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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “generative AI remediator is configured to generate” in claim 1; “configuring the generative AI remediator to generate” in claim 8; “one or more processors configured to inspect/detect/generate/initiate” and “generative AI remediator is configured to generate” in claim 10; “one or more processors are further configured to generate“ in claim 11; “one or more processors are further configured to generate“ in claim 12; “one or more processors are further configured to generate“ in claim 14; “one or more processors are further configured to generate/generate“ in claim 15; “one or more processors are further configured to generate/receive“ in claim 16; and “one or more processors are further configured to receive“ and “generative AI remediator is configured to generate” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,095,786. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the earlier filed patented claims in that the claims of the patent contain all of the limitations of the instant application.
Claims 1-3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘786 patent;
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of the ‘786 patent;
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of the ‘786 patent;
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of the ‘786 patent;
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the ‘786 patent;
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the ‘786 patent;
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of the ‘786 patent;
Claims 10-12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of the ‘786 patent;
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of the ‘786 patent;
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of the ‘786 patent;
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of the ‘786 patent;
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of the ‘786 patent; and
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of the ‘786 patent.
Claims 1-17 therefore are not patentably distinct from the earlier filed patented claims, and as such, are unpatentable for obvious type double patenting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable upon the submission of a terminal disclaimer overcoming the obvious-type double patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As argued in parent application, U.S. Application Serial Number 18/543,497, now U.S. Patent 12,095,786, the remarks filed on July 9, 2024 with respect to Zafar, US 2023/0300166:
“For the step of inspecting a computing environment, the Office Action cites Zafar. However, this is not what Zafar teaches. Zafar teaches that a security alert engine which receives a security alert and performs some assessment using a detection logic. If the Office Action is alleging that a security alert is analogous to a cybersecurity object, an analogy which Applicant does not admit to, then this clearly does not hold with the claim language, as a security alert is no an indication of a cybersecurity issue. In other words, a cybersecurity object is required for detection of a cybersecurity issue, whereas an alert is only generated after a cybersecurity issue is detected. Therefore, this analogy fails.
If, on the other hand, the Office Action is arguing that the security alert is an analog to the cybersecurity issue, an analog Applicant again does not admit to, then there is no teaching in Zafar that an alert is detected in response to detecting a cybersecurity object.
As Zafar does not teach detection of a cybersecurity object, Zafar cannot be cited as teaching detecting a cybersecurity issue based on the cybersecurity object, since the cybersecurity issue cannot be detected based on something which is missing from the reference.”
It is further argued that Zafar:
“[0049] In one or more embodiments, the investigations engine 120 may include an automated investigation workflows module 122 comprising a plurality of distinct automated investigation workflows that may be specifically configured for handling distinct security alert types or distinct security events. Each of the automated investigation workflows preferably includes a sequence of distinct investigative and/or security data production tasks that may support decisioning on or a disposal of a validated security alert.”
The prior art teaching of Lecroart, US 2025/0111095 discloses of:
[0016] obtaining and storing in memory a runtime report comprising a compliance anomaly detected in the configuration file while said service is being run;
[0017] presenting an anomaly correction request as input to a previously trained generative artificial intelligence model, said correction request comprising a question formulated in natural language and anomaly context information comprising at least the runtime report, and obtaining as output a configuration file correction recommendation;
[0018] validating the recommendation for correcting the configuration file, comprising the determining of a similarity measurement with respect to said context information and comparing with an acceptability threshold;
[0019] when the similarity measurement is above the acceptability threshold, submitting the configuration file correction recommendation for user evaluation.”
Although Lecroart discloses of obtaining a detected anomaly and then presenting the detected anomaly as an input to a previously trained generative artificial intelligence model comprising a question formulated in natural language and anomaly context information, this feature is not done in the same manner was what is being claimed by the Applicant.
As per claim 1, it was not found to be taught in the prior by Zafar and Lecroart, alone or in combination of:
inspecting a computing environment for a cybersecurity object; detecting a cybersecurity issue in the computing environment based on detection of the cybersecurity object; generating an input for a generative artificial intelligence (AI) remediator based on the detected cybersecurity issue, wherein the generative AI remediator is configured to generate an output including a remediation action based on the input; and initiating the remediation action in the computing environment.
Claims 9 and 10 are similar in scope to independent claim 1, and would be allowable for similar reasons upon the submission of a terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mishra et al, US 2025/0335286 is relied upon for disclosing of providing content as input tokens to a generative artificial intelligence model that outputs an issue resolution process to resolve an issue, see paragraph 0025.
Vasseur et al, US 2025/0293957 is relied upon for disclosing of using LLMs to troubleshoot an issue to find the root cause, and to suggest a set of one or more actions to fix the issue, see paragraph 0067.
Mattison, U.S. Patent 12,394,283 is relied upon for disclosing of a computing platform executing a first generative artificial intelligence model. A current operation data received from a plurality of ATMs may be input to the first generative artificial intelligence model and, based on execution of the model, one or more anomalies or potential issues may be output at step. Each identified anomaly or potential issue may then be further analyzed, see column 8, lines 56-63.
Coull et al, WO 2025/049586 A1 is relied upon for disclosing of a generative sequence processing model that is specifically finetuned for cybersecurity applications. This specialized generative sequence processing model can be finetuned on a comprehensive range of cybersecurity data and associated finetuning tasks, providing the model with rich capabilities for analyzing, understanding, describing, and taking action with respect to the real-time cybersecurity data generated by one or more cybersecurity operations tools. Thus, the creation and use of the generative sequence processing model represents a solution to the technical challenge of usefully analyzing and acting upon a large volume of data generated by a number of disparate cybersecurity operations tools deployed by an organization, see abstract.
Santhanam et al, US 2025/0021761 is relied upon for disclosing of generating a corrected response to an input query using generative artificial intelligence models that waits to receive an input query for processing, which then produces an output based upon the inputted query, see paragraph 0052.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER REVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-3794. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am - 3:00pm.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A REVAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights