure; claim 5: to verify whether the one or more translatable, hardware-agnostic instructions satisfy defined security rules [i.e., applying rules without knowledge about the devices used in the application]; col. 7 ll. 7-8: program code 210 may include source code, scripts or other collections of instructions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the measurement application script analyzer for measurement application scripts of a measurement application using various devices of Nattinger such that wherein the script analyzer is configured to apply the rules of the rule set without specific knowledge about the application devices used in the application, as taught by Bolkhovitin, as Bolkhovitin would provide the advantage of means of checking whether hardware agnostic instructions comply with the rules. (See Bolkhovitin, claim 5).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nattinger (US 2005/0268288) in view of Dalcher (US 2011/0145926), Sehestedt (US 2019/0146450) and Ding et al. (US 11,126,722) (art of record – hereinafter Ding).
As to claim 25, Nattinger discloses a measurement application device script analyzer comprising a processor configured to:
receive a control script for at least one measurement application device; (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0078]: the graphical program that is analyzed may be created using any graphical programming development environment; par. [0097]: a graphical program to measure or control a unit under test (UUT); par. [0025]: although the method is described in terms of analyzing a graphical program, another embodiment may be utilized to analyzed a text-based program; par. [0051]: the term “software program” is intended to have its full breadth of its ordinary meaning. Example software programs include graphical programs; scripts and other types)
analyze instructions of the control script for compliance with a predetermined rule set, (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0058]: a graphical program [or textual script in one embodiment, see above] may be represented in the memory of the computer system as program instructions; abstract: a graphical program analyzer may be operable to programmatically analyze a graphical program; par. [0079]: a graphical program may be programmatically analyzed to determine whether the program adheres to certain design or style standards; par. [0152]: each of the graphical programs may be analyzed with the tests selected by the user) and to provide a respective analysis result (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0157]: the analyzer may display information indicating results of the analysis after it has been completed. For example, the analyzer may display information indicating any problems found in the program(s). In an embodiment the analyzer, pass/fail results of the tests may be shown) a measurement application device (e.g., Nattinger, ar. [0097]: a graphical program to measure or control a unit under test (UUT); par. [0006]: the graphical program may be compiled or interpreted by a computer [a computer executing a measurement program (i.e., application) being a measurement application device])
output the analysis result, (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0178]: an exemplary GUI panel displaying results for a plurality of programs that were programmatically analyzed)
the measurement application device (e.g., Nattinger, ar. [0097]: a graphical program to measure or control a unit under test (UUT); par. [0006]: the graphical program may be compiled or interpreted by a computer [a computer executing a measurement program (i.e., application) being a measurement application device]).
wherein the processor is configured to, if the analysis result is negative for individual rules of the rule set or for all rules of the rule set, (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0113]: tests may discover various kinds of problems in the graphical program. The problem may comprise an error in the graphical program. The problem may comprise a problem found in adherence to a style or design standards [rules]) at least one of:
reject the control script;
modify the control script to comply with the predetermined rule set; (e.g., Nattinger, par. [0176]: the graphical program analyzer may modify the graphical program to eliminate the problem)
provide feedback on the control script to the user;
inform the user about the rule set that was not passed by the control script; or
ask for a user confirmation to accept the control script.
Nattinger does not explicitly disclose to provide a respective analysis result by executing a sandbox environment that comprises a simulated environment that simulates a measurement application device, and by executing the control script with the simulated measurement application device to ensure hardware component availability in the simulated measurement application device; and wherein the predetermined rule set comprises rules that define at least one of instructions that comprise parameters with the potential to damage other devices coupled to the measurement application device.
However, in an analogous art, Dalcher discloses:
to provide a respective analysis result by executing a sandbox environment that comprises a simulated environment that simulates a[n] application device, and by executing the control script with the simulated application device; (e.g., Dalcher, par. [0029], an executable application can include application scripts; par. [0084]: the method continues at 420 with the sandbox execution environment 220 running the executable application; par. [0085]: the behavioral analysis module 230 performing behavioral analysis while the application is operating; par. [0035]: the sandbox environment is implemented through the use of virtualization. Virtualization can replicate the entire operating environment the process would execute in; par. [0038]: virtualization can create environments within a single hardware device that each operate as if they were separate hardware platforms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of rules to analyze a control script that runs on a measurement application device taught by Nattinger by incorporating providing a respective analysis result by executing a sandbox environment that comprises a simulated environment that simulates the device in which the control script runs and executing the control script with the simulated device, as taught by Dalcher, as Dalcher would provide advantage of a means of detecting malicious script behavior while preventing malicious effects of the script execution on the system. (See Dalcher, pars [0081], [0086]).
Further, in an analogous art, Sehestedt discloses
executing the control code with the simulated application device to ensure hardware component availability in the simulated measurement application device (e.g., Sehestedt, Fig. 1 and associated text, par. [0048]: three sandboxes 41, 42, 43 in virtual machines [simulated application devices] 81, 82 and 82. In each virtual machine, an execution environment 51, 52 or 53 runs. In each environment, an instance 61, 62 or 63 of the control software can be run; par. [0033]: the redundancy manager can be designed to monitor the function of multiple instances of the control software and when an instance fails, to restart this instance and/or to activate one additional instance in a further sandbox. For example, a program error in the control software can lead to a main memory [hardware component] not being released so that available main memory is depleted at some time. The new sandbox again beings with a “clean” main memory [note too in the alternative as with claims 1 and 15 that the “to ensure hardware component availability in the simulated measurement application device” features of this claim are also only directed to non-limiting intended use]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement application device, sandbox simulating the application device and execution of a control script code with the simulated application device taught by Nattinger/Dalcher, to include executing the control code to ensure hardware component availability in the simulated application device, as taught by Sehestedt, as Sehestedt would provide the advantage of a means of temporarily alleviating a memory depletion problem with the executing software, as well as a means of making an operator aware of that problem. (See Sehestedt, par. [0033]).
Finally, in an analogous art, Ding discloses:
wherein the predetermined rule set comprises rules that define at least one of instructions that comprise parameters with the potential to damage other devices coupled to the application device; (e.g., Ding, col. 6 ll. 1-7: this dynamic scan uses sandbox software to allow the attachment or any code [instructions] within it to execute within it to execute in a safe environment. Its behaviors are monitored and compared to a set of behavior rules that indicate whether or not the executing code is malicious; col. 3 l. 67 – col. 4 l. 5: the attachment may be malicious in that it may perform malicious actions such as connecting to a C&C server, infecting others computers, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify use of a ruleset to analyze execution of a script on measurement application device taught by Nattinger/Dalcher such that the rule set comprises rules that define at least one of instructions that comprise parameters with the potential to damage other devices coupled to the application device, as taught by Ding, as Ding would provide the advantage of a means of detecting malicious code, as suggested by Dalcher. (See Ding, col. 6 ll. 1-7, Dalcher, par. [0081]).
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 TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights