DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for consideration.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,692 [ ‘692 patent ]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim 1 of the current application anticipates the claim 1 of the ‘692 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez et al. [ US Patent Application No 2012/0185913 ], in view of Hadar et al. [ US Patent Application No 2013/0291052 ].
As per claim 1, Martinez discloses the invention as claimed including a system comprising:
a server system comprising one or more processors in communication with one or more memory devices, the server system configurable to cause:
obtaining a cloud-independent representation of network security information [ i.e. allows developer to define security zone and to apply at least one type of security policy ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0023, 0035, and 0078 ],
obtaining, based on the cloud-independent representation, a plurality of policy sets [ i.e. builder module may utilize build scripts to build a cloud-computing service from one or more cloud computing resources, the script may have access to metamodel and policies information ] [ paragraphs 0014, and 0067 ], each policy set being specific to a respective one of a plurality of clouds of different cloud providers [ i.e. federation of services, applications, platform elements, infrastructure elements across multiple types of clouds ] [ paragraphs 0060, 0094, and 0115 ] ,
sending, using a policy deployer having a cloud-specific configuration tool [ i.e. visual policy editor or XML editor ] [ Figure 9B; and paragraphs 0010, 0078, and 0112 ], the cloud-specific policy sets to the respective clouds [ i.e. cloud model utilized by the adapter to translate the management instruction to the (target) cloud API call, and cloud service bus routes the instructions to Amazon, EC2 ] [ Figure 2B; and paragraphs 0010, 0083, 0085, and 0086 ], and
monitoring deployment of one or more of the sent cloud-specific policy sets [ i.e. management module monitors cloud computing resource of the cloud-computing service through the adapter and provisions the cloud computing resource according to the policy engine module ] [ paragraphs 0017, 0104, and 0119 ].
Martinez does not specifically disclose
the monitoring comprising detecting a change between a sent cloud-specific policy set and a different policy set deployed at a respective cloud.
Hadar disclose
the monitoring comprising detecting a change between a sent cloud-specific policy set and a different policy set deployed at a respective cloud [ i.e. compliance status may be determined by comparing how a deployed cloud computing component should have been configured and comparing that to the actual configuration of the deployed cloud computing component [ paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0034 and 0044 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Martinez and Hadar because the teaching of Hadar would enable to help secure a grid cloud by adding security policy instantiation at an infrastructure design stage, among other measures [ Hadar, paragraph 0002 ].
As per claim 2, Martinez discloses wherein the monitoring further comprises one or more of: obtaining deployment status information indicating success or an error in the deployment, obtaining resource status information indicating status of one or more computing resources in the respective cloud, generating a notification message indicating the change, or sending to the respective cloud a request message that the change be reverted [ i.e. alert, notification ] [ paragraphs 0035, and 0115 ].
As per claim 3, Martinez discloses verifying deployment of a cloud-specific policy set to a respective cloud [ i.e. verified and validated before published for use ] [ paragraphs 0059, and 0067 ].
As per claim 4, Martinez discloses wherein the network security information comprises one or more of: a set of security policies indicating permitted communications between or among computing resources, subnet data, Internet Protocol (IP) address allocation data, service data, workload data, security group data, security zone data, or access policy data [ i.e. security zone, ACL list ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0078, and 0095 ].
As per claim 5, Martinez discloses the policy deployer being associated with a deployment pipeline to a cloud, the policy deployer being configurable to process a cloud-specific policy set, the cloud-specific policy set comprising cloud-specific configuration data comprising one or more of: computing resource data or container data [ i.e. API for a target cloud-computing resource ] [ Figure 2B; and paragraphs 0082, 0083, and 0085 ].
As per claim 6, Martinez discloses wherein the cloud-independent representation specifies one or more functional domains for an instance of a data center, each functional domain comprising one or more of: security groups of computing services, one or more subnets, one or more ingress rules, or one or more egress rules [ i.e. groups of users, enterprise, department within enterprise, and firewall rules ] [ paragraphs 0090, 0095, and 0129 ].
As per claim 7, Martinez discloses wherein a cloud-specific policy set specifies one or more of: an instance of a data center, one or more computing resources, security data, one or more subnets, one or more ingress rules, or one or more egress rules [ i.e. monitoring of running instances ] [ paragraphs 0067, 0092, and 0115 ].
As per claims 8-14, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 1-7.
As per claims 15-20, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 1-6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fu et al. [ US Patent Application No 2016/0378450 ] discloses facilitate distributed orchestration and deployment of a cloud based distributed computing application
Pandurangi et al. [ US Patent Application No 2022/0046059 ] discloses cloud security posture management system with a cloud-based system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446