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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07/03/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Specification
The specification filed on 09/10/2024 is acceptable for examination proceedings.
Priority
Application 18762999 filed 07/03/2024 is a Continuation of 17479370 , filed 09/20/2021, now U.S. Patent # 12067124. Therefore, the effective filling date for the subject matter defined in the pending claims of this application is 09/20/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2023. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,124. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439,
http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defauit/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,7-9,11,16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mestha et al. (US Patent No.: US 10,771,495 B2, hereinafter refer as to Mestha).
As per claim 1, Mestha discloses a computer-implemented method for node selection and ranking in a cyber-physical system (col. 3 lines 44-47 discloses resiliency to cyber-attacks to provide uninterrupted, equipment-safe, controlled operation while attacks are in progress, for example), the method comprising: obtaining an input dataset of values for a plurality of nodes of industrial assets; wherein the plurality of nodes are physically co-located or connected through a wired or wireless network (col. 8 lines 55-60 discloses the time series signals may be generated from output sensor nodes (e.g., physical and/or virtual sensors), actuator nodes (e.g., hard and/or soft actuators generated from open or closed loop system), controller nodes (e.g., controller node signals), reference nodes (e.g., reference signals), for example); computing a plurality of principal components (PCs) for the input dataset according to variance of values for each node (fig. 2, furthermore col. 9 lines 5-6 discloses the BPRE 233 is designed to compute an estimate of the true value of the feature vector under adversarial attacks, for example); computing a set of common weighted PCs based on the plurality of PCs according to variance of each PC (col. 9 lines 31-35 discloses when principal components are used as features, the normalized output may be expressed as a weighted linear combination of basis functions. In this feature extraction algorithm, weights are considered as features for y, for example); and ranking each node based on the node's contribution to the set of common weighted PCs (fig. 3, a graphical view 300 of the boundary constraint is shown with inner margin boundary 306 specified by positive ϵ. Negative ϵ represents outer margin boundary 308. Also, ϵ=0 represents hard decision boundary 304. The “score” function in Equation 3 depends on a particular algorithm used to learn the safety envelop, for example).
As per claim 7, Mestha discloses wherein each node's contribution comprises weighted norm of value corresponding to the node on the set of common weighted PCs (col. 9 lines 24-29 discloses when principal components are used as features, the normalized output may be expressed as a weighted linear combination of basis functions. In this feature extraction algorithm, weights are considered as features for y, for example).
As per claim 8, Mestha discloses wherein the plurality of PCs are computed based on kernel principal component analysis, which includes computing the plurality of PCs based on nonlinear kernel functions in the input space, and the set of common weighted PCs is computed based on a finite-dimensional optimization problem in accordance with a Gram matrix of the input dataset (col. 11, lines 24-29, column 13, lines 7-15, 60-62; col.16, lines 58-89 discloses kernel functions, data matrix, input signals, for example).
As per claim 9, Mestha discloses clustering and ranking nodes within each cluster, based on a weighted norm of a value corresponding to each node on the set of common weighted PCs, thereby selecting a node from each cluster and discarding other nodes of the cluster (col. 18, lines 15-16 discloses k-means clustering and col. 18, lines 15-16 discloses value of the feature vector under adversarial attack, remove attack signatures present in each node, for example).
As per claim 11, Mestha discloses wherein obtaining the input dataset comprises normalizing the input dataset to a predetermined range of values (col. 20, lines 12-13 discloses time series data include value of ranges, for example).
As per claim 16, Mestha discloses wherein the plurality of nodes are not physically co-located or are communicatively coupled via a network (col. 8, lines 55-60 discloses the time series signals may be generated from output sensor nodes, physical and/or virtual sensor, for example).
Claim 18 is system to the method claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
As per claim 19, Mestha discloses wherein the plurality of PCs are computed based on kernel principal component analysis, which includes computing the plurality of PCs based on nonlinear kernel functions in the input space, and the set of common weighted PCs is computed based on a finite-dimensional optimization problem in accordance with a Gram matrix of the input dataset (col. 11, lines 24-29, column 13, lines 7-15, 60-62; col.16, lines 58-89 discloses kernel functions, data matrix, input signals, for example).
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to the method claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 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 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 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mestha et al. (US Patent No.: US 10,771,495 B2, hereinafter refer as to Mestha) in view of Kleinbeck et al. (US Patent No.: 11,082,870 B2, herein after refer as to Kleinbeck).
As per claim 10, Mestha discloses all claimed limitations except for wherein the input dataset includes normal runs data and load sweep data.
However, Kleinbeck discloses wherein the input dataset includes normal runs data and load sweep data (fig. 38 and furthermore col. 46, lines 24-25 discloses normal spectrum (normal runs data) and col. 48, lines 46-47 discloses sweep spectrum (sweep data), for example).
Mestha as modified and Kleinbeck are analogous art because they both are directed to systems, methods and apparatus for automatic signal detection, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the teachings of Mestha with the specified features of Kleinbeck because they are from the same field of endeavor.
In view of the above, having the method for node selection and ranking in a cyber-physical system of Mestha and the well-established teaching of Kleinbeck, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Mestha with the teachings of Kleinbeck order for automatically identifying signals in a wireless communications spectrum based on temporal feature extraction [Kleinbeck: col.1 line 47].
As per claim 13, Mestha as modified by Kleinbeck discloses selecting the predetermined range based on magnitudes of variabilities within each window, wherein the input dataset includes a plurality of windows (col. 13 lines 11-13 of Mestha discloses the number of sample points in the interval [t-T,t] features are obtained from a sliding window batch of data, for example and col. 13 lines 5-6 discloses calculate windows of a time series signal column, for example).
As per claim 14, Mestha as modified by Kleinbeck discloses wherein the input dataset includes normal runs data and load sweep data, the method further comprising: discarding the normal runs data after normalization (col. 9 lines 8-10 of Mestha discloses attack signatures present in each node are removed, smoothing of time series signal from previous batches is performed, for example).
Claims 12 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mestha et al. (US Patent No.: US10,771,495 B2, hereinafter refer as to Mestha) in view of Shim et al. (US Patent No.: 10,386,224 B2, herein after refer as to Shim).
As per claim 12, Mestha discloses all claimed limitation except for wherein the predetermined range is [0, 1].
However, Shim discloses wherein the predetermined range is [0, 1] (col. 18 lines 15-20 discloses normalization is to calculate the maximum value, minimum value for each sensor during the time window and subtract the minimum value from each value and divide it by the range of the values within the time window. This will turn each sensor value between the range of 0 and 1, for example).
Mestha as modified and Shim are analogous art because they both are directed to conductive apparatus and systems for detecting external force, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the teachings of Mestha with the specified features of Shim because they are from the same field of endeavor.
In view of the above, having the method for node selection and ranking in a cyber-physical system of Mestha and the well-established teaching of Shim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Mestha with the teachings of Shim order for to conductive apparatus and systems for detecting external force [Shim: Abstract].
As per claim 15, Mestha discloses all the claimed limitations except for using the high-ranking nodes as inputs to anomaly detection systems or as secured hardened nodes to be the anchors for neutralization signal reconstruction.
However, Shim discloses using the high-ranking nodes as inputs to anomaly detection systems or as secured hardened nodes to be the anchors for neutralization signal reconstruction (col. 2 lines 50-53 discloses the system can take variable electrical signals and have a higher range of signal output, and be converted into higher validity of usable information, for example).
Mestha as modified and Shim are analogous art because they both are directed to conductive apparatus and systems for detecting external force, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the teachings of Mestha with the specified features of Shim because they are from the same field of endeavor.
In view of the above, having the method for node selection and ranking in a cyber-physical system of Mestha and the well-established teaching of Shim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Mestha with the teachings of Shim order for to conductive apparatus and systems for detecting external force [Shim: Abstract].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Warnick et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2018/0159890 A1) provide preventing sabotage attacks in cyber-physical systems involve automatically identifying links between nodes of a graph representing cyber-physical systems as vulnerable to sabotage attacks according to a vulnerability metric for each link. The vulnerability metric used depends on the particular sabotage attack used to determine the vulnerable links. Once a computer configured to design cyber-physical systems based on vulnerability to sabotage attacks receives data representing the graph, the computer enumerates the possible links between nodes of the graph along which a sabotage attack may be performed. For each of those links, the computer computes the vulnerability metric.
Irving et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2023/0032249 A1) provide network security, and more particularly to optimizing graphics processing unit (GPU) resources during machine learning training events while preserving siloed client data privacy and
Zhou et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2023/0025695 A1) provide data processing, and in particular, to a cross-site scripting (XSS) risk analysis method and apparatus based on a Bayesian network and a STRIDE model, a computer device, and a storage medium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIY GETACHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-6932. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at (571) 272-3811. 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.
A.G.
September 10, 2025
/ABIY GETACHEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434