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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 December 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 19, 21, 23, 29, 31 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,834. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application represent an obvious variation of the claims of the ‘834 Patent.
As to claim 19, the ‘834 Patent discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
executing an intrusion decision system (IDS) that generates intrusion detection alerts based on an applied ruleset of existing IDS rules (Claim 2: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving from the set of test network sensors, one or more alerts generated based on network events implicated by a plurality of IDS rules in the applied ruleset);
supplementing the applied ruleset with a list of new IDS rules (Claim 1: detecting an update or a modification to an applied ruleset, wherein the applied ruleset is intended for consumption by one or more intrusion detection systems (IDSs); triggering an event that is configured to push the applied ruleset to a set of test network sensors of a plurality of network sensors associated with the IDSs, wherein a service subscribed to the event updates the set of test network sensors with the applied ruleset and designates a configuration version to the applied ruleset);
receiving a plurality of alerts generated based on the applied ruleset including both the existing IDS rules and the new IDS rules (Claim 2: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving from the set of test network sensors, one or more alerts generated based on network events implicated by a plurality of IDS rules in the applied ruleset);
designating, as suppressed alerts, a set of new alerts of the plurality of alerts that were generated based on only the new IDS rules in the applied ruleset (Claim 4: The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: if the applied ruleset has already been deployed to the set of network sensors, suppressing one or more alerts generated by the one or more IDS rules; and inhibiting the one or more alerts from being converted into corresponding one or more events); and
eliminating, from the applied ruleset, a first rule of the new IDS rules that caused generation of an excessive number of suppressed alerts exceeding a threshold (Claim 3: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to deploying the applied ruleset to the set of network sensors, removing from the applied ruleset, one or more IDS rules of the plurality of IDS rules that were added to the applied ruleset by the update or the modification).
As to claim 21, the ‘834 Patent discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 19, wherein the applied ruleset is sent to one or more network sensors deployed in a monitored network (Claim 1: triggering an event that is configured to push the applied ruleset to a set of test network sensors of a plurality of network sensors associated with the IDSs).
As to claim 23, the ‘834 Patent discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 19, further comprising: designating a second rule of the new IDS rules as a suppressed rule, wherein alerts generated based on the suppressed rule are filtered by the IDS (Claim 4:The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: if the applied ruleset has already been deployed to the set of network sensors, suppressing one or more alerts generated by the one or more IDS rules; and inhibiting the one or more alerts from being converted into corresponding one or more events).
Claims 29, 31 and 33 recite a system commensurate in scope to the method of claims 19, 21 and 23 and are thereby rejected under a substantially similar rationale.
Claims 19, 21-24, 26-27, 29, 31-34 and 36-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,838,329. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application represent an obvious variation of the claims of the ‘329 Patent.
As to claim 19, the ‘329 Patent discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
executing an intrusion decision system (IDS) that generates intrusion detection alerts based on an applied ruleset of existing IDS rules (Claim 1: accessing new intrusion detection system (IDS) rules to be deployed on an IDS that generates a plurality of alerts based on an applied ruleset);
supplementing the applied ruleset with a list of new IDS rules (Claim 1: supplementing the applied ruleset that comprises existing IDS rules with the candidate list that comprises the new IDS rules; upon the supplementation, transmitting the applied ruleset to a network sensor associated with the IDS;);
receiving a plurality of alerts generated based on the applied ruleset including both the existing IDS rules and the new IDS rules (Claim 1: receiving, from the IDS, the plurality of alerts generated based on network events implicated by both the existing IDS rules and the new IDS rules in the applied ruleset; );
designating, as suppressed alerts, a set of new alerts of the plurality of alerts that were generated based on only the new IDS rules in the applied ruleset (Claim 1: designating a set of alerts of the plurality of alerts generated only by the new IDS rules in the applied ruleset as suppressed alerts;); and
eliminating, from the applied ruleset, a first rule of the new IDS rules that caused generation of an excessive number of suppressed alerts exceeding a threshold (Claim 1: upon completion of the trial window, eliminating a set of new IDS rules of the new IDS rules from the applied ruleset upon determining that the set of new IDS rules generate a subset of alerts of the set of alerts that exceed an alert threshold).
As to claim 21, the ‘329 Patent discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 19, wherein the applied ruleset is sent to one or more network sensors deployed in a monitored network (Claim 1: supplementing the applied ruleset that comprises existing IDS rules with the candidate list that comprises the new IDS rules; upon the supplementation, transmitting the applied ruleset to a network sensor associated with the IDS;).
As to claim 22, the ‘329 Patent discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 19, wherein the list of new IDS rules is a candidate list used during a trial window (Claim 1: starting a trial window comprising incorporating the new IDS rules into a candidate list to enable summarization and filtering of the plurality of alerts), and the eliminating of the first rule is performed after the trial window (Claim 1: upon completion of the trial window, eliminating a set of new IDS rules of the new IDS rules from the applied ruleset upon determining that the set of new IDS rules generate a subset of alerts of the set of alerts that exceed an alert threshold).
As to claim 23, the ‘329 Patent discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 19, further comprising: designating a second rule of the new IDS rules as a suppressed rule, wherein alerts generated based on the suppressed rule are filtered by the IDS (Claim 1: starting a trial window comprising incorporating the new IDS rules into a candidate list to enable summarization and filtering of the plurality of alerts).
As to claim 24, the ‘329 Patent discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 19, further comprising: designating a second rule of the new IDS rules as a suppressed rule (Claim 1: starting a trial window comprising incorporating the new IDS rules into a candidate list to enable summarization and filtering of the plurality of alerts), wherein alerts generated based on the suppressed rule are summarized by the IDS (Claim 2: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the summarization comprises: bifurcating the plurality of alerts into the set of alerts of the plurality of alerts generated by the new IDS rules and another set of alerts of the plurality of alerts generated by the existing IDS rules; removing from the suppressed alerts another subset of alerts of the set of alerts that do not exceed the alert threshold; and adding to the applied ruleset, another set of new IDS rules of the new IDS rules associated with the another subset of alerts that do not exceed the alert threshold).
As to claim 26, the ‘329 Patent discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 19, further comprising: maintaining statistical metadata on each suppressed alert associated with the new IDS rules (Claim 3: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the filtering comprises: maintaining statistical metadata on each suppressed alert associated with the set of new IDS rules that are part of the suppressed alerts, instead of eliminating the set of new IDS rules from the applied ruleset).
As to claim 27, the ‘329 Patent discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 19, further comprising: storing a packet sample generated by the IDS for each suppressed alert (Claim 4: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: storing a packet sample generated by the IDS for each suppressed alert).
Claims 29, 31-34 and 36-37 recite a system commensurate in scope to the method of claims 19, 21-24 and 26-27 and are thereby rejected under a substantially similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 25, 28, 30, 35 and 38 are 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0065926 by Schultz et al. discloses testing classification rule sets
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0076245 by Graham et al. discloses distributed IDS systems
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0262560 by Gassoway discloses signatures updated to IDS systems
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0094728 by Julish et al. discloses updates to IDS systems
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0174768 by Sen et al. discloses storing suppressed alerts
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0325653 by Altman et al. discloses automated configuration of IDS systems
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0099305 by Schwartz et al. discloses generation of IDS rules
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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.
MICHAEL S. MCNALLY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2432
/Michael S McNally/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432