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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 07, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 have been amended, claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissman et al. US 2024/0193049 A1 [hereinafter Weissman] in view of Gunda et al. US 2022/0382640 A1 [hereinafter Gunda] and further in view of Kulaga et al. US 2020/0319979 A1 [hereinafter Kulaga]
As per claims 1 and 11, Weissman teaches a method, comprising:
selecting a backup for restoration to a target asset [paragraph 0051];
when an examination of the backup it is determined that the backup is associated with an infected file list, restoring the backup to a sandbox [paragraphs 0051-0053];
restoring the backup from the sandbox to the target asset [paragraphs 0051-0054]; and/or
restoring to the target asset, a respective last known good version of selected ones of the infected files [paragraphs 0051-0054].
In the same field of endeavor, Gunda teaches a method for backup restoration including in a sandbox, zeroing out any infected blocks of any infected files of the backup that are listed in the infected file list [paragraphs 0042-0046]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to employ the teachings of Gunda within the system of Weissman in order to enhance the security of the system by removing infected backup files.
In the same field of endeavor, Kulaga teaches system for restoring clean backup after malware attack comprising determining whether or not the backup has or is associated with an infection file list, which lists files known or suspected to be infected [paragraphs 0032 and 033].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to employ the teachings of Kulaga within the system of Weissman and Kunda in order to enhance the security of the system by determining infected files within backup data.
As per claims 3 and 13, the combination of Weissman and Gunda teach the claim limitations as indicated above. Furthermore, Weissman teaches the method wherein the backup comprises the infected file list, a changed file list, and a hierarchical catalog file list [paragraphs 0051-0054].
As per claims 4 and 14, the combination of Weissman and Gunda teach the claim limitations as indicated above. Furthermore, Weissman teaches the method wherein each of the infected file list, the changed file list, and the hierarchical catalog file list, comprises a discrete respective data structure [paragraphs 0051-0054].
As per claims 5 and 15, the combination of Weissman and Gunda teach the claim limitations as indicated above. Furthermore, Weissman teaches the method wherein the last known good version(s) are restored automatically [paragraphs 0051-0054].
As per claims 6 and 16, the combination of Weissman and Gunda teach the claim limitations as indicated above. Furthermore, Weissman teaches the method wherein after the last known good version(s) are identified, a report is generated that indicates: the infected file(s) were infected, for each file, a reason that the file was designated as infected, a date of a backup in which a respective one of the last known good versions was determined to exist, and, a respective restore status for each of the infected files [paragraphs 0051-0054].
As per claims 7 and 17, the combination of Weissman and Gunda teach the claim limitations as indicated above. Furthermore, Weissman teaches the method wherein the respective last known good versions are identified to a user by way of a user interface that enables user selection, on an individual basis, of the last known good versions [paragraphs 0051-0054].
As per claims 8 and 18, the combination of Weissman and Gunda teach the claim limitations as indicated above. Furthermore, Weissman teaches the method wherein one of the infected files indicates that a ransomware attack has taken place [paragraphs 0051-0054].
As per claims 9 and 19, the combination of Weissman and Gunda teach the claim limitations as indicated above. Furthermore, Weissman teaches the method wherein the backup comprises a changed file list that comprises a list of files that have changed since an earlier backup, preceding the backup, was taken [paragraphs 0051-0054].
As per claims 10 and 20, the combination of Weissman and Gunda teach the claim limitations as indicated above. Furthermore, Gunda teaches the method wherein the respective last known good versions are restored over those infected files whose infected blocks were zeroed out [paragraphs 0042-0046]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to employ the teachings of Gunda within the system of Weissman in order to enhance the security of the system by removing infected backup files.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEEMNET W DADA whose telephone number is (571)272-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
BEEMNET W. DADA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2435
/BEEMNET W DADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights