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 .
This Office Action is in response to the filing date of 08/09/2024.
Claims 1-33 are pending and have been considered below.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 and 17, and 18-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16, 18, and 19-30 of U.S. Patent No.12095807. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The tables below are examples of mappings between the independent claims.
Cop-pending Application No. 18799253
U.S. Patent No. 12095807
1. A method for initiating remediation actions in response to a cybersecurity issue in a computing environment, comprising:
1. A method for initiating remediation actions in response to a cybersecurity issue in a computing environment, comprising:
configuring a virtual instance deployed in the computing environment to receive a plurality of remediation scripts from an inspection environment;
configuring a virtual instance in a computing environment to communicate with an inspection environment;
configuring the virtual instance to receive in the computing environment a plurality of remediation scripts from the inspection environment;
generating a remediation infrastructure including a plurality of remediation actions, each remediation action corresponding to at least a remediation script of the plurality of remediation scripts;
detecting a cybersecurity issue in the computing environment;
detecting a cybersecurity issue in the computing environment;
configuring the virtual instance to initiate a remediation action of a plurality of remediation actions based on detecting the cybersecurity issue, each remediation action including at least a remediation script of the plurality of remediation scripts; and
configuring the virtual instance to initiate a remediation action of the plurality of remediation actions, based on detecting the cybersecurity issue; and
receiving a feedback in the inspection environment from the virtual instance in response to initiating the remediation action.
receiving a feedback in the inspection environment from the virtual instance in response to initiating the remediation action.
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, 2, 11-19, and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 20180159887 to DiGiambattista.
Per claims 1, 17, and 18, DiGiambattista teaches a method for initiating remediation actions in response to a cybersecurity issue in a computing environment, comprising:
configuring a virtual instance deployed in the computing environment to receive a plurality of remediation scripts from an inspection environment (see at least FIG. 1 – Response 132; see also at least paragraph [0098] “…The remediation responses may be in the form of scripts that identify one or more specific configuration changes, code changes, or binary patches to apply, to neutralize the identified threats…”);
detecting a cybersecurity issue in the computing environment (see at least paragraph [0052] “…the orchestration system 120 has the ability to detect a threat 130…”);
configuring the virtual instance to initiate a remediation action of a plurality of remediation actions based on detecting the cybersecurity issue, each remediation action including at least a remediation script of the plurality of remediation scripts (see at least FIG. 1 – Response 132; see also at least paragraph [0098] “…The remediation responses may be in the form of scripts that identify one or more specific configuration changes, code changes, or binary patches to apply, to neutralize the identified threats…”); and
receiving feedback in the inspection environment from the virtual instance in response to initiating the remediation action (see at least FIGS. 7-9).
Per claims 2 and 19, DiGiambattista further teaches:
inspecting the computing environment for a cybersecurity object, wherein the cybersecurity object indicates the cybersecurity issue (see at least paragraph [0097] “…the scripted security tests 122 may be configured to the granularity of a single issue. Specifically, an issue may comprise a specific known single cybersecurity threat and the specific test or tests to detect that single cybersecurity threat. Single cybersecurity threats are often indexed and identified by a Common Vulnerability Exposure (CVE) identification number as provided by the Federal Government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) …”).
Per claims 11 and 28, DiGiambattista further teaches:
generating an indicator value for each remediation action, the indicator value indicating a determined degree of disruption of the remediation action (see at least paragraph [0105] “…providing user generated content, such as comments, or an indication of the efficacy of the update and/or remediation response. Indications may include binary indications (e.g. like/not like), or a scalar indication (e.g. three out of five stars). Because the applied fix data store 608 may store the administrator choice on a per issue basis, i.e. a per CVE basis, choices from other parties may be aggregated with that of the administrator and like decisions compared…”)
Per claims 12 and 29, DiGiambattista further teaches:
providing a permission to initiate a first remediation action to a first principal, in response to determining that a determined degree of disruption of the first remediation action is at, or exceeds, a threshold value (see at least paragraph [0105] “…the choice of the administrator 114 whether to approve or reject the updated and/or generated remediation response is stored in a community applied fix data store 608. The applied fix data store 608 stores the update, the issue, the remediation response and whether the administrator 114 accepted or rejected the update and/or remediation response. Furthermore, the administrator 114 has the option of providing user generated content, such as comments, or an indication of the efficacy of the update and/or remediation response. indications may include binary indications (e.g. like/not like), or a scalar indication (e.g. three out of five stars). Because the applied fix data store 608 may store the administrator choice on a per issue basis, i.e. a per CVE basis, choices from other parties may be aggregated with that of the administrator and like decisions compared…”).
Per claims 13 and 30, DiGiambattista further teaches:
providing the permission to the first principal only in response to detecting a condition in the computing environment (see at least FIGS. 7-9).
Per claims 14 and 31, DiGiambattista further teaches
configuring the virtual instance to receive a customized remediation script (see at least FIG. 1).
Per claims 15 and 32. DiGiambattista further teaches:
initiating a second remediation action, in response to the feedback indicating that the remediation action was unsuccessful (see at least FIG. 9).
Per claims 16 and 33, DiGiambattista further teaches:
generating a notification, in response to the feedback indicating that the remediation action was successful (see at least FIG. 9).
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.
Claims 3-7 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20180159887 in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240104200 to Dresselhaus.
Per claims 3 and 20, DiGiambattista does not explicitly teach:
associating a first group of remediation actions of the plurality of remediation actions with a first group of user accounts; and associating a second group of remediation actions of the plurality of remediation actions with a second group of user accounts, wherein each group of user accounts is authorized to initiate only a remediation action associated with the respective user group.
Dresselhaus teaches an analogous art relates to detecting and remedying cybersecurity threats, comprising:
associating a first group of remediation actions of the plurality of remediation actions with a first group of user accounts; and associating a second group of remediation actions of the plurality of remediation actions with a second group of user accounts, wherein each group of user accounts is authorized to initiate only a remediation action associated with the respective user group (see at least paragraphs [0087-0088] “…detecting the cybersecurity threat at 1302, causing the MDM server 120 to update the inventory record 212 in the inventory database 123 corresponding to the managed computer 140 with information reflecting the positive detection of the cybersecurity threat …responsive to the updating of the inventory record 212 in the inventory database 123, the grouping criteria evaluation module 122 of the MDM server 120 identifying the managed computer 140's updated security threat detection status from the inventory record 212, recalculating group memberships of the managed computer 140 based on the managed computer 140's updated security threat detection status, and updating the group membership data 128 based on the results of recalculating the group memberships. The updated group membership data 128 may reflect the managed computer 140 being added to a dynamic group and/or removed from a dynamic group based on detection of the cybersecurity threat on the user's managed computer 140. The updating of and the criteria for the group memberships may include identifying further risk(s) associated with the user's managed computer 140, for example, an outdated operating system (OS), a poor or problematic configuration, device geolocation, presence of virus or malware, outdated or unpatched software installed, or other characteristics relating to the hardware, software, location, or operation of the user's managed computer 140…”).
It would have been obvious for a person of an ordinary skilled in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of DiGiambattista to incorporate the teaching of Dresselhaus to associate threats with user based on group memberships. One would have been motivated to modify the teaching of DiGiambattista to incorporate the teaching of Dresselhaus because it allows the administrator to easily and quickly perform remediation actions (Dresselhaus, paragraph [0019]).
Per claims 4 and 21, DiGiambattista further teaches:
disabling a first remediation action of the plurality of remediation actions (see at least FIG. 8 – Receiving either an approval or a rejection from an administrator of the generated remediation response via a dashboard).
Per claims 5 and 22, DiGiambattista further teaches:
detecting a condition in the computing environment; and disabling the first remediation action based on the detected condition (see at least FIGS. 8 & 9 - Receiving either an approval or a rejection from an administrator of the generated remediation response via a dashboard).
Per claims 6 and 23, DiGiambattista further teaches:
enabling a second remediation based on the detected condition (see also at least paragraph [0098] “…The remediation responses may be in the form of scripts that identify one or more specific configuration changes, code changes, or binary patches to apply, to neutralize the identified threats…”).
Per claims 7 and 24, DiGiambattista further teaches:
disabling a first remediation action of the plurality of remediation actions only for the first group of user accounts (see at least FIG. 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20230164164 and US20230221983
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Wei Zhen can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/PHILLIP H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights