DETAILED ACTION
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn based on the amendments filed 12/02/2025.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn based on the amendments filed 12/02/2025.
The claim objections are withdrawn based on the amendments filed 12/02/2025.
Claim 63 is canceled.
Claim 65 is new.
Claims 45-62, 64 and 65 are rejected.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 45, 59, and 64 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
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.
Claim(s) 45-48, 50-54, 58-62, 64, and 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140053072 A1 to Guo et al. (Guo) in view of US 20180367309 A1 to Reinhold (Reinhold).
Regarding claim 45, Guo teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor (Guo [0020], e.g., FIG. 1 illustrates system components of the present disclosure in one embodiment. The components shown in the figure may execute on hardware processors or computers); and at least one memory including computer program code (Guo [0059], e.g., aspects of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon); the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform: receiving at least one input for execution by a computer system (Guo [0031], e.g., At 208, the user enters the name of an executable object (e.g., a command or script) in the user interface), wherein the at least one input is received with appropriate authorization for execution by the computer system (Guo [0029], e.g., At 202, a user logs into the script execution console and enters the ticket ID); determining whether the at least one input should be passed [over a filesystem galvanic separation filter] to the computer system for execution (Guo [0031], e.g., The script execution server checks the user-selected executable object (e.g., a command or script) against the list returned by the privilege manager. For example, it is determined at 210 whether the selected executable object is on the list of approved scripts, and if not at 212 whether the selected executable object is an allowed command according to the control list) by encoding the at least one input into a bit representation for comparison with a reference input set (Guo [0038], e.g., An entered executable object (e.g., command) 502 may be parsed, e.g., via string or text parsing (e.g., including concatenated or piped commands). Each command may be validated against the list. The list may also be shown, e.g., as at 506; Note that any information held or processed in a computer system is encoded in a bit representation at the machine level in computer memory, processor register, and the like); and responsive to determining the at least one input should not be passed [over a filesystem galvanic separation filter] to the computer system for execution, preventing execution of the at least one input by the computer system (Guo [0031], [0038], e.g., If it is a disallowed command, the console shows an alert at 214……… The methodology of the present disclosure may prevent execution of commands in the black list or not in the white list, e.g., as shown at 504).
Guo does not explicitly teach, but Reinhold teaches whether the at least one input should be passed over a filesystem galvanic separation filter to the computer system (Reinhold [0074]-[0075], e.g., The function of the Data Guard 130 is to limit the amount of data coming out of the RSS 120 and to protect the RSS 120 from malware. The Data Guard 130 provides an interface between the RSS-NI 124 and the RSS 120 itself…… The Data Guard can optionally handle traffic in both directions between the RSS-NI 124 and RSS 120 or there can be separate Data Guard 130 units for each direction. Data directionality might be enforced using optical isolators on the signal lines) and responsive to determining the at least one input should not be passed over a filesystem galvanic separation filter to the computer system for execution, preventing execution of the at least one input by the computer system (Reinhold [0074], e.g., The Data Guard 130 discards messages that are invalid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Guo with the teachings of Reinhold with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of preventing data leakage by sanitizing and restricting the passage of data (Reinhold [0072]-[0073], e.g., The RSS 120 further includes a Data Guard 130 which is disposed between compartments 140 and 150. The only data connection between compartments 140 and 150 is the Data Guard 130, which restricts and sanitizes the data passing between the RSS-NI 124 and compartment 140…… All signal connections pass through one or more special computing modules called Data Guards, that enforce message formats in both directions and restricts the rate at which information can leave the enclosure. The Data Guard may also apply an additional cryptographic hash to the output from the RSS 120 to further prevent information leakage).
Regarding claim 46, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 45. Guo further teaches the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform: if it is determined that the at least one input should be passed to the computer system for execution, passing the at least one input for execution by the computer system (Guo [0031-0032], e.g., On the other hand, if the command is an allowed command according to the control list, at 216, the user may select one or more target managed servers (one or more managed computers)……… At 220, the command is sent to the selected one or more managed computers……… the command is sent to the script/command execution agent on each endpoint, and executed).
Regarding claim 47, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 45. Guo further teaches wherein preventing execution of the at least one input comprises blocking or changing the at least one input (Guo [0031], [0038], e.g., If it is a disallowed command, the console shows an alert at 214……… The methodology of the present disclosure may prevent execution of commands in the black list or not in the white list, e.g., as shown at 504).
Regarding claim 48, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 47. Guo further teaches wherein changing the at least one input comprises changing at least one command of the at least one input and/or changing at least one target of the at least one input (Guo [0037], e.g., The methodology of the present disclosure in one embodiment may automatically translate the `uptime` command into an equivalent function in Windows.TM. operating system, e.g., `net stats srv`).
Regarding claim 50, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 45. Guo further teaches wherein appropriate authorization comprises administrator authorization for the computer system (Guo [0002], [0021], e.g., a system administrator (SA)……… In one embodiment, the SA is notified of a service request, and enters the service request ticket ID into the script execution manager 104).
Regarding claim 51, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 45. Guo further teaches wherein the computer system comprises a filesystem and/or operating system (Guo [0032], [0037], e.g., In one embodiment of the present disclosure, commands are assumed to exist on each target server, e.g., as built into the operating system or native shell……… a graphical interface that shows translation of commands to equivalent commands for other platforms in one embodiment of the present disclosure. For instance, a user may enter command in native shell language of one platform and select endpoints of multiple platforms. The methodology of the present disclosure in one embodiment retrieves equivalent commands in shell languages of other platforms and passes a command of appropriate shell language to each endpoint).
Regarding claim 52, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 45. Guo further teaches wherein the reference input set is user defined (Guo [0039], e.g., For each role, a black list or a white list containing commands or the like that the role may not or may execute may be defined or generated).
Regarding claim 53, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 45. Guo further teaches wherein if there is a match between the at least one input and the reference input set, the at least one input is accepted for execution by the computer system (Guo [0031-0032], e.g., On the other hand, if the command is an allowed command according to the control list, at 216, the user may select one or more target managed servers (one or more managed computers)……… the command is sent to the script/command execution agent on each endpoint).
Regarding claim 54, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 45. Guo further teaches wherein the at least one input comprises one or more of: a command; a procedure; an instruction; a function; and an option (Guo [0031], e.g., At 208, the user enters the name of an executable object (e.g., a command or script) in the user interface).
Regarding claim 58, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 45. Guo further teaches the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform: changing an output caused by at least one input (Guo [0035], e.g., At 232, output of the executable object (e.g., command or script) is redirected to a log file on each endpoint, and copied to the script distribution and execution server by the framework).
Regarding claim 59, the claim recites a method of the apparatus of claim 45, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 60, the claim recites a method of the apparatus of claim 46, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 61, the claim recites a method of the apparatus of claim 47, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 62, the claim recites a method of the apparatus of claim 48, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 64, Guo teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions that (Guo [0059], e.g., aspects of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon), when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform at least the following: receiving at least one input for execution by a computer system (Guo [0029], e.g., At 202, a user logs into the script execution console and enters the ticket ID).
The rest of the limitations recite a non-transitory computer readable medium of the apparatus of claim 45, and are similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 65, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 45. Guo does not explicitly teach, but Reinhold teaches where determining whether the at least one input should be passed over a filesystem galvanic separation filter to the computer system for execution is independent of user authentication and associated access rights (Reinhold [0073], e.g., The secret VLK data, considered red data, is enclosed in an electromagnetically shielded physical container such as a metal safe or a shielded compartment within a safe, or enclosed in some other Faraday cage shield. All signal connections pass through one or more special computing modules called Data Guards, that enforce message formats in both directions and restricts the rate at which information can leave the enclosure; Note all data is passed through the data guard so user authentication and access rights have no effect).
The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 45.
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Reinhold, and in further view of US 7904573 B1 to Nachenberg et al. (Nachenberg).
Regarding claim 49, Guo and Reinhold do not explicitly teach, but Nachenberg teaches wherein appropriate authorization comprises authorization for the at least one input to pass through any firewalls protecting the computer system (Nachenberg Col. 18, lines 4-14, e.g., As understood above, if such program is time stamped before the moment as indicated by alert time 204a, access control module 203a deems such program as being safe and then returns a permission message to firewall module 601. Firewall module 601 therefore will not block 721 the data communication, or will resume the data communication that has been suspended).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teachings of Guo and Reinhold with the teachings of Nachenberg with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of reducing damages to computer networks, while minimizing the intrusive effects on computer network operations (Nachenberg Col. 2, lines 23-31, e.g., The present invention overcomes deficiencies and limitations of conventional anti-virus software by providing a computer network access control method, system and computer-readable medium to block computer virus invasion and to reduce damages caused to a computer network (1) with minimum intrusive effects on computer network operation).
Claim(s) 55-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Reinhold, and in further view of US 20190286806 A1 to Robinson et al (Robinson).
Regarding claim 55, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 45. Guo does not explicitly teach, but Robinson teaches the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform: determining that an authorized physical device has been physically connected to a device (Robinson [0059], [0104], e.g., Alternatively or in addition, when the proximity of the key device 210 detected and authenticated, the proximity based control system 202 can be configured to prompt the user 110 to provide information known to the user 110 and to the device 200 to authenticate the user 110……… Acceptable proximity is……… or being connected by a wire used for communication); and based, at least in part, on determining that the authorized physical device has been physically connected, changing a state of the apparatus (Robinson [0061], e.g., Once a device is detected and authenticated as a key device 210 for the target device 200 and optionally after additional user information is received and verified, a security setting of the target device 200 may be changed. In an embodiment, the proximity based control system 202 can include a behavior modification module 206 configured to change the security behavior of the target device 200 when the key device 210 is in proximity of the target device 200 and optionally when additional information is received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teachings of Guo and Reinhold with the teachings of Robinson with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of enhancing security through multiple factors of authentication, while also minimizing inconvenience (Robinson [0017-0018], e.g., What is needed is an authentication system which can support the user knowing and using a strong password because the user has only one such password to enter, can greatly reduce user inconvenience by hardly ever requiring the user to input such a password, and can cost efficiently use multiple other factors for authentication while minimizing user inconvenience.……… The system is more secure regarding the use of something the user has, by using acceptable proximity detection and person presence and possession monitoring to verify that only an authenticated user is in possession of a device or token or object used to aid in authentication. The system takes advantage of the increasingly inexpensive and widely deployed sensor systems which are integrated as part of devices such as smartphones to detect events which can indicate a person's presence at a device, or acceptable proximity of two devices to each other).
Regarding claim 56, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 55. Guo and Reinhold do not explicitly teach, but Robinson teaches wherein changing a state of the apparatus comprises changing how the apparatus performs determining if the at least one input should be passed to the computer system for execution (Robinson [0069], e.g., the behavior modification module 206 can control access to certain types of data stored on the target device 200. For example, the behavior modification module 206 can allow access to an encrypted container only when the key device 210 is detected and when the user 110 is authenticated).
The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 55.
Regarding claim 57, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 56. Guo and Reinhold do not explicitly teach, but Robinson teaches wherein changing how the apparatus performs determining if the at least one input should be passed to the computer system for execution comprises changing a reference input set or bypassing the determination (Robinson [0069], e.g., the behavior modification module 206 can allow access to an encrypted container only when the key device 210 is detected and when the user 110 is authenticated. Note that access is only granted when the key device is detected and user is authenticated, thus it bypasses determination).
The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 55.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4 pm ET.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at (571) 270-1050. 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.
/LAWRENCE TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434