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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
In communications filed on 2/5/2026, claims 1-7 and 9-16 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 5, and 11 are independent.
Amended claim(s): 1, 5, and 11.
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 2/5/2026, with respect to claim(s) rejected under prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Cross et al combination teaches a publish-subscribe messaging mechanism for updating and publishing reputation of objects to subscribers (See, Cross: Figs. 1-5, ¶14-¶16, ¶71-¶72; ¶22. Ney: Abstract, Fig. 5, ¶9-¶12, ¶38-¶39, ¶44-¶48. See also, Denchy (page 1) and Tarkoma (Figs 1.2, 1.9, pages 1-6, 17, 26-27). Ney further provides mechanism for overriding the reputation of an object (Ney: ¶9). Note Cross et al combination further teaches: the selected reputation to cause the respective network object to be blocked by a plurality of clients that have subscribed to a topic designated for object reputation updates; (Cross: Fig. 3, 5, ¶27, ¶53-¶57, ¶71-¶72. Ney: Abstract, Fig. 5, ¶9-¶12, ¶¶27-41, ¶44-¶47)
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110252483 A1 (hereinafter ‘Cross’) in view of Denchy, Mark “The Publish/Subscribe Model: You gave the message to whom?”, EXTOL Technology Blog, August 17th, 2009 (hereinafter ‘Denchy’) and Tarkoma, Sasu. Publish/subscribe systems: design and principles. John Wiley & Sons, 2012 (hereinafter ‘Tarkoma’) in view of US 20080256622 A1 (hereinafter ‘Ney’).
As regards claim 1, Cross discloses: A security management console, comprising (Cross: Fig. 1, 3-5, ¶14-¶16): a hardware platform, including a processor, a memory, and a data exchange layer (DXL) interface, the DXL interface including a hardware network connection and a software layer (Cross: Fig. ¶14-¶16, i.e., system for exchanging reputation information between devices/servers using network connections i.e., DXL)
However, Cross does not explicitly disclose using the well-known and commonly used enterprise service bus (ESB) structure. Note however, ESB is a well-known and widely used service oriented architecture (SOA) for exchanging information between network entities over network links based on publish/subscribe model. See for instance, Denchy (page 1) and Tarkoma (Figs 1.2, 1.9, pages 1-6, 17, 26-27, i.e., the pub-sub ESB model that runs over a TCP/IP network overlay), thus teaching: the software layer to provide a messaging bus operating over an internet protocol (IP) network and supporting publish-subscribe communications;
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify Cross to include well-known and widely used ESB architecture for exchanging information between network entities over network links based on publish/subscribe model as taught by Denchy and Tarkoma with the motivation to efficiently publish and subscribe data (see Denchy, page 1; see also, Tarkoma: Figs 1.2, 1.9, pages 1-6, 17, 26-27)
Cross et al combination further teaches: an interface to a reputation database, the reputation database including cached reputations for a plurality of network objects, the reputations corresponding to a respective network object within an enterprise serviced by the DXL (Cross: Figs. 2-5, ¶71-¶72, i.e., interface that provides reputation for an object)
However, Cross does not but in analogous art, Ney (US 20080256622 A1) teaches: the network object representing at least one of a device, a certificate, or a URL; and (Ney: ¶3-¶5, ¶9, ¶27-¶31, claim 12)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cross to include reputation override of an object as taught by Ney with the motivation to reduce false positive in a reputation service (Ney: Abstract, Fig. 5, ¶9-¶12, ¶44-¶47)
Cross et al combination further teaches: instructions encoded within the memory to instruct the processor to: provide a representation of the respective network object, including an existing reputation of the respective network object retrieved from the reputation database; (Cross: Fig. 5, ¶53-¶57, ¶71-¶72)
receive a user input to override the existing reputation of the respective network object to a selected reputation; (Ney: Abstract, Fig. 5, ¶9-¶12, ¶¶27-32, ¶44-¶47, i.e., admin providing override to an object’s reputation to either blacklist (i.e., block) or remove the blacklisting i.e., unblock)
the selected reputation to cause the respective network object to be blocked by a plurality of clients that have subscribed to a topic designated for object reputation updates; (Cross: Fig. 3, 5, ¶27, ¶53-¶57, ¶71-¶72. Ney: Abstract, Fig. 5, ¶9-¶12, ¶¶27-41, ¶44-¶47)
provide an instruction via the interface to update the existing reputation of the respective network object in the database with the selected reputation; and (Cross: Fig. 1, ¶16-¶18; ¶31-¶45. Ney: Abstract, Fig. 5, ¶9-¶12, ¶34-¶35, ¶44-¶48)
publish a DXL message to a plurality of subscribed clients based on a security policy and a determination that the user input was received, the DXL message including the selected reputation, the selected reputation removing from the plurality of subscribed clients an allow or block decision of the respective network object based on the existing reputation, wherein the publication is performed via the distributed messaging bus. (Cross: Figs. 1-5, ¶14-¶16, ¶71-¶72; ¶22. Ney: Abstract, Fig. 5, ¶9-¶12, ¶38-¶39, ¶44-¶48, i.e., providing override to an object’s reputation)
Claims 5 and 11 recite substantially the same features recited in claim 1 above, and are rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 2, Cross et al combination discloses the security management console of claim 1, wherein the processor is to provide the representation of the respective network object. (Cross: ¶72. See also, Tarkoma: Figs 1.2, 1.9, pages 1-6)
Claim 8 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 2 above, and are rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 3, Cross et al combination discloses the security management console of claim 1, wherein the DXL message includes an instruction to cause an endpoint to take an action responsive to the selected reputation. (Cross: ¶19. See also Ney: ¶34-¶35)
Claims 9 and 15 recite substantially the same features recited in claim 3 above, and are rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 4, Cross et al combination discloses the security management console of claim 3, wherein the action is selected from the group consisting of quarantine, block, delete, sandbox, deny permissions, remedy, prompt, and custom action. Cross: ¶19. See also Ney: ¶34-¶35)
Claims 10 and 16 recite substantially the same features recited in claim 4 above, and are rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 6, Cross et al combination discloses the one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 5, wherein the instructions are further to cause a database update to update the DXL object with the override reputation. (Cross: Fig. 1, ¶16-¶18; ¶31-¶45. Ney: Abstract, Fig. 5, ¶9-¶12, ¶44-¶48)
As regards claim 7, Cross et al combination discloses the one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 5, wherein the interface is a graphical user interface. (Cross: ¶72. See also, Tarkoma: Figs 1.2, 1.9, pages 1-6)
Claim 14 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 7 above, and are rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 12, Cross et al combination discloses the method of claim 11, wherein accessing the existing reputation includes receiving the existing reputation from a database. (Cross: Fig. 5, ¶53-¶57, ¶71-¶72)
As regards claim 13, Cross et al combination discloses the method of claim 12, wherein accessing the existing reputation from the database includes receiving the existing reputation via a DXL message. (Cross: Figs. 2-5, ¶71-¶72, i.e., interface that provides reputation for an object)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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 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.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights