CTNF 18/873,559 CTNF 86000 DETAILED ACTION Notice of AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The amendment filed 2026-04-30 has been entered and fully considered. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election with traverse of Invention in the reply filed on 2026-04-30 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the restricted . This is not found persuasive. Although the various inventive groups share the overlap of the independent claims, such overlap is not germane to merits of a restriction requirement identifying distinct inventions, aside from determining whether the inventions are completely independent or related but distinct. Rather, the restriction requirement for related but distinct inventions analyzes whether the differences between the respective inventive groups cause them to be patentably distinct. More particularly, if, among any set of identified inventions, each identified invention has at least one distinct element that is not an “obvious variation” of the other inventions (regardless of how much overlap the inventions share), then the inventions are mutually-exclusive and hence demonstrate two-way distinction; (“Related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention”, MPEP § 806.05). Further, Applicant has merely provided allegations that the alleged groupings do not meet requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 121 and MPEP § 803; however, applicant has provided no specific section or analysis as to how or why the restriction allegedly does not meet the requirements. The Examiner also notes that applicant did not amend the claims to similar scope or make a clear admission on the record that the inventions are not patentably distinct because they are all “obvious variations”, which would have been sufficient to successfully traverse the restriction requirement; See MPEP § 1504.05(III). Regarding the omission of dependent claims 37 and 48 from Invention VII, the Examiner acknowledges that this was oversight and that they should have been included in the listing for Invention VII. It is noted, however, that applicant has amended claims 38 & 49 in a fashion that renders the argument moot by making the restriction is proper by changing the dependency to no longer require dependence on claims 37 and 48. Regardless, as a courtesy to applicant, the Examiner is including dependent claims 37 and 48 in elected Invention VII. This omission does not impact the propriety of the other restricted and withdrawn claims. The requirement is still otherwise deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2025-04-15, 2026-02-18, and 2026-03-25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-22-05 The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l) because, for Figures 4-6, the text and imagery is not durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 06-22-01 The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83 & 1.84(o) because, for Figures 1-5 and 7, mere numerical references on abstract boxes, circles, and arrows do not sufficiently aid in the understanding of the invention. Descriptive labels are required. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 31, 37-38, 42, and 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims recite determining a threat score and whether to perform an action based on the determined threat score, a form of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, which is a concept performed in the human mind and thus grouped as Mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts. Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra : The following are Principles of Law: A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson , 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. , 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo , the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo , 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted). In Alice , the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id . If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id . (quoting Mayo , 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id . (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo , 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo ] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294). In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts. The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories. Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining a threat score and whether to perform an action based on the determined threat score, a form of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, which is a concept performed in the human mind and thus grouped as Mental processes. Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as: (1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (2) Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals ) (3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b) (4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c) (5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo The Examiner notes that clam features of: determining a threat score and whether to perform an action based on the determined threat score do not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Instead of a practical application, the claim features of determining a threat score and whether to perform an action based on the determined threat score merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept? The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure ( e.g. processing core and memory) that serves to perform generic computer functions ( e.g. determine a base score, determine a dynamic score, determine a threat score, determine, based on the threat score, whether to perform an action, ...) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed computer program code, base score, importance, dynamic score, and threat score are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings: “Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. , 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Supreme Court has also explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e. , an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. , 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007). A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure ( i.e. , an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam , 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten , 500 F.3d at 1357. Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, the claims are merely directed towards determining a threat score and whether to perform an action based on the determined threat score, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra , and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”. Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process does no more than require a generic computer to perform a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at a high level of generality. For example, determine a base score, determine a dynamic score, determine a threat score, determine, based on the threat score, whether to perform an action are merely forms of performing repetitive calculations, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Flook , 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life , 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Further note that the abstract idea of determining a threat score and whether to perform an action based on the determined threat score to which the claimed invention is directed has a prior art basis outside of a computing environment, e.g. corporations determining the level of insurance based on the value of an entity and the likelihood of a catastrophic impact to it. The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294). Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The dependent claims likewise incorporate the deficiencies of a claim upon which they ultimately depend and are also directed to non-patent-eligible subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 31, 37-38, 42, and 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, claim 1 recites the limitation “determine a base score of a network entity, wherein the base score indicates importance of the network entity”, and the specification does not describe the claimed feature in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. It is first noted that original claims lack adequate written description when the claims are generically drafted but the written description fails to support the scope of the genus claimed; See MPEP § 2161.01(I). That is, “the specification must demonstrate that the applicant [inventor] has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant [inventor] has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus”. In this instance, the claims generally recite determining a base score of a network entity that indicates the importance of the network entity. The specification does provide antecedent basis for this feature ( e.g. [0022]); however, the specification does not provide a suitable level of embodiments or species for how to achieve this claim function for any generic determining of a base score, such as claimed. The only embodiment that appears to be disclosed is manual determination and entry by a human operator (See [0022]). Thus, the specification does not provide the necessary written description support for the full breadth of the asserted claims as required by the written description requirement. It is also noted that original claims lack adequate written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved; See MPEP § 2161.01(I). That is, “the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed”. As previously noted, the claims generally recite determining a base score of a network entity that indicates the importance of the network entity, and the specification does provide antecedent basis for this feature; however, the specification does not adequately describe how to determine a base score of a network entity that indicates the importance of the network entity (at least beyond entry of the score by a human operator, but that is determination by a user – not by a computer). Thus, the specification does not disclose, let alone adequately describe with sufficient detail, the algorithm ( e.g. , the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing as required by the written description requirement. Claims 42 and 50 are rejected under a similar rationale. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above. Claims 38 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 38: recites the limitation “the parent network entity”, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; and recites the limitation “determine a threat score of the parent network entity as equal or bigger than the threat score of the network entity when a previous threat score of the parent network entity is lower ...”, and it is unclear how to interpret the “when” modifier. That is, it’s unclear whether the claim is merely indicating that the determination of “a threat score of the parent network entity as equal or bigger than the threat score of the network entity” merely can occur when a previous threat score of the parent network entity is lower or whether the claim is indicating the “when” clause as a predicate logic element such that a previous threat score of the parent network entity being lower will cause a determination of “a threat score of the parent network entity as equal or bigger than the threat score of the network entity”. Claim 49 is rejected under a similar rationale. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 31, 42, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Martinez et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20140137257-A1, hereinafter “ Martinez ”) . With respect to independent claim 31, Martinez discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processing core, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus at least to: determine a base score of a network entity, wherein the base score indicates importance of the network entity in a network { paras. 0088-0096: “Quantitative values are calculated for the criticality of an asset” } , and the network is a core network of a cellular communication network, and the network entity is a network function { para. 0067: asset includes “cellular telephone data services” } . determine a dynamic score of the network entity, wherein the dynamic score indicates at least security incidents that have happened to the network entity { paras. 0056 and 0199-0207: “Likelihood & System Effectiveness Scoring” that is determined from “historical cyber-attack data 2604 associated with the different sectors” } . determine a threat score of the network entity based at least on the base score and the dynamic score { paras. 0127-0131 and 0153: “The risk analysis system 1210 aggregates the results from the critical infrastructure 1214, threat 1212, vulnerability 1216, and impact analysis 1218 systems and calculates a risk value for every asset” } . determine, based on the threat score, whether to perform an action associated with the network entity { para. 0134: “If risk is high, then proceed to next step for identifying and evaluating security countermeasures to mitigate risk” } . With respect to claims 42 and 50, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier in this section with respect to claim 31 applies, mutatis mutandis , to the subject matter of claims 42 and 50; therefore, claims 42 and 50are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 31 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 37-38 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20140137257-A1, hereinafter “ Martinez ”) in view of Pinney Wood et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20160164906-A1, hereinafter “ Pinney ”) . With respect to dependent claim 37, although Martinez teaches risk analysis of a cellular network asset, Martinez does not explicitly disclose a hierarchy of the network; however, Pinney discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus at least to: determine that the network entity has a parent network entity in hierarchy of the network { para. 0069: “a set of child nodes (IPs 436a-d) are linked to the parent node (CIDR 430/433)” } . determine a threat score of the parent network entity based on the threat score of the network entity { para. 0069: “if the set of objects are connected directly in the factor graph, the CIDR (433) will react multiplicatively to influences from the child nodes IPs” } . Martinez and Pinney are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem-solving area of determining risk scores for network assets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Martinez and Pinney before him or her, to modify/develop the assets of the cellular network of Martinez ’s system to utilize a parent/child hierarchy of assets. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would have been because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g. , enables elements or children of a parent to impact the score of the parent that relies on the children. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the assets of the cellular network in Martinez ’s system with a parent/child hierarchy of assets to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s). The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims. With respect to dependent claim 38, Pinney discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus at least to: determine a threat score of the parent network entity as equal or bigger than the threat score of the network entity when a previous threat score of the parent network entity is lower than the threat score of the network entity { para. 0020: “CTMC can calculate a first updated probabilistic network security measure for a first node on the influence path based at least in part on the characteristic of the threat indicator, and/or calculate a second updated probabilistic network security measure for a second node on the influence path based at least in part on the first updated probabilistic network security measure and the factor mechanism”; note that whether a value is greater or less another is merely an obviousness of amounts; See MPEP § 2144.05(I) } . With respect to claims 48-49, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier in this section with respect to claims 37-38 applies, mutatis mutandis , to the subject matter of claims 48-49; therefore, claims 48-49are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claims 37-38 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The reference Jones et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20180351991-A1) discloses network security risk assessment, similar to Martinez . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Bechtel whose telephone number is 571-270-5436. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 ET. 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, William (“Bill”) Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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. /Kevin Bechtel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 2 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 3 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 4 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 5 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 6 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 7 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 8 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 9 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 10 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 11 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 12 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 13 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 16 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 17 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/873,559 Page 18 Art Unit: 2491
Prosecution Insights