DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application # 18/798,283 filed on August 08, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are directed toward a METHOD FOR VERIFYING SECURITY TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT EFFICACY ACROSS A COMPUTER NETWORK.
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.
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, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 2018/0139227, Pub. Date: May 17, 2018), hereinafter referred to as Martin.
As per claim 1, Martin teaches a method comprising:
accessing a set of device containers for a set of sources comprising a first source and a second source (As shown in FIG. 1, a method S100 for predicting security risks of assets on a computer network includes: over a first period of time, discovering an asset connected to the computer network in Block Silo; associating a first set of behaviors detected on the computer network during the first period of time with the asset in Block S111, Martin, [0008], see also 10.2 Grouping Assets, [0073]-[0076]), each device container in the set of device containers comprising characteristics representing a device in a set of devices affiliated with a computer network during a first time interval (Block S111 of the method S100 recites associating a first set of behaviors detected on the computer network during the first period of time with the asset. Generally, in Block S111, the computer system can detect various behaviors occurring on the network over a period of time, identify a subset of these behaviors performed by ( or originating with, occurring at) the asset, Martin, [0025]);
identifying a first subset of devices, in the set of devices, represented by the first source and the second source based on correspondence between characteristics contained in a first subset of device containers associated with the first source and the second source (7.2 Asset Type Models, Martin, [0040]-[0043]);
identifying a second subset of devices, in the set of devices, represented by the first source and excluded by the second source based on absence of correspondence between characteristics contained in a second subset of device containers associated with the first source and the second source (7.2 Asset Type Models, Martin, [0040]-[0043]);
in response to selection of the first source and the second source, generating a visualization (Martin, FIG. 3) representing:
a first area corresponding to the first source; and a second area corresponding to the second source and partially intersecting the first area (Martin, [0075]);
annotating a first intersection of the first area and the second area with a first representation of the first subset of devices; and annotating the first area, outside of the second area, with a second representation of the second subset of devices (Martin, [0016] and FIG.3).
Claims 16 and 20 have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection, and are met by the references as discussed above, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,855,715. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-20 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-19 of the U.S. Patent No. 10,855,715. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,855,715 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,855,715 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,647,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-20 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,647,027. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,647,027 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,647,027 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-20 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,088,597. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,597 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,597 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15 and 17-19 are indicated as allowable over cited prior art,
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US PGPub 2017/0118240 teaches a system for detecting security threats in a local network. A security analytics system collects data about entities in the local network. The security analytics system identifies the entities in the raw data and determines a set of properties about each of the identified entities. The entity properties contain information about the entity and can be temporary or permanent properties about the entity. The security analytics system determines relationships between the identified entities and can be determined based on the entity properties for the identified properties.
NPL (Thompson, Verifying Asset Accuracy (2014), 15 pages) teaches the International Standard for SAM ISO/IEC 19770-1 is broken into four chunks, the first of which is ‘Trustworthy Data’. Without trust, we can’t make confident decisions and license reconciliation results won’t be strong enough to defend against audits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG KORSAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1938. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:00 AM- 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rupal Dharia can be reached on (571) 272-3880. 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.
/OLEG KORSAK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492