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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 canceled.
Claims 21-40 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 11/05/2024 and 8/27/2024 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,284. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,118,284
Claim 21: A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for validating a dynamic control flow integrity model, comprising:
receiving a dynamic control flow integrity model;
receiving a first signature value;
computing a second signature value;
comparing the first signature value to the second signature value; and
determining whether to validate the dynamic control flow integrity model based on the comparison of the first signature value to the second signature value.
Claim 1: A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for analyzing software delta changes based on functional line-of-code behavior and relation models, comprising:
Identifying a prompt to change a first version of code on a controller to a second version of code;
constructing, based on the identified prompt, a line-of-code behavior and relation model representing execution of functions of the controller based on functional analysis of the second version code;
performing a signature operation on the generated line-of-code behavior and relation model to produce a signature value; and
sending the signature value to the controller;
wherein the controller is configured to:
compare the signature value to a computed signature value based on the second version of code; and
determine, based on the comparison, whether to validate the second version of code.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to a comparing signature to validate execution function and is substantively-similar independent claim 33, said claims are merely a broader version of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,284 contains at least all of the limitations (or obvious equivalents) recited in claim 1 of the instant application.
With regard to claims of the 22-32,34-40, each depending from one of independent claims 21 and 33, said claims are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,709,981 in view the foregoing nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,981. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,709,981
Claim 21: A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for validating a dynamic control flow integrity model, comprising:
receiving a dynamic control flow integrity model;
receiving a first signature value;
computing a second signature value;
comparing the first signature value to the second signature value; and
determining whether to validate the dynamic control flow integrity model based on the comparison of the first signature value to the second signature value.
Claim 1: A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform processing operations for analyzing control-flow integrity based on a line-of-code behavior and relation model, comprising:
receiving, at a controller, a dynamic control flow integrity(CFI) model constructed based on a line-of-code behavior and relation model;
detecting a request for execution of code on the controller;
comparing the requested execution to the dynamic CFI model; and
determining, based on the comparison, if the requested execution violates the dynamic CFI model.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to analyzing and verifying analyzing control-flow integrity model; and only differing in that the claims of the '981 patent explicitly recite comparing the requested execution to the dynamic CFI model; and determining, based on the comparison, if the requested execution violates the dynamic CFI model. Thus, the claims of the ‘981 patent are rendered as obvious variants of the instant claims.
With regard to claims of the 22-32,34-40, each depending from one of independent claims 21 and 33, said claims are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,709,981 in view the foregoing nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,314,633. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,314,633
Claim 21: A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for validating a dynamic control flow integrity model, comprising:
receiving a dynamic control flow integrity model;
receiving a first signature value;
computing a second signature value;
comparing the first signature value to the second signature value; and
determining whether to validate the dynamic control flow integrity model based on the comparison of the first signature value to the second signature value.
Claim 1: A non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform processing operations for analyzing control-flow integrity based on a line-of-code behavior and relation model, comprising:
receiving data associated with different runtime operations of a controller,
producing analytical data based on the received data;
constructing a line-of-code behavior and relation model representing execution of functions on the controller based on the analytical data;
constructing, based on the line-of-code behavioral and relation model, a dynamic control flow integrity model configured for the controller to enforce during runtime of the controller; and
deploying the dynamic control flow integrity model to the controller.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to a comparing and validating dynamic control flow integrity model and is substantively-similar independent claim 33, said claims are merely a broader version of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,314,633 contains at least all of the limitations (or obvious equivalents) recited in claim 1 of the instant application.
With regard to claims of the 22-32,34-40, each depending from one of independent claims 21 and 33, said claims are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,314,633 in view the foregoing nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,074,168. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,074,168
Claim 21: A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for validating a dynamic control flow integrity model, comprising:
receiving a dynamic control flow integrity model;
receiving a first signature value;
computing a second signature value;
comparing the first signature value to the second signature value; and
determining whether to validate the dynamic control flow integrity model based on the comparison of the first signature value to the second signature value.
Claim 1: A non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for determining equivalency of symbols within line-of-code behavior and relation models associated with executable code, comprising:
Identifying a first symbol within a first line-of-code behavior and relation model associated with first controller-executable code;
Identifying a second symbol within a second line-of-code behavior and relation model associated with second controller-executable code;
comparing the first symbol to the second symbol;
determining, based on the comparison, a degree of equivalency between the first symbol and second symbol;
determining whether the degree of equivalency between the first symbol and second symbol reaches a threshold; and
generating a prompt if the degree of equivalency between the first symbol and second symbol reaches the threshold, the prompt identifying at least one of: the degree of equivalency or the threshold being reached.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to a validating model associated with code by comparing values or symbols and is substantively-similar independent claim 33, said claims are merely a broader version of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,314,633 contains at least all of the limitations (or obvious equivalents) recited in claim 1 of the instant application.
With regard to claims of the 22-32,34-40, each depending from one of independent claims 21 and 33, said claims are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,074,168 in view the foregoing nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,878,082. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 10,878,082
Claim 21: A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for validating a dynamic control flow integrity model, comprising:
receiving a dynamic control flow integrity model;
receiving a first signature value;
computing a second signature value;
comparing the first signature value to the second signature value; and
determining whether to validate the dynamic control flow integrity model based on the comparison of the first signature value to the second signature value.
Claim 1: A non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for analyzing control-flow integrity based on a functional line-of-code behavior and relation model, comprising:
receiving data based on runtime operations of a controller, the data comprising multiple datasets associated with different runtime operations;
applying a machine learning process to the multiple datasets to produce analytical data;
constructing a line-of-code behavior and relation model representing execution of functions on the controller based on the analytical data;
constructing, based on the line-of-code behavioral and relation model , a dynamic control integrity model configured for the controller to enforce in real-time; and
deploying the dynamic control flow integrity model to the controller.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to analyzing control-flow integrity based on data comparison and relation model, and is substantively-similar independent claim 33, said claims are merely a broader version of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,878,082 contains at least all of the limitations (or obvious equivalents) recited in claim 1 of the instant application.
With regard to claims of the 22-32,34-40, each depending from one of independent claims 21 and 33, said claims are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,074,168 in view the foregoing nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-30,33-35,38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghose(US 2015/0286821).
Claim 21: Ghose disclose receiving a dynamic control flow integrity model;
receiving a first signature value; computing a second signature value, comparing the first signature value to the second signature value and determining whether to validate the dynamic control flow integrity model based on the comparison of the first signature value to the second signature value
in (page 2[0011];page 3[0014],[0019];page 4[0035]:control flow integrity a software technique for validating control flow. The authorization logic is configured to selectively permit the instruction processing pipeline to contingently proceed with processing of the at least one instructions to a stage prior to commitment , in dependence on the signal from the verification logic and only if the generated signature is successfully verified against the reference signature, authorizing commitment of the at least one instruction from the cache line).
Claim 22: Ghose disclose computing of the second signature value is based on data that is based on runtime operations of at least one controller in (page 1[0007]; page 5[0042]).
Claim 23: Ghose disclose second signature value is computed by the at least one controller in (page 2[0008]).
Claim 24: Ghose disclose datasets associated with different runtime operations in (page 3[0013]).
Claim 25: Ghose disclose data includes analytical data produced using a machine learning process in (page 5[0055]).
Claim 26: Ghose disclose the second signature value is computed by a first controller; and the computing of the second signature value is based on data that is based on runtime operations of at least one second controller in (page 4[0035]).
Claim 27: Ghose disclose second signature value is computed for a functional line-of-code behavior and relation model in (page 5[0055]).
Claim 28: Ghose disclose the functional line-of-code behavior and relation model represents execution of functions on a controller in (page 6[0067]).
Claim 29: Ghose disclose the second signature value is computed by the controller in (page 6[0083]).
Claim 30: Ghose disclose the second signature value is computed for the dynamic control flow integrity model in (page 8[0123-0124]).
Claim 33: Ghose disclose receiving a dynamic control flow integrity model;
receiving a first signature value; computing a second signature value, comparing the first signature value to the second signature value and determining whether to validate the dynamic control flow integrity model based on the comparison of the first signature value to the second signature value.
in (page 2[0011];page 3[0014],[0019];page 4[0035]:control flow integrity a software technique for validating control flow. The authorization logic is configured to selectively permit the instruction processing pipeline to contingently proceed with processing of the at least one instructions to a stage prior to commitment , in dependence on the signal from the verification logic and only if the generated signature is successfully verified against the reference signature, authorizing commitment of the at least one instruction from the cache line).
Claim 34: Ghose disclose computing of the second signature value is based on data that is based on runtime operations of at least one controller in (page 1[0007]; page 5[0042]).
Claim 35: Ghose disclose second signature value is computed by the at least one controller in (page 2[0008]).
Claim 38: Ghose disclose the second signature value is computed for the dynamic control flow integrity model in (page 8[0123-0124]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31,32,36,37,39,40 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
USPTO Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSUK SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3857. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30AM-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, 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.
/HOSUK SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435