DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner Notes
All claims have been reviewed for compliance with 35 USC §112 and 35 USC §101 (as set forth in MPEP 2106) and it was determined that the claims are statutory.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,755. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘755 patent include all the limitations of the instant claims.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,132,755
inputting, into a statistical classification model, modelling data for a first application vulnerability and a second application vulnerability, covariate vectors representative of a parameter of the modelling data, and measured relevance of files of the modelling data; (Claim 1)
ingesting modelling data from two or more data sources for a first application vulnerability and a second application vulnerability; transforming at least a portion of the modelling data to one or more covariate vectors representative of a parameter of the modelling data; extracting keywords and phrases from the modelling data; statistically measuring relevance of files of the modelling data based on the extracted keywords and phrases; generating a first threat level of the first application vulnerability and a second threat level of the second application vulnerability based on the covariate vectors and the measured relevance, wherein the generating includes: inputting the modelling data, the covariate vectors, and measured relevance into the statistical classification model…(Claim 1)
training at least a portion of the statistical classification model to identify one or more features of the modelling data that indicate a threat level posed by the first and the second application vulnerabilities; (Claim 1)
training at least a portion of the statistical classification model on the input to identify one or more features of the modelling data that indicate a threat level posed by the first and the second application vulnerability…(Claim 1)
applying a mathematic model to classified modelling data to calculate a first derived threat level and a second derived threat level; (Claim 1)
applying a mathematic model to classified modelling data to calculate a first derived threat level and a second derived threat level; (Claim 1)
in response to the first derived threat level differing by less than a threshold amount from the second derived threat level: (Claim 1)
in response to the first derived threat level differing by more than a threshold amount from the second derived threat level…(Claim 1)
acquiring environmental data of a computer network implementing a software application affected by the first and the second application vulnerabilities; (Claim 1)
acquiring environmental data of a computer network implementing a software application affected by the software application vulnerability; (Claim 9)
analyzing the environmental data to derive one or more additional features; (Claim 1)
analyzing the environmental data to derive one or more additional features; (Claim 9)
reclassifying the modelling data based on the one or more additional features to generate a first reclassified threat level and a second reclassified threat level; (Claim 1)
reclassifying the modelling data based on the one or more additional features to generate a first reclassified threat level and a second reclassified threat level; (Claim 9)
and outputting the first reclassified threat level as the first threat level and the second reclassified threat level as the second threat level to a network management system; (Claim 1)
And outputting the first reclassified threat level as the first threat level and the second reclassified threat level as the second threat level to the network management system. (Claim 9)
causing display of the first threat level and the second threat level in the network management system to enable evaluation of the first application vulnerability and the second application vulnerability; (Claim 1)
causing display of the first threat level and the second threat level in the network management system to enable evaluation of the first application vulnerability and the second first application vulnerability; (Claim 1)
and implementing, at a first endpoint device of the computer network, a first patch to address the first application vulnerability. (Claim 1)
and implementing, at a first endpoint device of the network, a first patch to address the first application vulnerability. (Claim 1)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bubshait (US Publication No. 2021/0392153) discloses software vulnerability patching ([0028]) wherein identified software vulnerabilities are assigned risk levels using machine language models ([0016]-[0024]). The machine learning model using a k-means clustering algorithm that is trained from multiple sources of vulnerability data ([0025]-[0026]). A vulnerability manager utilizes the determined risk levels to assign remediation priorities to the vulnerabilities such that the remediation can include installing software patches ([0027]-[0028]).
Doyle, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0210590, software vulnerability threat score prediction.
Suchocki, WO 2019/240604, discloses vulnerability assessment.
Chou, U.S. Patent No. 8,413,249, discloses vulnerability detection and mitigation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 5:30-4:00.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights