DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to communications filed on 3/16/2026.
Claims 1 and 13-14 have been amended.
Claims 1-25 are pending.
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 2-12 and 15-25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations recite “detecting a type for the digital asset based on the detected digital asset information”. However, there is improper antecedent basis for “the detected digital asset information” in the claims.
Regarding claims 3-12, the limitations invoke, by reference, all of the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claims 3-12 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, above.
Further, regarding claim 9, the limitations recite “performing deep inspection on a received content.” The term “deep” in the limitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “deep” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the term “deep inspection” has been interpreted as “inspection.”
Regarding claim 15, the limitations recite features similar in scope to those of claim 2. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as those set forth in claim 2, above.
Regarding claims 16-25, the limitations invoke, by reference, all of the limitations of claim 15. Therefore, claims 16-25 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 15, above.
Further, regarding claim 22, the limitations recite features similar in scope to those of claim 9. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected for similar reasons as those set forth in claim 9, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 13-14 are allowed.
Claims 2-12 and 15-25 would be allowable by overcoming all 35 USC 112 rejections set forth above.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to teach, neither singly nor in combination, the claimed limitations of “determining a cybersecurity severity score for the digital asset in the networked computing environment, based on the detected properties of the digital asset and exposure of the digital asset to other digital assets in the networked computing environment; continuously determining an asset exposure score for the digital asset based on visibility of the digital asset on a public network and connectedness to other digital assets, in the networked computing environment” with “generating a digital asset security score based on: the determined cybersecurity severity score, the asset exposure score, and the asset importance score” as recited in claim 1 and similarly stated in claim(s) 13-14. These limitations, in conjunction with other limitations in the independent claim(s), are not specifically disclosed or remotely suggested in the prior art of record. A review of claim(s) 1 and 13-14 indicates claim(s) 1 and 13-14 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM 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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights