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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/22/2026 has been accepted and considered in this office action. Claims 1-3 have been amended. No new claims have been cancelled. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/22/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s claim for benefit of the US Provisional Application No. 62/991,726 filed 19 March 2020. However, the examiner finds that claims 1-3 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application because the provisional application’s disclosure fails to provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) for the claimed subject matter. The provisional’s specification is 17 pages, while the non-provisional chain’s specifications are each 51 pages. As an example, the following concepts recited in claim 1 are not supported within the provisional to the degree necessary under 112a:
Claim 1 requires “a hypervisor not including any hardware processor means.” The provisional application describes the hypervisor as coupled to a ‘hardcore or a softcore processor’ [0010] and as ‘automated control system’ [0030]. There is no enabling disclosure or written disclosure of the negative limitation claimed.
Claim 1 requires ‘a plethora of agents’ that “implement [] trusted protection.” The provisional application never mentions ‘agents’ nor anything that is apparently equivalent to a person of ordinary skill.
The provisional application does not describe a ‘rule engine’ as currently claimed with sufficient particularity in the provisional to show possession of the scope of the claimed rule-based system.
Because the claims are not entitled to the date of the provisional, the effective filing date for these claims is the date of the first filing that contains 112a support, presumably the first non-provisional filing with an effective filing date of 18 March 2021. Chandrasekhar qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) because the prior art has an effective filing date of 6 Jan 2021 and, therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) because suitable descriptive legends are necessary for understanding the drawings. The figures presently contain numbered blocks without sufficient descriptive legends or keys to allow the subject matter of the figures to be readily understood. Corrected drawings including suitable legends or key are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. The examiner finds that it is unclear which noun phrase the word “comprising” modifies in the following limitation “a bare metal processor operably coupled to hardware assets and software assets comprising: …”. Specifically, the examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether “comprising” modifies “a bare metal processor” or “software assets.” These alternative readings materially alter the scope of the claim and what is required for infringement. However, neither alternative makes any sense. A bare metal processor is a bare metal processor and does not “comprise” any of the things after the “comprising” (agents, hypervisor means, a rule set, a rule engine) as its constitution. Further, “software assets” aren’t within the scope of the claimed apparatus and listing the previously presented components that constituted the apparatus (in the last version of the claims) as, now amended, constituting “software assets” (which are outside the scope of the claim) makes little sense. Assuming “comprises” modifies “software assets” would result in a claimed apparatus that would require, for infringement, a singular element: a bare metal processor. Therefore, for the purpose of further examination only, the Examiner interprets the claim as though it recites: “a bare metal processor, operably coupled to hardware assets and software assets, the apparatus further comprising: ...” This interpretation is adopted only for examination efficiency and does not withdraw the indefiniteness.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chandrasekhar (US 20220214904 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chandrasekhar teaches,
An apparatus for implementing a trusted protection of security architectures comprising (Chandrasekhar, para 12 discloses hypervisor-assisted security analysis in a networking environment where hypervisor analyzes events in order to identify potential security issues/events; para 22, Chandrasekhar discloses thin agents perform certain remedial actions when potential security issues are detected.)
A plethora of agents (Chandrasekhar, Fig. 1 discloses thin agents 138(1) - thin agents 138 (n));
A hypervisor means, not including any hardware processor means, operably configured with said agents to provide trusted processing (Chandrasekhar, para 23 discloses hypervisor 116 can be installed as a system level software; para 22, Chandrasekhar discloses thin agents 138 send events to hypervisor 116 for analysis by hypervisor analysis engine 140; para 14, Chandrasekhar discloses hypervisor analysis allows detection of security issues quickly and efficiently when the issues are detected locally by the hypervisor);
At least one rules set comprising one or more rules, for implementing decisions and actions (Chandrasekhar, para 23 discloses the system uses rules and security policies to determine what constitutes a security issue and what action to take (e.g., generate an alert or perform a remedial action (para 22)));
A rules engine implemented with said agents to process said at least one rules set (Chandrasekhar, para 27 discloses rule engine 144 receive events from thin agents 138 and if the rule engine determines that an alert should be generated based on an application of a rule to one or more events, then rule engine 144 may generate an alert and send the alert to one or more endpoints);
and, wherein said agents implement the trusted protection of security architectures (Chandrasekhar, para 22 discloses thin agents 138 perform remedial actions when potential security issues are detected and thin agents may block the network connection if the particular network connection is identified as a security issue.).
Regarding Claim 2, Chandrasekhar teaches,
The at least one rules set of claim 1 additionally configured with one or more rules for deciding a threat to trusted processing (Chandrasekhar, para 25 discloses rules used for analysis of events may include security policies indicating conditions that indicate potential security issues such as malicious attacks (para 3).).
Regarding Claim 3, Chandrasekhar teaches,
The at least one rules set of claim 2 additionally configured with at least one or more rules for implementing actions on deciding a threat to trusted processing. (Chandrasekhar, para 22 discloses thin agents 138 perform remedial actions (such as blocking a network connection permanently or temporarily) when potential security issues (such as malicious attacks (para 3)) are detected.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT KHADKA whose telephone number is (703)756-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey L. Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/AMIT KHADKA/Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights