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 filed 08/25/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest: “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” because the prior art to Reznik fails to disclose detecting the principal entity is authorized to act on the detected resource entity (Remarks, pg. 2-3).
Reznik discloses the detection step in at least ¶ 26-27, 36, and 58. Reznik discloses the features of the wherein clause as the paragraphs describe the detected principal entities acting on resource entities (Reznik, ¶ 26-27, 26, 58, principal entities acting on resources).
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest “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” (Remarks, pg. 3-4). However, Bettini discloses the features in at least col. 12:30-50 which describes the detection of software functions based on the static analysis of resource entities.
Applicant argues Bettini fails to disclose the features because Bettini is not performing the static analysis on the resource entities of Reznik (Remarks, pg. 4). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this regard as 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 argues Bettini fails to teach “statically analyzing a plurality of cloud resource entities that include, for example, VMs, containers, serverless functions, gateways, storage resources, or databases” (Remarks, pg. 4). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest: “associating each resource entity of the plurality of resource entities with a detected software-based function in the cloud computing environment” (Remarks, pg. 4). However, the prior art to Jeuk discloses the features in at least ¶ 13-14, which describe associating component resources entities with specific software-based functions of cloud-based systems (see also ¶ 16-18, 22; ¶ 28, 34-38; 49-51).
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest: “determining a resource utilization based on the software-based function and the generated representation” (Remarks, pg. 5). However, based on a generated representation, Jeuk discloses determining resource utilization (Jeuk , ¶ 15-16, 20, 24-29, 35-37, 49, 51, 59, determined utilization) where the determined utilization is based on the software-based functions and the generated representation (Jeuk, ¶ 15-16, 20, 24-29, 35-37, 49, 51, 59). The nodes of Jeuk have various software-based functions in the cloud environment (Jeuk ¶ 20: "a number of different resources (or nodes) are individually designed and/or configured to perform particular functionality"; "The various nodes within a network topology may include, for example, nodes that are specialized and dedicated as network nodes, computing nodes, storage nodes, operating systems, software applications and services, and/or virtual computing machines or instances, etc. Different types and configurations of nodes may include specialized hardware and/or software components to perform the node functionality. Network nodes, for example, may include computing devices such as routers, servers, switches, load balancers, wireless access points, etc., running various software versions and/or having other attributes. Storage nodes may include various types of dedicated storage systems, compute nodes may include physical servers or other dedicated processing devices, and so on"; see also ¶ 24, 27). Applicant's argument that Jeuk fails to determine resource utilization based on the respective software functions and generated representation are not persuasive as Jeuk discloses determining resource utilization based on the nodes respective software functions and generated representation of the network (¶ 29, Jeuk, determination of performance of system, performance data compared with performance constraints, computing resource requirements etc.; see also I 35-37, 49, 51, 59, resource utilization data).
Applicant argues Jeuk fails to teach determining utilization based on a function discovered through statis analysis (Remarks, pg. 6). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the prior art to Jeuk is not relied upon to disclose the contested features, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Jeuk does not disclose determining utilization based on security graphs (Remarks, pg. 6). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. security graphs) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues Jeuk does not disclose a security-database representation (Remarks, pg. 6). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. security-database representations) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues Jeuk does not disclose minimizing the determined resource utilization (Remarks, pg. 6). Applicant’s claim is directed to “generating an instruction to deploy a second cloud computing environment” which is “based on minimizing the determined resource utilization”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Jeuk discloses the instruction generation where the instruction generation is “based on minimizing the determined resource utilization” such as minimizing the amount of storage and/or computing resources through constraint-based optimization of deployment based on minimizing the amount of storage and/or computing resources (see at least ¶ 51 of Jeuk; see also ¶ 13-18, 20-29, 35-37, 49-50, 63).
Applicant argues Jeuk fails to disclose consistently minimizing utilization (Remarks, pg. 6). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. “consistently minimizing utilization”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues Jeuk fails to disclose a generated representation, e.g. of the cloud environment (Remarks, pg. 7). However, Jeuk discloses these features where a modeling, mapping or graphing of the environment is described and utilized in a constraint-based optimization deployment (Jeuk, ¶ 15-16, 20, 24-29, 35-37, 49, 51, 59, 63). Jeuk discloses generating a network model corresponding to the cloud computing environment and its associated entities, including the resource and principal entities as described above (¶ 3, 13-14, 21-24, generation of network model representing deployed elements of cloud computing environment; see ¶ 49-54, model generation component; ¶ 28-29, 51, 54-62, recomputing model after initial deployment based on performance levels in order to implement optimization, to improve resource usage, costs, and/or to comply with service level agreements).
Applicant argues Jeuk fails to disclose generating an instruction based security-database representations (Remarks, pg. 7). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. generating an instruction based security-database representations) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues Jeuk fails to disclose deploying a second cloud computing environment (Remarks, pg. 7). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as Jeuk discloses monitoring an initial deployment and initiating a further second deployment according to the monitored performance the network, the network entities, and the performance level of the network and/or network entities (see Jeuk at ¶ 13-18, 20-29, 35-37, 49-51, 54, and 63; ¶ 44, 51 constraint-based optimization of deployment).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (Remarks, pg. 8-9), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest “deploying a sensor on an entity of a plurality of entities” (Remarks, pg. 10). However, the prior art to Baikalov discloses deploying a sensor on an entity of a plurality of entities in at least ¶ 37 describing deployed data link layer sensors.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest “detecting events from the deployed sensor, each event occurring on a data link layer of the entity on which the sensor is deployed” (Remarks, pg. 10). However, applicant’s arguments cannot be held persuasive in this regard as the prior art to Baikalov discloses the detection of events via data link sensors in ¶ 37.
Applicant argues the prior art to Movsisyan fails to teach determining software-based functions from data-link-layer events (Remarks, pg. 11). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues the prior art fails to disclose deploying a second cloud computing environment in a test environment (Remarks, pg. 13-14). However, the prior art to Bawcom discloses deploying a second cloud computing environment in a test environment in at least ¶ 90-96 describing deploying tested cloud environments for cloud computing architectures. Bawcom discloses the deployment in ¶ 90 describing a "deployment method" in a "testing environment for cloud-based software applications".
Applicant argues the prior art fails to disclose 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 (Remarks, pg. 15). However, Bawcom discloses the deployment providing a "same functionality as the cloud computing environment" in at least ¶ 90-96, where Bawcom discloses deploying second cloud- based environment and replacement versions of the second cloud-based environments which correspond functionally to another cloud computing environment.
Applicant argues Bawcom fails to “test an optimized environment, compare the functionality of the replacement environment with the original environment, or condition replacement of the original on the result of that comparison”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. test an optimized environment, compare the functionality of the replacement environment with the original environment, or condition replacement of the original on the result of that comparison) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the motivation to include the teachings of Bawcom does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because of the reasoned motivation statement given on pg. 9 of the office action of 5/26/2026, namely 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).
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest 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 (Remarks, pg. 17). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the prior art to Loureiro discloses the features in at least ¶ 22 and 35. For example. Loureiro discloses generating an inspectable disk of a first resource entity, such as a cloned disk of a production server or virtual production server. The cloned disk is an example of “an inspectable disk based on an original disk…”. Loureiro discloses analyzing the cloned disk to detect software-based functions of the resource such as malware functions, security policy functions, and software functions.
Applicant’s argue that Louriero’s analysis is not a form of “statically analyzing” the disk (Remarks, pg. 17-18). However, applicant’s argument’s are not persuasive as Louriero’s cloned disk is placed in an isolated environment and analyzed, e.g. analysis of log files (Louriero ¶ 45).
Applicant argues the motivation to include the teachings of Louriero does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because of the reasoned motivation statement given on pg. 10 of the office action of 5/26/2026, namely that the teachings of Louriero would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating vulnerability analysis (Louriero, abstract, ¶ 22, 35).
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:
associating each resource entity of the plurality of resource entities with a detected software-based function in the cloud computing environment;
determining a resource utilization based on the software-based function and the generated representation;
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; and
deploying the second cloud computing environment.
However, Jeuk teaches:
associating each resource entity of a plurality of resource entities with a detected software-based function in a cloud computing environment (¶ 13-14, associating components with functions of cloud based system; see 16-18, 22; ¶ 28, 34-38; 49-51);
determining a resource utilization based on a software-based function and a 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:
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).
However, Bawcom teaches:
deploying a 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:
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).
However, Loureiro teaches:
generating an inspectable disk based on an original disk of a first resource entity of a 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
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 extension fee 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 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