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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of US Pat. 12,069,099. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar methods, systems, and/or media, for example contrast claims 1, 3, and 4 with claims 1 of ‘099:
Instant Claims 1, 3, and 4
‘099 claim 1
Non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon for autonomous cybersecurity within a network computing environment, wherein when executed by at least one processor the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to:
Non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon for autonomous cybersecurity within a network computing environment, wherein when executed by at least one processor the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to:
establish electronic communication with a network computing environment;
establish electronic communication with a network computing environment;
receive data records from a data source, each of the data records containing data elements relating to resources and/or activity within the network computing environment;
receive data records from a data source, each of the data records containing data elements relating to resources and/or activity within the network computing environment;
(claim 3) feed the data records to an observer program to generate the at least some data elements fed to the optimizer program.
feed the data records to an observer program to generate at least some data elements of one or more of the data records,
(claim 4) the observer program is configured to generate the at least some data elements fed to the optimizer program at least in part by applying pre-processing rules to compare the data records against a plurality of pre-defined profiles, the plurality of pre-defined profiles including a plurality of pre-defined node profiles and a plurality of pre-defined edge profiles,
the observer program being configured to generate the at least some data elements at least in part by applying pre-processing rules to compare the data records against a plurality of pre-defined profiles, the plurality of pre-defined profiles including a plurality of pre-defined node profiles and a plurality of pre-defined edge profiles,
(claim 4) based on the application of the pre-processing rules, identifying a plurality of pre-matched records of the data records, each of the plurality of pre-matched records matching at least one of the plurality of pre-defined profiles, building a production graph database model at least in part by modeling the plurality of pre-matched records using corresponding ones of the plurality of pre-defined profiles,
based on the application of the pre-processing rules, identifying a plurality of pre-matched records of the data records, each of the plurality of pre-matched records matching at least one of the plurality of pre-defined profiles, building a production graph database model at least in part by modeling the plurality of pre-matched records using corresponding ones of the plurality of pre-defined profiles,
(claim 4) generating a natural language narrative describing a region of interest within the production graph database model, the natural language narrative comprising the at least some data elements fed to the optimizer program.
generating a natural language narrative describing a region of interest within the production graph database model, the natural language narrative comprising the at least some data elements,
execute an optimizer program and feed at least some of the data elements of one or more of the data records to the optimizer program for comparison against a system goal and calculation of a first distance to the system goal based on the comparison;
execute an optimizer program and feed the at least some data elements to the optimizer program for comparison against a system goal and calculation of a first distance to the system goal based on the comparison;
based on the first distance, implement pre-determined changes in the network computing environment;
based on the first distance, implement pre-determined changes in the network computing environment;
receive additional data records containing additional data elements recorded within the network computing environment following the implementation of the pre-determined changes;
receive additional data records containing additional data elements recorded within the network computing environment following the implementation of the pre-determined changes;
execute the optimizer program and feed at least some of the additional data elements of one or more of the additional data records to the optimizer program for follow-up comparison against the system goal and calculation of a second distance to the system goal based on the follow-up comparison;
execute the optimizer program and feed at least some of the additional data elements of one or more of the additional data records to the optimizer program for follow-up comparison against the system goal and calculation of a second distance to the system goal based on the follow-up comparison;
determine that the second distance is less than the first distance; and based on the determination, configure the optimizer program for additional changes to further advance the network computing environment toward the system goal.
determine that the second distance is less than the first distance; and based on the determination, configure the optimizer program for additional changes to further advance the network computing environment toward the system goal.
That is, the differences between the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in that the scope of the instant invention overlaps with the scope of the patent. Further, instant claims 1 and 4-20, correspond similarly to subject matter of ‘099 claims 2-16. Therefore, if a patent were to be granted, it may result in an improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” of the subject matter and may lead to possible harassment by multiple assignees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 11-13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Ahuja et al (US Pub. No. 2018/0103064), hereafter, “Ahuja.”
As to claim 1, Ahuja discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon for autonomous cybersecurity within a network computing environment (Abstract), wherein when executed by at least one processor the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to:
establish electronic communication with a network computing environment (Abstract);
receive data records from a data source, each of the data records containing data elements relating to resources and/or activity within the network computing environment ([0093], particularly, “At block 1002, server profile data is generated for a plurality of existing virtual servers, where the server profile data indicates values for a plurality of properties associated with each of the plurality of existing virtual servers. For example, a policy configuration microservice 710 may generate the server profile data for a set of virtual servers running on hypervisors (e.g., hypervisors 720-752).”);
execute an optimizer program and feed at least some of the data elements of one or more of the data records to the optimizer program for comparison against a system goal and calculation of a first distance to the system goal based on the comparison ([0098], particularly, “At block 1014, the property values determined for the new virtual server are compared against the generated server profile data for the existing population of virtual servers to identify one or more closest matching existing virtual servers. For example, a policy configuration microservice 710 may compare the property values determined at block 1008 against property values stored for a population of virtual servers in a server properties database 716.” And [0101], particularly, “Determining a closest match may include a number of mathematical processes such as clustering (determining a distance metric from each existing server and selecting the shortest distance), calculating a weighting of certain properties, masking (requiring an exact match) certain properties, or any other methods, including combinations of multiple methods.”; the “system goal” being to find security profiles for new virtual servers);
based on the first distance, implement pre-determined changes in the network computing environment ([0102], particularly, “Referring to FIG. 10B, at block 1016, a security policy associated with the closest matching existing virtual server is deployed to the new virtual server. For example, based on identifying one or more closest matching existing virtual servers at block 1014, a policy configuration microservice 710 may determine a particular security policy associated with the closest matching server(s) (e.g., by looking up the existing virtual server's security policy from the security policy database 712).”);
receive additional data records containing additional data elements recorded within the network computing environment following the implementation of the pre-determined changes ([0104], particularly, “For example, the policy configuration microservice 710 may update the server properties database 716 with information for the new virtual server. The property information, for example, may include the information determined at block 1008 and may include any other additional information known about the new virtual server. By storing the property information for the new virtual server in the server properties database 716, information about the new virtual server can be used to inform security policy selections for subsequently created virtual servers.”);
execute the optimizer program and feed at least some of the additional data elements of one or more of the additional data records to the optimizer program for follow-up comparison against the system goal and calculation of a second distance to the system goal based on the follow-up comparison (Figs. 10A, 10B and [0104], particularly, “For example, the policy configuration microservice 710 may update the server properties database 716 with information for the new virtual server. The property information, for example, may include the information determined at block 1008 and may include any other additional information known about the new virtual server. By storing the property information for the new virtual server in the server properties database 716, information about the new virtual server can be used to inform security policy selections for subsequently created virtual servers.”; the process is iterative, i.e. “subsequently created virtual servers” will use the same process outlined above in [0098]-[00101]);
determine that the second distance is less than the first distance (Figs. 10A, 10B and [0104], particularly, “For example, the policy configuration microservice 710 may update the server properties database 716 with information for the new virtual server. The property information, for example, may include the information determined at block 1008 and may include any other additional information known about the new virtual server. By storing the property information for the new virtual server in the server properties database 716, information about the new virtual server can be used to inform security policy selections for subsequently created virtual servers.”; the process is iterative, i.e. “subsequently created virtual servers” will use the same process outlined above in [0098]-[0101]); and
based on the determination, configure the optimizer program for additional changes to further advance the network computing environment toward the system goal (Figs. 10A, 10B and [0104], particularly, “For example, the policy configuration microservice 710 may update the server properties database 716 with information for the new virtual server. The property information, for example, may include the information determined at block 1008 and may include any other additional information known about the new virtual server. By storing the property information for the new virtual server in the server properties database 716, information about the new virtual server can be used to inform security policy selections for subsequently created virtual servers.”; the process is iterative, i.e. “subsequently created virtual servers” will use the same process outlined above in [0098]-[0101]).
As to claim 11, it is rejected by a similar rationale by that set forth in claim 1’s rejection.
As to claims 2 and 12, Ahuja discloses the pre-determined changes include all or some of the following with respect to one or more entities within the network computing environment: (i) restrictions on, and/or enablement of, behavior and/or capabilities of the one or more entities ([0076], particularly, “For example, each security policy profile may include data specifying one or more security policy configurations, rules, parameters, etc., to be applied to a virtual server. For example, a security policy profile may specify rules relating to accessible networks, application permissions, user permissions, encryption policies, data loss prevention policies, etc.”); and (ii) instructions for the creation or deactivation of, and/or for the performance of one or more activities by, the one or more entities ([0076], particularly, “For example, each security policy profile may include data specifying one or more security policy configurations, rules, parameters, etc., to be applied to a virtual server. For example, a security policy profile may specify rules relating to accessible networks, application permissions, user permissions, encryption policies, data loss prevention policies, etc.”).
As to claims 3 and 13, Ahuja discloses the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to feed the data records to an observer program to generate the at least some data elements fed to the optimizer program ([0093], particularly, “At block 1002, server profile data is generated for a plurality of existing virtual servers, where the server profile data indicates values for a plurality of properties associated with each of the plurality of existing virtual servers. For example, a policy configuration microservice 710 may generate the server profile data for a set of virtual servers running on hypervisors (e.g., hypervisors 720-752).”).
As to claims 6 and 16, Ahuja discloses the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to based on pre-defined data collection requirements of the observer program, instruct at least one resource within the network computing environment to supplement pre-existing data collection practices and to report out or expose corresponding supplemental data relating to one or more of network traffic, endpoint behavior, serverless code execution, logging systems, and authentication systems ([0093], particularly, “At block 1002, server profile data is generated for a plurality of existing virtual servers, where the server profile data indicates values for a plurality of properties associated with each of the plurality of existing virtual servers. For example, a policy configuration microservice 710 may generate the server profile data for a set of virtual servers running on hypervisors (e.g., hypervisors 720-752).”).
As to claims 7 and 17, Ahuja discloses the network computing environment comprises at least one cloud computing account and/or cloud service type ([0132]).
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, 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.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahuja in view of Teshome et al (US Pub. No. 2020/0134394), hereafter, “Teshome.”
As to claims 8 and 18, Ahuja discloses the parent claim but does not disclose the comparison and the follow-up comparison against the system goal are performed using a machine learning system state model of the optimizer program, the machine learning system state model being configured to generate the first and second distances from the system goal. However, Teshome discloses a comparison and a follow-up comparison against a system goal are performed using a machine learning system state model of an optimizer program, the machine learning system state model being configured to generate a first and second distances from the system goal ([0051], particularly, “In an embodiment, the performance mapping system characteristic 304 may determine to which applications or processes certain operational resources may be dedicated in order to optimize performance for the information handling system, as used by the current user. For example, the performance mapping system characteristic 304 may prioritize tasks for various computing components based on which activities the user is engaging in (e.g. as dictated by the behavioral use 302 system characteristic), how much power is expected to be available (e.g. as dictated by the power status 306 system characteristic), which activities are disallowed due to established policies (as dictated by the configuration 310 system characteristic) or due to security considerations (as dictated by the security profile 308 system characteristic).” and [0063], “In various other embodiments, machine learning systems may employ Naïve Bayes predictive modeling analysis of several varieties, learning vector quantization artificial neural network algorithms, or implementation of boosting algorithms such as Adaboost or stochastic gradient boosting systems for iteratively updating weighting to train a machine learning classifier to determine a relationship between an influencing attribute and a system characteristic and/or a degree to which such an influencing attribute affects the outcome of such a system characteristic. Several of these latter algorithms may establish a model with training data for utilization by the sensor fusion prediction based automatic adjustment system.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ahuja and Teshome in order to provide a system using known means so as to produce a more reliable and adaptable system in response to changing inputs.
As to claims 9 and 19, the teachings of Ahuja and Teshome as combined for the same reasons set forth in claims 8 and 18’s rejection further disclose the optimizer program is configured for the additional changes by a machine learning change model of the optimizer program, the machine learning change model being configured to relate differences between the first and second distances to the pre-determined changes implemented in the network computing system (Ahuja, [0101] and Teshome, [0051] and [0063]).
As to claims 10 and 20, the teachings of Ahuja and Teshome as combined for the same reasons set forth in claims 8 and 18’s rejection further disclose discloses the pre-determined changes are automatically discovered within the network computing system and selected by the machine learning change model for implementation within the network computing system (Ahuja, [0101], [0104], and Teshome, [0051] and [0063]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 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 provided the Double Patenting rejections are also alleviated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited on the attached PTO 892 form and their particular relevance, if not cited above, is noted in this application’s parent case history (application 17/551,641, now Pat. 12,069,099) and is elaborated on therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J DAILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached on 571-270-3037. 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.
/THOMAS J DAILEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458