DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on 07/14/2026 has been entered.
Priority/Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of United Kingdom Application GB2311959.7 filed on Aug. 04, 2023 has been received on 09/16/2024.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 9-10 are amended.
Claim 13 is cancelled.
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are pending of which claims 1 and 10 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments filed on 06/15/2026 regarding claims 1-18 have been fully considered but the arguments are essentially directed towards the newly introduced limitations, and they are addressed in this Office Action, below.
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.
Claims 1, 9-10, 12, 14 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Truskovsky et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0337937, hereinafter Truskovsky).
Regarding claim 1: Truskovsky teaches: A method of threat detection in a computer or computer network, the method comprising:
determining that an application is starting at the computer; monitoring the application for a predetermined duration after a start of the application is determined in order to recognize malicious activity by the application (Truskovsky - [0089]: At 520, access to credentials of the credential store (e.g. to passwords in key store 420 of keyring 410) by one or more applications within the period of time associated with the first setting T is monitored), the monitoring the application comprises monitoring the application for accessing a predefined storage area of the computer, the predefined storage area comprising at least one of documents and data of a user of the computer, password data, key storage data, computer registry data, windows registry data, registry data containing one or more of password information and token information (Truskovsky - [0091]: Various credentials of different types, including usernames, passwords, cryptographic (e.g. encryption) keys, access codes, digital certificates, and/or other secure data items may be stored in the credential store. The credentials to which access is monitored at 520 may include one type of credentials, all types of credentials, or some combination of the above. For example, in one embodiment, only access to passwords stored in the credential store by the one or more applications are monitored. In another embodiment, access to both usernames and passwords stored in the credential store are monitored); and
one or more of: (i) denying access to the predefined storage area of the computer for the monitored application and (ii) denying or throttling network access of the monitored application, in a case in which access to the predefined storage area of the computer is determined during the monitoring (Truskovsky – [0102]: if the number of credentials of the credential store that has been accessed within the period associated with the first setting T is determined to exceed the threshold associated with the second setting K, then in one embodiment, the flow of method 500 proceeds to 540. At 540, a user is notified of potential unauthorized access to the credential store. [0107]: access to one or more credentials of the credential store by the potentially compromised application(s) may be restricted in response to determining that the number of credentials accessed by the application(s) within the period associated with the first setting T exceeds a threshold associated with the second setting K).
Regarding claim 9: Truskovsky discloses wherein the predefined storage area comprises at least one of: a memory state of the application, a memory state of a password manager and a memory state of an encryption services (Truskovsky - [0089]: At 520, access to credentials of the credential store (e.g. to passwords in key store 420 of keyring 410) by one or more applications within the period of time associated with the first setting T is monitored. In one embodiment, an identity of each credential that is accessed within the period is recorded in memory (e.g. flash memory 104) so that these credentials may be later identified if it is determined that the access within this period of time was unauthorized).
Regarding claim 10: this claim defines an arrangement for threat detection in a computer or computer network claim that corresponds to method 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: this claim defines a computer program and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14: Truskovsky teaches: wherein the predefined storage area of the computer is a security sensitive area of the computer (Truskovsky - [0055]: detecting unauthorized access to credentials in a credential store (e.g. key store 420) by applications (e.g. 400)).
Regarding claim 18: Truskovsky teaches: wherein the application is monitored to determine whether the application is accessing the predefined storage area of the computer (Truskovsky - [0089]: access to credentials of the credential store (e.g. to passwords in key store 420 of keyring 410) by one or more applications within the period of time associated with the first setting T is monitored).
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 2, 6-7, 11 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truskovsky et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0337937, hereinafter Truskovsky). in view of RIVERA et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0007315, hereinafter RIVERA).
Regarding claim 2: Truskovsky doesn’t explicitly teach but RIVERA teaches: wherein, when no malicious activity is recognized to be carried out by the monitored application during the predefined duration, one or more of: (i) stopping monitoring and allowing access to the predefined storage area (ii) allowing network access of the monitored application, and (iii) stopping the throttling of the network access (RIVERA - [0065]: Based on the reputation, the client may execute the application by permitting the application access to all available resources when the reputation is good or safe).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Truskovsky with RIVERA so that access to resources is allowed if the reputation is good. The modification would have allowed the system to improve security.
Regarding claim 6: Truskovsky doesn’t explicitly teach but RIVERA discloses: wherein the application is monitored by tracking events created by the application, such as created or changed files, accesses to registry, changes done to registry, created processes, created child processes, injection of processes in other processes, and/or by analyzing captured events to be malicious, e.g. by recognizing known patterns of file encryption, preventing malware detection by the application (RIVERA - [0046]: system and application monitoring module 320 may monitor a client for unauthorized system directory access or modifications, unauthorized writing to an operating system, termination of security applications such as anti-virus applications, and malicious network activity).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Truskovsky with RIVERA so that unauthorized write to the system is monitored. The modification would have allowed the system to improve security.
Regarding claim 7: Truskovsky doesn’t explicitly teach but RIVERA discloses: wherein, when malicious activity by the application is determined when the application is running and/or if the application is accessing the predefined storage area, stopping the application, removing the application and/or reverting changes made to the computer based on the backup of the computer, the backup being prepared when the application was starting (RIVERA - [0067]: the client may terminate an application if a particular known malicious behavior is detected).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Truskovsky with RIVERA so that an application is terminated when malicious behavior is detected. The modification would have allowed the system to improve security.
Regarding claim 11: this claim does not define beyond limitations of claims 1 and 2. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 16: Truskovsky doesn’t explicitly teach but RIVERA discloses: wherein the tracked events created by the application include created or changed files, accesses to registry, changes done to registry, created processes, created child processes, and an injection of processes in other processes (RIVERA - [0046]: system and application monitoring module 320 may monitor a client for unauthorized system directory access or modifications).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Truskovsky with RIVERA so that unauthorized system directory access or modifications is mornitored. The modification would have allowed the system to improve security.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truskovsky et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0337937, hereinafter Truskovsky). in view of RIVERA et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0007315, hereinafter RIVERA) and Chen et al. (Patent No.: US 8,413,235, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 3: Truskovsky doesn’t explicitly teach but RIVERA discloses: wherein, based on the determined starting of the application, intercepting the application start, identifying the application, checking a reputation rating of the application (RIVERA - [0065]: The initial reputation may indicate whether the application is trusted and safe, potentially suspicious, suspicious, malicious, or any other classification … Based on the reputation, the client may execute the application).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Truskovsky with RIVERA so that an application reputation is checked before starting. The modification would have allowed the system to be more secure.
However, the combination of Truskovsky and RIVERA doesn’t explicitly teach, but Chen discloses when the reputation rating of the application is unrated or unknown, allowing the application to start and starting monitoring of the application (Chen - [Col. 3, Line 18-24]: The security module 112 can monitor for creations of only certain types of files. In one embodiment, the security module 112 specifically monitors for creations of executable files, such as files in the portable executable (PE) format having the ".EXE" file extension. [Col. 3, Line 47-50]: the file categorization module 132 observes typical behaviors of files and categorizes the files based on their behaviors. For example, the security server 130 can categorize a previously unknown file as an "expected executable file creator" or as an "executable file creator of interest").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Truskovsky and RIVERA with Chen so that typical behavior files such as previous unknown files are observed or monitored. The modification would have allowed the system to improve security.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truskovsky et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0337937, hereinafter Truskovsky) in view of RIVERA et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0007315, hereinafter RIVERA) and Gu et al. (US 11216559, hereinafter Gu).
Regarding claim 4: Truskovsky doesn’t explicitly teach but RIVERA discloses: wherein, based on the determined starting of the application, intercepting the application start, identifying the application, checking a reputation rating of the application (RIVERA - [0065]: The initial reputation may indicate whether the application is trusted and safe, potentially suspicious, suspicious, malicious, or any other classification … Based on the reputation, the client may execute the application).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Truskovsky with RIVERA so that an application reputation is checked before starting. The modification would have allowed the system to be more secure.
However, Truskovsky as modified doesn’t explicitly teach, but Gu discloses when the reputation rating of the application is unrated or unknown, creating a backup of the computer (Gu - [Col. 6, Line 50-54]: FIG. 3, at step 306, one or more of the systems described herein may save, in response to determining that the reputation of the process is unknown, a backup copy of the file targeted by the process on a remote storage device prior to allowing the process to modify).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Truskovsky and RIVERA with Gu so that a backup copy of files are saved if the reputation rating is unknown. The modification would have allowed the system to be protected.
Regarding claim 5: Truskovsky as modified teaches: wherein checking the reputation rating of the application comprises receiving application reputation information from a database based on one or more of: (i) identification and (ii) signatures of the application (RIVERA - [0045]: the reputation module 310 may assign a reputation to each application or process being executed on each client within the network based on a plurality of factors. For example, the reputation module 310 may assign a reputation to an application based on the developer of the application, a reputation of a previous version of the application, characteristics or behavior of the application upon installation or at a later time, a whitelist, or any other factor).
The reason to combine is in the same rational as claim 4.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truskovsky et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0337937, hereinafter Truskovsky) in view of Campbell et al. (Pub. No.: US 2010/0205421, hereinafter Campbell).
Regarding claim 8: Truskovsky doesn’t explicitly teach, but Campbell discloses wherein the backup comprises at least one of the following: current system settings, application settings, security settings, DNS-settings, scheduled tasks, and settings related to backups or shadow copy of the computer (Campbell - [0024]: a computer system might be configured to operate on a company or group intranet and a snapshot can contain a configuration setting for use of and access to the company or group system. A snapshot with these settings can be placed in a password protected group so that unauthorized personnel cannot boot and use these settings).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Truskovsky with Campbell so that a backup can contain a configuration setting for use of and access to the company or group system. The modification would have allowed the system to be more secure.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truskovsky et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0337937, hereinafter Truskovsky) in view of Satish et al. (Patent No.: US 8,499,063, hereinafter Satish).
Regarding claim 15: Truskovsky doesn’t explicitly teach, but Satish discloses wherein the database is a backend system reputation database (Satish - [Col 9, Line 21-23]: The reputation score database 401 stores reputation scores in association with a unique identifier for the software application (e.g. a hash of the software application)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Truskovsky with Satish so that database is a reputation database. The modification would have allowed the system to be evaluated based on the reputation of an application.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truskovsky et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0337937, hereinafter Truskovsky) in view of RIVERA et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0007315, hereinafter RIVERA) and Merchan et al. (US 2024/0330459, hereinafter Merchan).
Regarding claim 17: Truskovsky as modified discloses: wherein the analyzing the captured events to be malicious comprises … preventing malware detection by the application (RIVERA - [0046]: system and application monitoring module 320 may monitor a client for … termination of security applications such as anti-virus applications).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Truskovsky with RIVERA so that malicious application is terminated for further use. The modification would have allowed the system to improve security.
However, Truskovsky as modified doesn’t explicitly teach, but Merchan discloses wherein the analyzing the captured events to be malicious comprises recognizing known patterns of file encryption (Merchan - [0022]: The malware detection system may monitor the system during normal operations of the system and may detect signatures of the encryption of known files).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Truskovsky and RIVERA with Merchan so that signature of encryption of known files are monitored. The modification would have allowed the system to improve security.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. US 20190114079 - Apparatus for managing disaggregated memory and method thereof
Turbin et al. US 20220327207 - Arrangement and method of threat detection in a computer or computer network
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-8729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/MENG LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights