DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-27 are pending.
This Action is Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 September 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method, medium, and system for detecting anomalous behavior based on probabilities of metrics. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited ”non-transitory medium” or “processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind (or with a pencil and paper). The deriving and modeling steps are similarly directed towards an Abstract Idea under the same rational. For example, but for the generically claimed hardware language, the steps amount to a person manually calculating the probability distributions of the metrics to determine anomalous behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of CRM storing instructions that cause processor to perform the steps. The components in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function for determining false/true positives) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The deriving and modeling steps are similarly not integrated into a practical application under the same rational. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and/or extra solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The dependent claims only add additional details towards the mathematics and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea. As such, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 15, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rathod et al. (US 20160241575).
As per claims 1, 15, 26, and 27, Rathod et al. discloses a medium, system, and method for use in detection of anomalous behavior of a device of a computer system, the method arranged to be performed by a processing system, the method comprising: deriving values, m1,...,MN, of a metric, M , representative of data associated with the device including network traffic data (see paragraphs [0040]-[0044] where the profile has various metrics with values);
modelling a distribution of the values of the metric (see paragraphs [0045]-[0048]); and
determining, in accordance with the distribution of the values of the metric, a probability of observing a more extreme value of the metric than a given value, m, of the metric, wherein the probability is used to determine whether the device is behaving anomalously (see paragraphs [0049]-[0063] where an incoming request is statistically compared against the distribution of the profile to detect an anomaly).
As per claims 2 and 25, Rathod et al. discloses the probability of observing a more extreme value is the probability of observing a greater value than the given value, m, when the given value is greater than a suitable quantile point of the values, m1,...,mN; and/or wherein the probability of observing a more extreme value is the probability of observing a smaller value than the given value, m, when the given value is less than a suitable quantile point of the values, m1,...,MN, where the suitable quantile point is a median (see paragraphs [0060]-[0063] determining whether the data point is beyond a standard deviation threshold).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 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.
Claims 3-5 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eberhardt, III et al. (US 20130198119)(herein after Eberhardt).
As per claim 3, Rathod et al. discloses determining, in accordance with the probability of observing a more extreme value, and a probabilistic model of the device, a probability of the given value, m, being the result of anomalous behavior of the device, wherein the probability is used to determine whether the device is behaving anomalously (see paragraphs [0049]-[0063]), but fails to explicitly disclose this probability is a posterior probability.
However, Eberhardt teaches observing extreme values compared to a probabilistic model to determine a posterior probability (see paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a posterior probability in the Rathod et al. system.
Motivation to do so would have been to use multiple features to arrive at a probability that an event is anomalous (see Eberhardt paragraph [0029]).
At per claim 4, the modified Rathod et al. and Eberhardt system discloses determining posterior probabilities for a plurality of given values, m,, of a plurality of metrics, M,, wherein the metrics, M,, are representative of the data associated with the device; and in accordance with the posterior probabilities for the given values, m,, determining an overall posterior probability of the device being in an anomalous state, wherein the overall posterior probability is used to determine whether the device is behaving anomalously (see Eberhardt paragraph [0029] the Similarity Score).
As per claim 5, the modified Rathod et al. and Eberhardt system discloses the probabilistic model is a Bayesian model (see Eberhardt paragraphs [0028]-[0030] the use of BBNs which are Bayesian Belief Networks).
As per claims 16-18, the modified Rathod et al. and Eberhardt system discloses the detection of anomalous behavior is performed using a subset of the metrics, wherein the subset is chosen by removing values for which exceeds a threshold probability (see Rathod et al. paragraphs [0058]-[0059] and Eberhardt paragraphs [0092] and [0105]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Rathod et al. and Eberhardt system as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Veeramachaneni et al. (US 20170169360).
As per claims 6-8, the modified Rathod et al. and Eberhardt system discloses the metrics are statistically dependent (see Eberhardt paragraph [0029]), but fails to explicitly disclose the dependencies are modeled using copulas where variables are transformed using a cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution and the probability of observing a greater/smaller values than the given values.
However, Veeramachaneni et al. teaches modeling dependencies using copulas where variables are transformed using a cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution and the probability of observing a greater/smaller values than the given values (see paragraphs [0068]-[0072]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Veeramachaneni et al. in the modified Rathod et al. and Eberhardt system.
Motivation to do so would have been to detect rare events (see Veeramachaneni et al. paragraph [0067]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Rathod et al. and Eberhardt system as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Barbat et al. (US 20120209575).
As per claims 9-11, the modified Rathod et al. and Eberhardt system discloses the use of Bayesian models to determine anomalousness relative to a references (see Rathod et al. paragraphs [0049]-[0063] and Eberhardt paragraphs [0028]-[0030]), but fails to explicitly disclose the use of a logarithm of a Bayes factor.
However, Barbat et al. teaches the use of a logarithm of a Bayes factor which will attenuate measures of anomalousness (see paragraphs [0058]-[0059] and [0068]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use of a logarithm of a Bayes factor in the modified Rathod et al. and Eberhardt system.
Motivation to do so would have been to use previous probabilities in the determination (see Barbat et al. paragraph [0068]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marvasti et al. (US 20150379110).
As per claims 12-14, Rathod et al. teaches the use of multiple metrics, but fails to explicitly disclose the distribution of the values of the metric is modeled using extreme value theory; the distribution of the values of the metric is modeled as a generalized Pareto, Gumbel or Frechet distribution; the probability of observing a more extreme value is modeled using a peaks over thresholds method.
However, Marvasti et al. teaches the distribution of the values of the metric is modeled using extreme value theory (see paragraph [0050]); the distribution of the values of the metric is modeled as a generalized Pareto, Gumbel or Frechet distribution (see paragraph [0068]); the probability of observing a more extreme value is modeled using a peaks over thresholds method (see paragraph [0050] POT).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art substitute the teachings of Marvasti et al. in place of those in Rathod et al. to obtain the predictable result of detecting anomalous behavior using known techniques.
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 1-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,701,093. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘093 claims contain each and every limitation of the currently pending claims and therefore anticipate the claims of the present application. More specifically, claims 1-19 of the ‘093 patent contain each limitation of claims 1-25 and claim 20 of the ‘093 patent anticipates claims 26 and 27 of the present application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed towards anomaly detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J PYZOCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/Michael Pyzocha/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409