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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15:
Applying the subject matter eligibility test, as outlined in MPEP 2106:
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claims fall within a statutory category. Claims 8-20 are considered “machines” based claims and claims 1-7 are considered “processes”.. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2A, prong one of the subject matter eligibility tests.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception
The claims recite a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea. For example, claims recite receiving results of a vulnerability analysis performed on configuration items (the configuration items represent computing devices deployed within the managed network and software applications installed on the computing devices), obtaining, from the results, one or more severity factors (severity factors indicating respective criticalities of one or more vulnerabilities of the configuration items) and calculating, based on the one or more severity factors, a service-level security threat score. Such processes are akin to methods of organizing human activity, which have been recognized as abstract ideas. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2A, prong two.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements, such as “a managed network“, “computing devices”, “ a networked service” do not impose any meaningful limits of on the abstract idea. The additional steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic network computer performing a generic computer function/service) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2B.
Step 2B: Inventive concept
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a managed network“, “computing devices”, “ a networked service” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is “directed to” an abstract idea.
With respect to dependent claims 2–10 and 12–16, the additional limitations do not change the characterization of the claims as being directed to an abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more, as explained below.
Regarding Claim 2:
Adds the networked service is defined based on one or more relationships mapping each of the software applications to one or more of the computing devices on which the software application is installed. This merely recites iterative refinement of the abstract remediation workflow for the network service, and thus does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 3:
Specifies calculating a software-level security threat score by determining a count of the computing devices on which the particular software application is installed based on the one or more relationships; and calculating the software-level security threat score for the particular vulnerability of the particular software application based on the severity factor associated with the particular vulnerability and the count of computing devices. These are types of information for calculating threat score that does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 4:
Specifies that the service-level security threat score is calculated based on an algorithm using software-level security threat scores of the one or more vulnerabilities of the configuration items. This further characterizes the information involved but remains within calculating security threat scores, an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 5:
Specifies that a particular configuration item of the configuration items has a first vulnerability on a first type of software application and a second vulnerability on a second type of software application. Further define the particular configuration item does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 6:
Recites calculating a configuration item-level security threat score for the particular configuration item based on the first vulnerability and the second vulnerability. This does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 7:
Adds an additional vulnerability of the particular configuration item of the configuration item does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20 are similar to claims 2-7 and therefore are rejected for the same rational as claims 2-7.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory Obviousness-Type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent No. 12,067,127. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the claims of the instant application is fully disclosed and covered by the Patent No. 12,067,127.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,067,127 (hereinafter “PAT127”) in view of
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19, Claims of PAT127 does not explicitly teach but Murthy discloses wherein a particular configuration item of the configuration items has a first vulnerability on a first type of software application and a second vulnerability on a second type of software application (Murthy - [0026]: The vulnerability assessment service 113 can be executed to perform various functions. For example, the vulnerability assessment service 113 can collect information from various vulnerability feeds 104 regarding particular vulnerabilities, as well as generate and store standardized vulnerability records 129 that synthesize this information. [0033]: The vulnerability feed 104 can represent a computing device or hosted service that is accessible via the network 106).
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 PAT127 with Murthy so that the vulnerabilities of a computer device are assessed. The modification would have allowed the system to determine vulnerabilities of related computer device.
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,067,127 (hereinafter “PAT127”) in view of
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20, Claims of PAT127 does not explicitly teach but Chen discloses comprising calculating a configuration item-level security threat score for the particular configuration item based on the first vulnerability and the second vulnerability (Cheng - [0047]: A risk reputation of an application can include a level or levels of vulnerability an application introduced in one or plurality of networks based on past operation of IoT devices in using the application to access network services through the one or plurality of networks).
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 PAT127 with Murthy so that the application risk score includes different levels vulnerability. The modification would have allowed the system to be assessed based on the calculated score.
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Claims of PAT127 does not explicitly teach but Chen discloses wherein the particular configuration item of the configuration items has an additional vulnerability in an operating system associated with the particular configuration item (Cheng - [0045]: the IoT device risk assessment system 106 functions to determine risk levels of IoT devices according to IoT device risk factors related to device characteristics of the IoT device. Device characteristics of an IoT device include applicable characteristics of an IoT device itself. For example, device characteristics of an IoT device include a device type of an IoT device, applications, operating systems, and firmware used by an IoT device, a version of applications, operating systems).
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 PAT127 with Murthy so that device characteristics includes an operating system. The modification would have allowed the system to enhance OS security.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 13-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory Obviousness-Type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent No. 11,423,155. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the claims of the instant application is fully disclosed and covered by the Patent No. 11,423,155.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,423,155 (hereinafter “PAT155”) in view of
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 18, Claims of PAT155 does not explicitly teach but Murthy discloses wherein the service-level security threat score is calculated based on an algorithm using software-level security threat scores of the one or more vulnerabilities of the configuration items (Murthy - [0047]: calculate an enterprise-specific version of the vulnerability severity score 156. An enterprise-specific severity score can be calculated in any number of ways using a variety of factors. As a simple illustrative example, the vulnerability assessment service 113 can multiply the number of vulnerable client devices 103 by the vulnerability severity score 156 to generate an enterprise-specific severity score that represents the impact of a vulnerability on an enterprise).
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 PAT155 with Murthy so that service level vulnerability score is calculated based on the vulnerability severity score. The modification would have allowed the system to obtain service level thread score for enhancing security.
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19, Claims of PAT155 does not explicitly teach but Murthy discloses wherein a particular configuration item of the configuration items has a first vulnerability on a first type of software application and a second vulnerability on a second type of software application (Murthy - [0026]: The vulnerability assessment service 113 can be executed to perform various functions. For example, the vulnerability assessment service 113 can collect information from various vulnerability feeds 104 regarding particular vulnerabilities, as well as generate and store standardized vulnerability records 129 that synthesize this information. [0033]: The vulnerability feed 104 can represent a computing device or hosted service that is accessible via the network 106).
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 PAT155 with Murthy so that the vulnerabilities of a computer device are assessed. The modification would have allowed the system to determine vulnerabilities of related computer device.
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,423,155 (hereinafter “PAT155”) in view of
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20, Claims of PAT155 does not explicitly teach but Chen discloses comprising calculating a configuration item-level security threat score for the particular configuration item based on the first vulnerability and the second vulnerability (Cheng - [0047]: A risk reputation of an application can include a level or levels of vulnerability an application introduced in one or plurality of networks based on past operation of IoT devices in using the application to access network services through the one or plurality of networks).
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 PAT155 with Murthy so that the application risk score includes different levels vulnerability. The modification would have allowed the system to be assessed based on the calculated score.
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Claims of PAT155 does not explicitly teach but Chen discloses wherein the particular configuration item of the configuration items has an additional vulnerability in an operating system associated with the particular configuration item (Cheng - [0045]: the IoT device risk assessment system 106 functions to determine risk levels of IoT devices according to IoT device risk factors related to device characteristics of the IoT device. Device characteristics of an IoT device include applicable characteristics of an IoT device itself. For example, device characteristics of an IoT device include a device type of an IoT device, applications, operating systems, and firmware used by an IoT device, a version of applications, operating systems).
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 PAT155 with Murthy so that device characteristics includes an operating system. The modification would have allowed the system to enhance OS security.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murthy et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0228560, hereinafter Murthy) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2018/0144139, hereinafter Cheng).
Regarding claim 1: Murthy discloses A method comprising:
wherein the configuration items represent computing devices deployed within the managed network (Murthy - [0012]: the computing environment 101 may include a plurality of computing devices that together may include a hosted computing resource, a grid computing resource or any other distributed computing arrangement), and software applications installed on the computing devices (Murthy - [0015]: The device record 126 can represent information about individual client devices 103 registered with or known to the management service 109. A device record 126 can be created by the management service 109 upon enrollment or registration by a respective client device 103. Accordingly, a device record 126 can include a device identifier 146, a device status 149, and application information 153), wherein the configuration items are used by the managed network to provide a networked service (Murthy - [0012]: The computing environment 101 can include, for example, a server computer or any other system providing computing capability. Alternatively, the computing environment 101 can employ a plurality of computing devices that may be arranged. [0013]: Various applications or other functionality can be executed in the computing environment 101);
obtaining, from the results, one or more severity factors indicating respective criticalities of one or more vulnerabilities of the configuration items (Murthy - [0041]: The enterprise-specific severity score may be based at least in part on the vulnerability severity score 156 and the number of client devices 103 that are impacted. See also [0047]); and
calculating, based on the one or more severity factors, a service-level security threat score for the networked service provided by the managed network via the configuration items (Murthy - [0041]: The enterprise-specific severity score may be based at least in part on the vulnerability severity score 156 and the number of client devices 103 that are impacted. See also [0047]).
However, Murthy doesn’t explicitly teach, but Chen discloses receiving results of a vulnerability analysis performed on configuration items discovered in a managed network (Cheng - [0107]: The IoT device probing engine 504 functions to probe an IoT device for purposes of determining vulnerability of the IoT device. Results of probing of an IoT device by the IoT device probing engine 504 can be used to determine a risk level of the IoT device),
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 Murthy with Chen so so that vulnerability result is determined. The modification would have allowed the system to enhance security.
Regarding claim 2: Murthy as modified discloses wherein the networked service is defined based on one or more relationships mapping each of the software applications to one or more of the computing devices on which the software application is installed (Murthy - [0018]: the application information 153 stored in the device record 126 can represent information about different client applications installed on the client device 103. The application information 153 could include the names of applications installed on the client device 103, the versions of applications installed on the client device 103, any features of a client application on the client device 103 that are enabled or disabled, or other data).
Regarding claim 3: Murthy as modified discloses comprising calculating a software-level security threat score for a particular vulnerability of the one or more vulnerabilities of a particular software application of the software applications by:
determining a count of the computing devices on which the particular software application is installed based on the one or more relationships (Murthy - [0061]: For each vulnerability, the number of client devices 103 impacted is also listed); and
calculating the software-level security threat score for the particular vulnerability of the particular software application based on the severity factor associated with the particular vulnerability and the count of computing devices (Murthy - [0041]: The enterprise-specific severity score may be based at least in part on the vulnerability severity score 156 and the number of client devices 103 that are impacted. See also [0047]).
Regarding claim 4: Murthy as modified discloses wherein the service-level security threat score is calculated based on an algorithm using software-level security threat scores of the one or more vulnerabilities of the configuration items (Murthy - [0047]: calculate an enterprise-specific version of the vulnerability severity score 156. An enterprise-specific severity score can be calculated in any number of ways using a variety of factors. As a simple illustrative example, the vulnerability assessment service 113 can multiply the number of vulnerable client devices 103 by the vulnerability severity score 156 to generate an enterprise-specific severity score that represents the impact of a vulnerability on an enterprise).
Regarding claim 5: Murthy as modified discloses wherein a particular configuration item of the configuration items has a first vulnerability on a first type of software application and a second vulnerability on a second type of software application (Murthy - [0026]: The vulnerability assessment service 113 can be executed to perform various functions. For example, the vulnerability assessment service 1133 can collect information from various vulnerability feeds 104 regarding particular vulnerabilities, as well as generate and store standardized vulnerability records 129 that synthesize this information).
Regarding claim 6: Murthy as modified discloses comprising calculating a configuration item-level security threat score for the particular configuration item based on the first vulnerability and the second vulnerability (Cheng - [0047]: A risk reputation of an application can include a level or levels of vulnerability an application introduced in one or plurality of networks based on past operation of IoT devices in using the application to access network services through the one or plurality of networks).
The reason to combine is the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7: Murthy as modified discloses wherein the particular configuration item of the configuration items has an additional vulnerability in an operating system associated with the particular configuration item (Cheng - [0045]: the IoT device risk assessment system 106 functions to determine risk levels of IoT devices according to IoT device risk factors related to device characteristics of the IoT device. Device characteristics of an IoT device include applicable characteristics of an IoT device itself. For example, device characteristics of an IoT device include a device type of an IoT device, applications, operating systems, and firmware used by an IoT device, a version of applications, operating systems)
The reason to combine is in the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding claims 8-14: Claims are directed to system claims and do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 1-7. Therefore, claims 8-14 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 1-7. Furthermore, Murphy in para. [0029] and [0079] discloses processor and memory.
Regarding claims 15-20: Claims are directed to computer readable medium claims and do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 1-6. Therefore, claims 15-20 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 1-6. Furthermore, Murphy in para. [0025] discloses a machine-readable medium 102 on which is stored a set of instructions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DiCorpo et al. (Patent No.: US 10,158,677) - Automated mitigation of electronic message based security threats
Grieco et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0232358) - Information Technology Vulnerability Assessment
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