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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 20230126764 to Ibrahim in view of US 20230188500 to Pikarski in view of US 20120131185 to Petersen.
Regarding claim 1, Ibrahim teaches a quantum network system that detects and prevents malicious activities in real- time, the quantum network system comprising:
a quantum processing unit operable to (¶ abstract, 13-14, 32-36; quantum computer for fraud detection):
monitor interactions on a network (¶ 13-14, 32-36, network interactions monitored);
identify one or more fraudulent activities included in the interactions, said fraudulent activities failing to correspond with an authorized activity pattern (¶ 13-14, 32-36, identification of fraudulent activities);
amalgamate the one or more fraudulent activities into a log of fraudulent activities (¶ 36-39, logging of fraudulent activities).
Ibrahim fails to teach but Pikarski teaches:
rebuild, using artificial intelligence, based on the log of fraudulent activities, one or more fraudster rules used by one or more entities executing the one or more fraudulent activities (¶ 46, building rules based on log of activities);
build one or more elastic counteractive rules, said elastic counteractive rules counteracting the fraudster rules, said elastic counteractive rules comprising a first rule (¶ 47-52, building counteractive security rules), execute the elastic counteractive rules within the network (¶ 52, 54),
halt the one or more fraudulent activities within the network using the elastic counteractive rules (¶ 51, 54, prevention of malicious activities using counteractive rules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Pikarski. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Pikarski would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating improvements to the security of networked environments (Pikarski, ¶ 4).
Ibrahim fails to teach teaches:
said first rule using a predetermined amount of data to complete execution of the first rule; wherein when the first rule receives a first amount of data to complete execution of the first rule; the first rule identifies the first amount of data as insufficient to complete execution of the first rule; the quantum processing unit scans the network for a second amount of data, the second amount of data combined with the first amount of data being sufficient to complete execution of the first rule; the quantum processing unit retrieves the second amount of data from the network; and the quantum processing unit provides the second amount of data to the first rule;
However Petersen teaches
said first rule using a predetermined amount of data to complete execution of the first rule; wherein when the first rule receives a first amount of data to complete execution of the first rule; the first rule identifies the first amount of data as insufficient to complete execution of the first rule (¶ 94, data to complete rule trigger is insufficient);
the processing unit scans the network for a second amount of data, the second amount of data combined with the first amount of data being sufficient to complete execution of the first rule (network is scanned for second amount of data indicative of amount to trigger rule); the processing unit retrieves the second amount of data from the network; and the processing unit provides the second amount of data to the first rule (¶ 94, retrieval of second amount of data and provision of data to rule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Petersen. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Petersen would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating quantitative and behavioral analyses for event detection (Petersen, abstract, ¶ 91-94).
Regarding claim 2, 7, 15,
Ibrahim fails to teach but Pikarski teaches:
wherein the elastic counteractive rules are customized for each network node associated with the network (¶ 12-19, customization using per node objects). Motivation to include Pikarski is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 3, 11,
Ibrahim fails to teach but Petersen teaches:
wherein the elastic counteractive rules are customized for each network node based on one or more characteristics of the network node (¶5-9, 60-66, e.g. per IP). Motivation to include Petersen is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 4, 19,
Ibrahim fails to teach but Petersen teaches:
wherein the authorized activity pattern is customized for each network node based on the one or more characteristics of the network node (¶ 51; see also ¶ 5-9, 60-66). Motivation to include Petersen is the same as presented above.
Claim 5, 12-13 and 20 are addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, 14,
Pikarski teaches:
monitoring, using the quantum processing unit, additional interactions on the network; identifying, using the quantum processing unit, one or more additional fraudulent activities; amalgamating, using the quantum processing unit, the one or more additional fraudulent activities; modifying, using the quantum processing unit, the one or more fraudster rules based on the additional fraudulent activities; modifying, using the quantum processing unit, the one or more elastic counteractive rules based on the modifying the one or more fraudster rules; and executing, using the quantum processing unit, the modified one or more elastic counteractive rules (¶ 41-54).
Regarding claim 8, 16,
Ibrahim teaches:
the network is associated with an entity; and each network node corresponds to a customer of the entity (¶ 31, 45-46, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, 17,
Ibrahim fails to teach: wherein the elastic counteractive rules are customized for each network node based on a location of the network node. However, Petersen teaches: wherein the rules are customized for each network node based on a location of the network node (fig. 16, ¶ 120-121). Motivation to include Petersen is the same as presented above.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ibrahim, Pikarski, and Petersen in view of US 20180103047 to Turgeman
Regarding claim 10, 18,
Ibrahim fails to teach but Turgeman teaches:
executing a set of permanent rules within the network, said set of permanent rules which override the elastic counteractive rules (¶ 169, overriding decision maker unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of . The motivation to do so is that the teachings of would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating cyber attack detection or malware (Turgeman, abstract, ¶ 13).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights