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 statement (IDS) submitted on August 22, 2024 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Drawings
The drawings filed on August 21, 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed August 21, 2024 is accepted.
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 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,303,666 B1 (hereinafter 113’ patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-2 of the present application correspond to elements of claims 1-19 of the 113’ patent. Claims 1-2 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-19 of the 113’ patent because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the ‘113 patent.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,658,999 B1 (hereinafter 999’ patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-2 of the present application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of the 999’ patent. Claims 1-2 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of the 999’ patent because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the ‘999 patent.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,348 B1 (hereinafter 348’ patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-2 of the present application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of the 348’ patent. Claims 1-2 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of the 348’ patent because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the 348’ patent.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeitlin et al. US 2016/0164894 A1 [hereinafter Zeitlin].
As per claim 1, Zeitlin teaches a method comprising:
producing a plurality of automated investigation tasks based on detecting a security event, wherein producing each of the plurality of automated investigation tasks includes configuring one or more application programming interface (API) calls based on a set of API call parameters of a target external data source [paragraphs 0050-0059];
generating a corpus of investigation findings data associated with the security event based on executing the plurality of automated investigation tasks [paragraphs 0050-0059];
configuring an investigation findings artifact based on one or more pieces of data included in the corpus of investigation findings data [paragraphs 0060-0063]; and
executing one or more event handling actions or one or more event disposal actions that resolve or mitigate a threat of the security event based on an assessment of the investigation findings artifact [paragraphs 0060-0063].
As per claim 2, Zeitlin teaches a computer program product that, when executed by one or more processors, performs operations comprising:
producing a plurality of automated investigation tasks based on detecting a security event, wherein producing each of the plurality of automated investigation tasks includes configuring one or more application programming interface (API) calls based on a set of API call parameters of a target external data source [paragraphs 0050-0059];
generating a corpus of investigation findings data associated with the security event based on executing the plurality of automated investigation tasks [paragraphs 0050-0059];
configuring an investigation findings artifact based on one or more pieces of data included in the corpus of investigation findings data [paragraphs 0060-0063]; and
executing one or more event handling actions or one or more event disposal actions that resolve or mitigate a threat of the security event based on an assessment of the investigation findings artifact [paragraphs 0060-0063].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEEMNET W DADA whose telephone number is (571)272-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached at 571-272-3685. 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.
BEEMNET W. DADA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2435
/BEEMNET W DADA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights