Details
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claims 1-23 are rejected.
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 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,141, 269. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims have broader scope than the patent claims.
Instant Claims
Patent Claims
1. A method for building a security monitor, the method comprising: - identifying one or more objects of a microkernel Operating System (OS) participating in the transmission of the inter-process communication (IPC) message, wherein the one or more OS objects comprise one or more processes and/or one or more applications executed by the microkernel OS; - selecting from a security policy database one or more security policies associated with the identified microkernel OS objects; - configuring a policy verification module based on the selected security policies to generate a decision related to controlling the transmission of the IPC message; and - generating a code for a security monitor using the configured policy verification module to control the transmission of the IPC message based on the decision generated by the policy verification module, wherein the code comprises one of a source code, intermediate code, executable code, and wherein the security monitor is configured to be executed in a privileged mode of a kernel of the microkernel OS
1. A method for building a security monitor, the method comprising: - identifying one or more objects of a microkernel Operating System (OS) participating in the transmission of an inter-process communication (IPC) message,
wherein the one or more OS objects comprise at least one or more processes or one or more applications executed by the microkernel OS; - selecting, from a security policy database, one or more security policies associated with the identified microkernel OS objects; - configuring a policy verification module based on the selected security policies to generate a decision related to controlling the transmission of the IPC message; and - generating, using the configured policy verification module, a security monitor to control the transmission of the IPC message based on the decision generated by the policy verification module, wherein the security monitor is implemented as a component of the microkernel OS.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein controlling the transmission of the IPC message comprises granting or denying the transmission of the IPC message from a message source to a message destination.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein controlling the transmission of the IPC message comprises granting or denying the transmission of the IPC message from a message source to a message destination.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the IPC message comprises one of: a request for launching a process, a request for establishment of IPC session, and a request from a process to the security monitor.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the IPC message comprises one of: a request for launching a process, a request for establishment of IPC session, and a request from a process to the security monitor.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more microkernel OS objects further comprise one or more processes providing a service, wherein the process includes at least one software component configured to implement a programming interface for the process and wherein communication with the process is performed using the programming interface.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more microkernel OS objects further comprise one or more processes providing a service, wherein the process includes at least one software component configured to implement a programming interface for the process and wherein communication with the process is performed using the programming interface.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the one or more microkernel OS objects further comprise a list of programming interfaces utilized for inter-process communication for each process executed by the microkernel OS.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the one or more microkernel OS objects further comprise a list of programming interfaces utilized for inter-process communication for each process executed by the microkernel OS.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the security monitor comprises generating a code for the security monitor, wherein the code comprises one of: a source code, intermediate code, executable code.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the security monitor comprises generating a code for the security monitor, wherein the code comprises one of: a source code, intermediate code, executable code.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the one or more security policies further comprises performing at least one of: lexical analysis, syntactic analysis, and semantic analysis of the one or more security policies.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the one or more security policies further comprises performing at least one of: lexical analysis, syntactic analysis, and semantic analysis of the one or more security policies.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more security policies utilize at least one of the following models: basic operations model, finite state machine, timed automaton model, role-based access control model, mandatory integrity control model, regular expression model, discrete events model, object capability model, and temporal logic model.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more security policies utilize at least one of the following models: basic operations model, finite state machine, timed automaton model, role-based access control model, mandatory integrity control model, regular expression model, discrete events model, object capability model, and temporal logic model
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the one or more security policies are combined into one or more classes and wherein each of the one or more classes comprises a set of semantically related policies that implement a specific security policy model.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the one or more security policies are combined into one or more classes and wherein each of the one or more classes comprises a set of semantically related policies that implement a specific security policy model.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein if two or more security policies are associated with the IPC message a common decision is generated by performing conjunction of respective decisions for each of the two or more security policies.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein if two or more security policies are associated with the IPC message a common decision is generated by performing conjunction of respective decisions for each of the two or more security policies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZA N ALGIBHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7212. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 3:30 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, Wing Chan can be reached at (571) 272-7493. 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.
/HAMZA N ALGIBHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights