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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed 4/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicants and their attorneys or agents are required to conduct their business with the United States Patent and Trademark Office with decorum and courtesy as per 37 C.F.R. 1.3 and MPEP 714.25.
Applicant argues the prior art references Jeuk and Bettini are incompatible because “they analyze different things, which require different technique of analysis”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the aspects upon which applicant’s arguments are dependent upon (e.g. analyzing different things; employing different analytical techniques) are not dispositive with regards to determining the propriety of prior art combinations.
Additionally, with respect to this argument and applicant’s further arguments towards the combination of references present in the office action, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s argument that Bettini fails to teach detecting a plurality of software-based functions based on a result of static analysis of a plurality of resource entities is not persuasive. Bettini discloses these features in at least col. 12:30-50 which describe the static inspection of code of an application to determine the functionality of the software.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230069334 to Reznik in view of US 20230032585 to Jeuk in view of US 8819772 to Bettini.
Regarding claim 1, Reznik teaches a method for optimizing resource deployment in a cloud computing environment based on a cybersecurity inspection, comprising:
detecting a plurality of entities deployed in a cloud computing environment including a resource entity and a principal entity, wherein the principal entity is authorized to act on the resource entity (¶ 26-27, 36, 58, detection of resource and principal entities in cloud environment);
generating a representation of the cloud computing environment in a security database, wherein the representation includes a representation of the resource entity and of the principal entity (abstract, ¶ 9-10, 44, generation of representation of environment including resource and principal entities, fig. 1, fig. 7);
Reznik fails to teach, but Jeuk teaches:
associating each resource entity of the plurality of resource entities with a detected software-based function in the cloud computing environment (¶ 13-14, associating components with functions of cloud bases system; see 16-18, 22; ¶ 28, 34-38; 49-51);
determining a resource utilization based on the software-based function and the generated representation (¶ 15-16, 20, 24-29, 35-37, 49, 51, 59, determined utilization constraints applied to cloud components; resource utilization data);
generating an instruction to deploy a second cloud computing environment based on the software-based function and further based on minimizing the determined resource utilization (¶ 13-18, second topology deployment according to resource constraints and evaluation metrics; see ¶ 20-29, 35-37, 49-51, 54, and 63; ¶ 51 constraint-based optimization of deployment based on minimum amount of storage and/or computing resources; ¶ 44 deployment based on minimizing latency); and
deploying the second cloud computing environment (¶ 13-18, 74-75, optimization and deployment of second cloud topology; see also ¶ 20-29, 35-37, 49-51, 54, 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Jeuk. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Jeuk would have been advantageous in terms of improving optimization and efficiency in deployment environments (Jeuk, ¶ 13-18).
Reznik fails to teach but Bettini teaches:
detecting a plurality of software-based functions based on a result of static analysis of a plurality of resource entities of the plurality of entities (col. 12:30-50, static analysis to determine functions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Bettini. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Bettini would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating anti-malware analysis (Bettini, abstract, col. 7:5-60, col. 12:30-50).
Regarding claim 2, 12,
Reznik fails to teach but Bettini teaches:
inspecting an entity of the plurality of entities for a code object; performing static analysis on the code object; and determining the software-based function of the entity based on a result of the static analysis (col. 12:30-50, static analysis of code object to determine functions). Motivation to include Bettini is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 4, 14,
Reznik fails to teach but Bettini teaches:
inspecting a code object of the cloud computing environment, wherein the code object is utilized in deploying an entity in the cloud computing environment; and determining the software-based function based on a result of inspecting the code (col. 12:30-50, static analysis of code object to determine functions; col. 5:30-60, fig. 1, col. 7:1-30, cloud environment). Motivation to include Bettini is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 5, 15,
Reznik teaches:
wherein the code object is detected in any one of: an infrastructure as code (IaC) environment, a CLI environment, a CI/CD environment, a code repository, a version control system, and any combination thereof (¶ 2, 5, 9, 11, 64).
Regarding claim 6, 16,
Reznik fails to teach but Jeuk teaches:
determining that a first entity deployed in the cloud computing environment is not deployable based on the generated instruction; and deprovisioning the first entity in the cloud computing environment (¶ 17, 29, 44-45, 59, fig. 6, ¶ 70-75, entity not deployable, change of structure (deprovisioning) and update of topology based on analysis). Motivation to include Jeuk is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 7, 17,
Reznik fails to teach but Jeuk teaches:
deprovisioning an entity in the cloud computing environment while simultaneously provisioning another entity in the second cloud computing environment (¶ 17, 29, 44-45, 59, fig. 6, ¶ 70-75, entity not deployable, change of structure (deprovisioning) and update of topology based on analysis; update/exchange of entity). Motivation to include Jeuk is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 8, 18,
Reznik fails to teach but Jeuk teaches:
deploying the second cloud computing environment in place of the cloud computing environment (¶ 16-17, first environment updated to second environment). Motivation to include Jeuk is the same as presented above.
Claims 10-11 are addressed by similar rationale as claim 1
Regarding claim21,
Reznik teaches:
querying the security database to detect an inspection group, the inspection group including representations of a group of resources, each resource being an entity of the plurality of entities (¶ 35-39, 44, 55-58; see also ¶ 26-27);
Reznik fails to teach but Bettini teaches:
selecting an identifier of a first resource of the group of resources (col. 11:30-44, selecting identifier); detecting a first software-based function based on a result of static analysis only of the first resource; and associating each resource of the group of resources with the first software-based function (col. 12:31-65, detection and association of function to resources). Motivation to include Bettini is the same as presented above.
Claim(s) 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik, Jeuk, and Bettini in view of US 20150067850 to Baikalov in view of 20200204470 to Movsisyan.
Regarding claim 3, 13,
Reznik fails to teach:
deploying a sensor on an entity of the plurality of entities; detecting events from the deployed sensor, each event occurring on a data link layer of the entity on which the sensor is deployed
However, Baikalov teaches:
deploying a sensor on an entity of a plurality of entities; detecting events from the deployed sensor, each event occurring on a data link layer of the entity on which the sensor is deployed (¶ 37, data link layer sensors deployed to detect events).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Baikalov. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Baikalov would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating monitoring of network traffic and the detection of network attacks (Baikalov, ¶ 37).
Reznik fails to teach: determining the software-based function of the entity based on the detected events. However, Movsisyan discloses determining the software-based function of an entity based on the detected events(¶ 38-44, determining function of entity based on events).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Movsisyan. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Movsisyan would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating the identification and detection of network node roles (Movsisyan, abstract, ¶ 38-44).
Claim(s) 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik, Jeuk, and Bettini in view of US 20230401045 to Bawcom.
Regarding claim 9, 19,
Reznik fails to teach but Bawcom teaches:
deploying the second cloud computing environment in a test environment (¶ 90); and
replacing the cloud computing environment with the second cloud computing environment in response to determining that the second cloud computing environment provides a same functionality as the cloud computing environment (¶ 90-96, deploying tested environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Bawcom. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Bawcom would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating the improvement, development, and testing of cloud-based software applications (Bawcom¸ ¶ 90).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik, Jeuk, and Bettini in view of US 20170111384 to Loureiro.
Regarding claim 20,
Reznik fails to teach but Loureiro teaches:
generating an inspectable disk based on an original disk of a first resource entity of the plurality of resources entities; and statically analyzing the inspectable disk to detect a software-based function of the first resource (¶ 22, 35, function analysis of cloned disk).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Loureiro. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Loureiro would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating vulnerability analysis (Loureiro, abstract, ¶ 22, 35).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights