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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 October 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0176878 by Patankar et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0328083 by Gundersen and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0346402 by Stavrianou et al.
As to claims 1, 8 and 14, Patankar discloses a system (Claim 1)/ computer program product(Claim 8)/method(Claim 14) for generating artificial intelligence based visualizations of computing device security and stability, the system comprising:
a processing device (Patankar: Page 1, Sec 12; devices include one or more processors);
a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device (Patankar: Page 8. Sec 67; Computer readable storage media used to execute the method including memory), causes the processing device to perform the steps of:
aggregating status data for one or more computing resources within a network environment (Patankar: Fig 4 – 102; Page 1, Sec 11-Page 2. Sec 13 and Page 8, Sec 62; telemetry data from a plurality of network devices is collected by the analysis device).
analyzing the status data using an AI engine (Patankar: Fig 4 – 104; Page 1, Sec 11-Page 2. Sec 13 and Page 8, Sec 62-63; AI anomaly model applied to telemetry data);
detecting, based on analyzing the status data, one or more issues associated with the one or more computing resources (Patankar: Fig 1 – 106; Page 8, Sec 62-63; AI anomaly detection model detects anomalies); and
generating a remediation plan comprising one or more remediation steps for resolving the one or more issues (Patankar: Fig 1 – 108, 110; Page 8, Sec 62-63; root cause analysis performed and determined).
Patankar does not expressly disclose determining a severity level of each of the one or more issues associated with the one or more computing resources;
generating a visualization of the status data, wherein the visualization comprises the one or more categories, the one or more issues, and the severity level of each of the one or more issues; or
ingesting the status data using a natural language processing based algorithm to identify concepts within the status data and categorizing the status data into one or more categories by appending one or more data tags to the status data, wherein each of the one or more data tags is associated with one of the one or more categories;
Gundersen discloses determining a severity level of each of the one or more issues associated with the one or more computing resources (Gundersen: Fig 4; Page 6, Sec 49 and Page 7- Sec 61 – Page 8, Sec 67; severity of security issue determined);
generating a visualization of the status data, wherein the visualization comprises the one or more categories, the one or more issues, and the severity level of each of the one or more issues (Gundersen: Fig 4; Page 5, Sec 38-39 and Page 7- Sec 61 – Page 8, Sec 67; threat alert with relevant information generated and along with visual indicator).
Stavrianou discloses ingesting the status data using a natural language processing based algorithm to identify concepts within the status data and categorizing the status data into one or more categories by appending one or more data tags to the status data, wherein each of the one or more data tags is associated with one of the one or more categories (Stavrianou: Pages 3-4, Sec 42; “FIG. 2 illustrates the sentences which are classified under the label `Contrasting Ideas.` In FIG. 2, 202 represents the label which has been assigned by the language processing engine 108 to the category under which sentences identified in a particular publication are classified. In an embodiment, 204, 206, and 208 represent the sentences which indicate contrasting ideas in the particular publication. It will be appreciated by a person having ordinary skill in the art that sentences 204, 206, and 208 are provided only as an example and are not meant to limit the scope of the disclosure. The language processing engine 108 uses concept matching to identify sentences which can help identify contrasting ideas in the publication.”)
Patankar and Gundersen are analogous art because they are from the common area of anomaly detection. Stavrianou is analogous art because it is from the area of language processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the determinations of Gundersen in the system of Patankar. The rationale would have been to filter the issues based on potential level of harm (Gundersen: Page 6, Sec 49). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the language processing of Stavrianou in the system of Patankar. The rationale would have been to identify items of interest in a natural language text (Stavrianou: Page 1, Sec 5).
As to claims 4, 11 and 17, the modified Patankar/Gundersen/Stavrianou reference further discloses wherein the one or more computing resources comprises at least one application (Patankar: Page 3, Sec 31; Application Programming interface) or one computing device(Patankar: Page 1, Sec 11-Page 2. Sec 13; network computing devices).
As to claims 5, 12 and 18, the modified Patankar/Gundersen/Stavrianou reference further discloses wherein categorizing the status data comprises determining at least one sub-category associated with one of the one or more categories (Gundersen: Fig 4; Page 5, Sec 38-39 Page 7- Sec 61 – Page 8, Sec 67; subcategories of type of harm, including cost and data sensitivity).
As to claims 7 and 20, the modified Patankar/Gundersen/Stavrianou reference further discloses wherein the one or more remediation steps comprise at least one of applying a software update, updating anti-malware definitions, performing network segmentation, and performing a secure wipe of an affected resource (Patankar: Page 8, sec 64; updating device as part of remediation).
Claims 2-3, 9-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0176878 by Patankar et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0328083 by Gundersen and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0346402 by Stavrianou et al. further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,826,426 to Dubey.
As to claims 2, 9 and 15, the modified Patankar/Gundersen/Stavrianou reference discloses all recited elements of claims 1, 8 and 14 from which claims 2, 9 and 15 depend.
The modified reference does not expressly disclose wherein the status data comprises performance metrics, security metrics, and stability metrics associated with each of the one or more computing resources.
Dubey discloses wherein the status data comprises performance metrics, security metrics, and stability metrics associated with each of the one or more computing resources (Dubbey: Col 7, Line 52 - Col 8, Line 40; performance, stability and security metrics collected) .
The modified reference and Dubey are analogous art because they are from the common area of anomaly detection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the metrics of Dubey in the system of the modified reference. The rationale would have been to generate a computer health score using relevant metrics (Dubbey: Col 8, Lines 33-40).
As to claims 3, 10 and 16, the modified Patankar/Gundersen/Stavrianou /Dubbey reference further discloses wherein the performance metrics comprise at least one of processing load, network load, or memory space (Dubbey: Col 7, Line 66 – Col 8, Line 12; “Examples of values that performance metrics 522 may measure include, without limitation, CPU usage of the computing system during the evaluation period, the number of page faults experienced by the computing system during the evaluation period, network usage of the computing system during the evaluation period (such as a running average of the number of IP datagrams sent or received by the computing system during the evaluation period), and memory usage of the computing system during the evaluation period”) , wherein the security metrics comprise at least one of anti-malware definition information or known vulnerabilities (Dubbey: Col 7, Lines 55-65; “Security metrics 512 generally represent any type of metric that may be used to measure or quantify the state of security of a computing system. Examples of values that security metrics 512 may measure include, without limitation, the number of malware items that were detected, quarantined, and/or removed during a computing-health assessment period, and/or any other measurement that may be indicative of the overall state of security of a computing system”), and wherein the stability metrics comprise at least one of resource uptime or resource downtime (Dubbey: Col 8, Lines 13-23; “Examples of values that stability metrics may measure include, without limitation, operating-system errors (such as blue-screen errors), application errors (such as application hangs or freezes), service errors, device-driver errors, system uptime, and system reboots (such as the number of system reboots per day)”).
Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0176878 by Patankar et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0328083 by Gundersen and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0346402 by Stavrianou et al. further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0354420 by Seck et al.
As to claims 6, 13 and 19, the modified Patankar/Gundersen/Stavrianou reference discloses all recited elements of claims 1, 8 and 14 from which claims 6, 13 and 19 depend.
The modified reference does not expressly disclose wherein the visualization is an interactive visualization presented on a graphical interface of a user device, wherein the interactive visualization comprises one or more interactable segments that, when selected by the user, present additional layers of information within the status data.
Seck discloses wherein the visualization is an interactive visualization presented on a graphical interface of a user device, wherein the interactive visualization comprises one or more interactable segments that, when selected by the user, present additional layers of information within the status data (Seck: Page 5, Sec 42-43; interactive visual representation including access to details through interaction) .
The modified reference and Seck are analogous art because they are from the common area of anomaly detection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the interactive display of Sek in the system of the modified reference. The rationale would have been to provide a visualization for security issues (Seck: Page 1, Sec 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights