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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 16, 19, 21, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180123935 (Ezer) in view of US 20200304377 (Subramaniam), further in view of WO 2021109669 (Wu), US 20230022079 (Vrudhula), and US 20130325899 (Mohaban).
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 21, Ezer teaches or suggests a system, comprising: one or more hardware processors; and a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform actions (¶ 4) comprising:
transmitting executable instructions to each agent for performing an initial discovery operation to discover the plurality of hardware resources (claim 29);
one or more processes executed by or on a respective hardware resource, wherein the one or more processes are associated with one or more software applications executing or present on the respective hardware resources (¶ 27);
transmitting one or more commands indicative of one or more discovery patterns to the plurality of agents (¶¶ 21, 58);
receiving, from the plurality of agents, additional information associated with one or more software applications based on execution of the one or more commands by the plurality of agents (¶ 66);
updating a configuration database based on the received information, wherein the configuration database comprises one or more configuration items associated with hardware and software components in the network (¶ 57, claims 30-31); and
storing the additional information in a database (¶¶ 37-39).
Ezer does not expressly disclose but Subramaniam teaches or suggests deploying a plurality of agents on respective hardware resources of a network, wherein each of the plurality of agents is configured to monitor a respective hardware resource and identify respective processes executed on the respective hardware resource on which it is deployed (¶¶ 131-133). Subramaniam cumulatively teaches or suggests one or more processes executed by or on a respective hardware resource, wherein the one or more processes are associated with one or more software applications executing or present on the respective hardware resources (¶ 103) and updating a configuration database based on received information, wherein the configuration database comprises one or more configuration items associated with hardware and software components in the network (¶ 113).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ezer’s system and to decentralize information gathering.
Ezer does not expressly disclose but Wu teaches or suggests receiving, from an agent, information regarding one or more processes (description of Fig. 4) executed by or on the respective hardware resource associated with each agent (description of step 303).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ezer’s system, Subramaniam’s deployment, and Wu’s obtaining in order to reduce underreporting and false reporting rate of malicious domain name access detection.
Ezer does not expressly disclose but Vrudhula teaches or suggests analyzing the information regarding the one or more processes to determine attributes of the one or more software applications (¶ 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ezer’s system, Subramaniam’s deployment, Wu’s obtaining, and Vrudhula’s analysis to provide an application discovery process that is automated and provides a more accurate view of applications, their components, relationships, dependencies, and interdependencies.
Ezer does not expressly disclose but Mohaban teaches or suggests determining one or more discovery patterns based on the attributes of one or more software applications, wherein the one or more discovery patterns are useable to discover the one or more software applications executing or present on some or all of hardware resources (¶ 38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ezer’s system, Subramaniam’s deployment, Wu’s obtaining, Vrudhula’s analysis, and Mohaban‘s determining in order to employ only relevant patterns.
Regarding claims 5 and 25, Ezer teaches or suggests the one or more commands comprise one or more secure shell (SSH) commands (¶ 22).
Regarding claim 6, Ezer does not expressly disclose but Subramaniam teaches or suggests the agent comprises a software application installed on a device of the one or more devices (¶ 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ezer’s system, Subramaniam’s deployment, Wu’s obtaining, Vrudhula’s analysis, Mohaban‘s determining, and Subramaniam’s software application in order to allow the agents to be reprogrammed.
Regarding claims 8, 19, and 27, Ezer teaches or suggests the plurality of agents is configured to execute the one or more commands indicative of the one or more discovery patterns without the use of security credentials used to access the software applications (¶¶ 21, 58, 66).
Claims 2, 3, 7, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180123935 (Ezer) in view of US 20200304377 (Subramaniam), further in view of WO 2021109669 (Wu), US 20230022079 (Vrudhula), US 20130325899 (Mohaban), and US 20210377718 (Ben Ari).
Regarding claims 2, 17, and 22, Ezer does not expressly disclose but Ben Ari teaches or suggests identifying the one or more discovery patterns from a plurality of discovery patterns stored in a pattern database (clams 17-18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ezer’s system, Subramaniam’s deployment, Wu’s obtaining, Vrudhula’s analysis, Mohaban‘s determining, and Ben Ari’s database in order to maintain discovery patterns.
Regarding claims 3, 18, and 23 Ezer does not expressly disclose but Ben Ari teaches or suggests modifying at least one discovery pattern of the plurality of discovery patterns based on the processes, generating a new discovery pattern based on the processes, or both (abs). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ezer’s system, Subramaniam’s deployment, Wu’s obtaining, Vrudhula’s analysis, Mohaban‘s determining, and Ben Ari’s modifying in order to keep discovery patterns current.
Regarding claims 7, 20, and 26, Ezer does not expressly disclose but Ben Ari teaches or suggests receiving the information, the additional information, or both, from the plurality of agents via a discovery server; and transmitting the one or more commands indicative of the one or more discovery patterns to the plurality of agents via the discovery server (¶ 9). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claims 3, 18, and 23.
Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180123935 (Ezer) in view of US 20200304377 (Subramaniam), further in view of WO 2021109669 (Wu), US 20230022079 (Vrudhula), US 20130325899 (Mohaban), US 20210377718 (Ben Ari), and US 10999152 (Bar Oz).
Ezer does not expressly disclose but Subramaniam teaches or suggests receive an input indicative of a modification to the one or more discovery patterns, receive an input indicative of a new discovery pattern, or any combination thereof (¶ 9). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claims 2, 17, and 22.
Ezer does not expressly disclose but Bar Oz teaches or suggests providing a user interface configured to display code representative of the one or more discovery patterns, receive an indicative input (abs.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ezer’s system, Subramaniam’s deployment, Wu’s obtaining, Vrudhula’s analysis, Mohaban‘s determining, Ben Ari’s modification, and Bar Oz’s displaying in order to visualize discovery patterns.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered. The applicant argues that “Ezer fails to disclose that each agent is deployed on a respective hardware resource of a plurality of hardware resources of a network and are configured to monitor the respective hardware resource and identify respective processes executed on the respective hardware resource on which it is deployed.” (Resp. 17.) "The test for obviousness is not whether . . . the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). "Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). In determining obviousness, furthermore, a reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole." Id.
Here, the Examiner relies on the combined teaching of Ezer’s system, Subramaniam’s deployment, Wu’s obtaining, Vrudhula’s analysis, and Mohaban (in combination with the prior art as a whole) to reject the limitations at issue. Consequently, the individual attack on Ezer cannot establish non-obviousness.
The applicant argues that “Ezer appears complete silent on ‘transmitting executable instructions to each agent for performing an initial discovery operation to discover the plurality of hardware resources … updating a configuration database based on the received information, wherein the configuration database comprises one or more configuration items associated with hardware and software components in the network; analyzing the information regarding the one or more processes to determine attributes of the one or more software applications’ and ‘determining one or more discovery patterns based on the attributes of the one or more software applications,’ as generally recited in independent claims 1, 16, and 21.” (Resp. 17.) The Examiner finds to the contrary as aforementioned.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 20230328130’s remote desktop protocol (RDP) operating system (OS) session remote-control includes providing security credentials to a client device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights