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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Office Action
The response on 04/24/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Claims 1,16 and 20 have been amended. No new claims have been added or cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Currently Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant on Page 6-7 states:
However, the schema verification methodology Ayed describes cannot be mapped to the verification logic recited in claim 1. Specifically, Ayed describes "post-processing on responses from an LLM" and upon determining "the auto-generated search query statements are not parsable (no at 714), the post-processor is configured to perform an error correcting process 716 that may include identifying and replacing hallucinated values with schema values set forth in the schema 718 provided by the RAG pipeline 704." (Ayed, paragraphs [0068]- [0069]). Thus, Ayed's described schema verification methodology is not verification logic "generated to enforce rules associated with the custom configuration and to prevent the one or more modifications to the default configuration from introducing one or more security vulnerabilities" as recited by amended claim 1.
Regarding the Argument, the Examiner would like to state the following: The term verification logic is a general term encompasses a wide variety of things such as software, rules, policy engine etc. Ayed discloses in Figure 7 and Paragraph [0067] that verification methodology is deployed to reduce hallucinations during generation of an answer to a natural-language user prompt by a LLM. Regarding the amendment, the argument is moot in light of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Applicant on Page 7 argues:
Mantin thus does not describe making "one or more modifications to the default configuration" of a firewall to achieve a custom configuration. Mantin furthermore fails to cure the deficiencies of Ayed in generating verification logic "to enforce rules associated with the custom configuration and to prevent the one or more modifications to the default configuration from introducing one or more security vulnerabilities" as recited in amended claim 1. Thus, neither Ayed nor Mantin, whether considered alone or in combination, discloses "receiving a large language model response that includes verification logic for the firewall based on the schema, wherein the verification logic is generated to enforce rules associated with the custom configuration and to prevent the one or more modifications to the default configuration from introducing one or more security vulnerabilities."
Regarding the Argument, the Examiner would like to state the following: The argument is considered but moot in light of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
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) 1,4-5,16 and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayed (US20250245425) in view of Mantin (US20250335574) and in further view of Law (US20110072506).
Regarding Claims 1,16 and 20 Ayed discloses generating a prompt based on the natural language description, wherein the prompt includes a schema; Ayed (Paragraph [0025] E.N. The components are configured to parse and interpret a natural language prompt received from a user via a network device and execute one or more pipelines in order to generate a response to the natural language prompt.)
receiving a large language model response that includes verification logic Ayed (Paragraph [0067] E.N. Deployment of a schema verification methodology to reduce hallucinations during generations of an answer to a natural-language user prompt by a large language model (LLM) is disclosed.)
wherein the verification logic is generated Ayed (Paragraph [0067] and Figure 7 E.N. Deployment of a schema verification methodology to reduce hallucinations during generations of an answer to a natural-language user prompt by a large language model (LLM) is disclosed.)
Ayed does not, but in related art, Mantin discloses A method, comprising: receiving a natural language description of a custom configuration Mantin (Paragraph [0027] E.N. The LLM prompt manager is a software component that is configured to act as an intermediary between the user device and the LLM. It is configured to obtain a user prompt (natural language description) segment from a user via a user interface add zero or more additional prompt segments to the user prompt segment to generate an LLM prompt.)
for a firewall, Mantin (Paragraph [0033] E.N. The LLM firewall is designed to prevent prohibited prompts from being transmitted to the LLM or prohibited response from being transmitted to the user.)
for the firewall based on the schema, Mantin (Paragraph [0033] E.N. The LLM firewall is designed to prevent prohibited prompts from being transmitted to the LLM or prohibited response from being transmitted to the user.)
storing the verification logic in a database. Mantin (Paragraph [0037] E.N. The LLM prompt manager is connected to a data repository (database)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed to incorporate the teachings of Mantin because Ayed does not explicitly disclose receiving a natural language description of a custom configuration, a firewall based on the schema and storing the verification logic in a database which is disclosed by Mantin. Incorporating the teachings of Mantin to Ayed allows for the custom configuration for a firewall and storing the verification logic that is received by the large language model into a database.
Ayed and Mantin do not, but in related art, Law discloses wherein the custom configuration for the firewall comprises one or more modifications to a default configuration associated with the firewall; US20110072506 (Paragraph [0012] E.N. Typical firewalls require detailed configuration of their rulesets. Some firewalls implement a "default-deny" type of firewall ruleset, in which the only connections the firewall allows are those that have been explicitly allowed by the ruleset. Any modification of the system by adding or removing a network component will also require modification of the default-deny ruleset. Another option is a "default-allow" ruleset in which all traffic is allowed unless it has been specifically blocked. Default-allow configured rulesets, while easily implemented, make inadvertent network connections and unwanted system security compromises much more likely.
to enforce rules associated with the custom configuration US20110072506 (Paragraph [0013] E.N. As the process control system and various sub-systems evolve, the firewall rulesets must also change to meet any additional security requirements of new devices, software updates, and any other network changes. The field devices and process control system software, just like any other software, may contain errors requiring the installation of patches and other fixes. Each time the system is changed (e.g., by the addition of new devices or software, patches to fix old software, changes to network configuration, updates, etc.), that change could potentially expose the network to risk.)
and to prevent the one or more modifications to the default configuration from introducing one or more security vulnerabilities; and US20110072506 (Paragraph [0025] E.N. A ruleset at the network device may include one or more rules defining a condition to accept or deny network traffic received at the network device, where the network traffic originates externally from the process control system and seeks access to the process control system. The network device may also include comparison routine to determine if network traffic communicated into the network device violates one or more rules of the ruleset as well as a security routine to deny the network traffic access to the control appliance or another device of the process control system and to cause an alarm to be displayed in an operator interface of the process control system if the network traffic received at the first network connector violates one or more of the rules, or to communicate the network traffic to the control appliance through the second network connector if the network traffic received at the network device does not violate one or more of the rules.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin to incorporate the teachings of Law because Ayed and Mantin do not explicitly disclose custom configuration for the firewall comprises one or more modifications to a default configuration, enforce rules and prevent modifications from introducing security vulnerabilities which is taught by Law. Incorporating the teachings of Law to Ayed and Mantin allows for the firewall to determine if malicious packets from entering the network prevent it.
Regarding Claim 16, Ayed further discloses A system, comprising: a processor configured to (Paragraph [0064])
and a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions. (Paragraph [0064])
Regarding Claim 20, Ayed further discloses A computer program product embodied in a non- transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions (Paragraph [0064])
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law discloses the method of Claim 1 and the system of Claim 16. Ayed further discloses wherein the verification logic is written in a format that matches a format associated with the schema. (Paragraph [0069] E.N. When the auto-generated search query statement are not parsable, the post-processor is configured to perform an error correcting process that includes identifying and replacing hallucinated values with schema values set forth in the schema provided by the RAG pipelines.)
Regarding Claims 5 and 19, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law discloses the method of Claim 1 and the system of Claim 16. Ayed further discloses wherein the natural language description is determined from a conversational interaction between a user and a machine learning service. (Paragraph [0023] E.N. A pipeline search query generation engine that is configured to receive a natural language question pertaining to Search Processing Language (SPL) provided by a user via a network device and execute one of a plurality of pipelines to either generate SPL statements, provide a natural language explanation of an SPL statement, or provide a natural language answer to a question about SPL.)
Claim(s) 2,3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayed (US20250245425) in view of Mantin (US20250335574) and in further view of Law (US20110072506) and Capillo (US20180075049).
Regarding Claims 2 and 17 Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law discloses the method of Claim 1 and the system of Claim 16. Ayed, Mantin and Law do not, but in related art, Capillo discloses wherein the schema is converted from a first format into a second format. (Paragraph [0045] E.N. The builder function operates in a “best effort” mode that allows the transformation of, for example, JSON schema to XML schema, that ignores data, attributes, and variables that may is not necessary to produce the resulting output schema.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law to incorporate the Capillo because Ayed, Mantin and Law do not explicitly disclose converting the schema from a first format to a second format which is disclosed by Capillo. Incorporating the teachings of Capillo to Ayed, Mantin and Law allows for the schema to be converted to different forms such as JSON and XML.
Regarding Claim 3, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law and Capillo discloses the method of Claim 2. Ayed, Mantin and Law do not, but in related art, Capillo discloses wherein the first format is XML and the second format is JSON. (Paragraph [0045] E.N. The builder function operates in a “best effort” mode that allows the transformation of, for example, JSON schema to XML schema, that ignores data, attributes, and variables that may is not necessary to produce the resulting output schema. The configuration utility is configured to provide backward compatibility between JSON and XML schema (See [0007]))
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law to incorporate the Capillo because Ayed, Mantin and Law do not explicitly disclose XML format and JSON format which is disclosed by Capillo. Incorporating the teachings of Capillo to Ayed, Mantin and Law allows for the schema to be converted to different forms such as JSON and XML.
Claim(s) 6-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayed (US20250245425) in view of Mantin (US20250335574) and in further view of Law (US20110072506) and Shenoy (US20190098037).
Regarding Claim 6, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law discloses the method of Claim 1. Ayed, Mantin and Law do not, but in related art, Shenoy discloses further comprising receiving a modified configuration file associated with the firewall. (Paragraph [0186] E.N. The security system modifies (e.g. via a configuration file) security parameters of firewall to prevent certain client devices associated with certain user accounts from establishing a connection with one or more services provided by the service provider.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law to incorporate the teachings of Shenoy because Ayed, Mantin and Law do not explicitly disclose receiving a modified configuration file associated with the firewall which is disclosed by Shenoy. Incorporating the teachings of Shenoy to Ayed, Mantin and Law allows for the large language model’s firewall to determine the rules/polices that need to be followed.
Regarding Claim 7, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law and Shenoy discloses the method of Claim 6. Ayed, Mantin and Law do not, but in related art, Shenoy discloses further comprising receiving a notification that a configuration file associated with the firewall has been modified. (Paragraph [0186] E.N. The security system creates security updates and modifies both the security parameters of the organization and the service provider. One of ordinary skill in the art is able to determine some form of notification is sent when there is an update.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law to incorporate the teachings of Shenoy because Ayed, Mantin and Law do not explicitly disclose receiving a notification that a configuration file associated with the firewall was modified which is disclosed by Shenoy. Incorporating the teachings of Shenoy to Ayed, Mantin and Law allows for the large language model’s firewall to determine the rules/polices that need to be followed.
Regarding Claim 8, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law and Shenoy discloses the method of Claim 7. Ayed, Mantin and Law do not, but in related art, Shenoy discloses wherein the modified configuration file associated with the firewall is associated with a particular tenant. (Paragraph [0055] E.N. The tenant configuration information includes configuration information for tenants and tenant accounts, as well as user accounts associated with each tenant account.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law to incorporate the teachings of Shenoy because Ayed, Mantin and Law do not explicitly disclose the configuration file associated with the firewall is associated with a particular tenant which is disclosed by Shenoy. Incorporating the teachings of Shenoy to Ayed, Mantin and Law allows for the large language model’s firewall to determine the rules/polices that need to be followed for each particular tenant.
Regarding Claim 9, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law and Shenoy discloses the method of Claim 8. Ayed does not, but in related art, Mantin discloses determining that the verification logic stored in the database (Paragraph [0037] E.N. The LLM prompt manager is connected to a data repository (database) and is configured to store training data, a response schema, one or more security events and prompt data)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed to incorporate the teachings of Mantin because Ayed does not explicitly disclose storing the verification logic which is disclosed by Mantin. Incorporating the teachings of Mantin to Ayed allows for the custom configuration for a firewall and storing the verification logic that is received by the large language model into a database.
Ayed, Mantin and Law do not, but in related art, Shenoy discloses corresponds to the particular tenant. (Paragraph [0055] E.N. The tenant configuration information includes configuration information for tenants and tenant accounts, as well as user accounts associated with each tenant account.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law to incorporate the teachings of Shenoy because Ayed, Mantin and Law do not explicitly disclose the files associated with the firewall is associated with a particular tenant which is disclosed by Shenoy. Incorporating the teachings of Shenoy to Ayed, Mantin and Law allows for the large language model’s firewall to determine the rules/polices that need to be followed for each particular tenant.
Regarding Claim 10, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law and Shenoy discloses the method of Claim 9. Ayed further discloses and the verification logic (Paragraph [0067] E.N. Deployment of a schema verification methodology to reduce hallucinations during generations of an answer to a natural-language user prompt by a large language model (LLM) is disclosed.)
Ayed, Mantin and Law do not, but in related art, Shenoy discloses further comprising obtaining the modified configuration file associated with the firewall (Paragraph [0055] E.N. The tenant configuration information includes configuration information for tenants and tenant accounts, as well as user accounts associated with each tenant account.)
corresponding to the particular tenant. (Paragraph [0055] E.N. The tenant configuration information includes configuration information for tenants and tenant accounts, as well as user accounts associated with each tenant account.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law to incorporate the teachings of Shenoy because Ayed, Mantin and Law do not explicitly disclose the files associated with the firewall is associated with a particular tenant which is disclosed by Shenoy. Incorporating the teachings of Shenoy to Ayed, Mantin and Law allows for the large language model’s firewall to determine the rules/polices that need to be followed for each particular tenant.
Regarding Claim 11, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law and Shenoy discloses the method of Claim 10. Ayed further discloses applying the verification logic (Paragraph [0067] E.N. Deployment of a schema verification methodology to reduce hallucinations during generations of an answer to a natural-language user prompt by a large language model (LLM) is disclosed.)
Ayed, Mantin and Law do not, but in related art, Shenoy discloses corresponding to the particular tenant to the modified configuration file associated with the firewall. (Paragraph [0055] E.N. The tenant configuration information includes configuration information for tenants and tenant accounts, as well as user accounts associated with each tenant account.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law to incorporate the teachings of Shenoy because Ayed, Mantin and Law do not explicitly disclose the files associated with the firewall is associated with a particular tenant which is disclosed by Shenoy. Incorporating the teachings of Shenoy to Ayed, Mantin and Law allows for the large language model’s firewall to determine the rules/polices that need to be followed for each particular tenant.
Regarding Claim 14, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law and Shenoy discloses the method of Claim 11. Ayed Mantin and Law do not, but in related art, Shenoy discloses further comprising updating firewall settings for the firewall based on the modified configuration file in response to determining that there are no errors associated with the modified configuration file. (Paragraph [0186] E.N. The security system modifies (e.g. via a configuration file) security parameters of firewall to prevent certain client devices associated with certain user accounts from establishing a connection with one or more services provided by the service provider. One of ordinary skill in the art can determine if there are no errors associated with the modified continuation file, the configuration file works correctly.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law to incorporate the teachings of Shenoy because Ayed, Mantin and Law do not explicitly disclose updating the firewall settings and determine there are no errors which is disclosed by Shenoy. Incorporating the teachings of Shenoy to Ayed, Mantin and Law allows for the large language model’s firewall to determine the rules/polices that need to be followed for each particular tenant.
Regarding Claim 15, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law and Shenoy discloses the method of Claim 11. Ayed further discloses generating a report based on applying the verification logic (Paragraph [0067] E.N. Deployment of a schema verification methodology to reduce hallucinations during generations of an answer to a natural-language user prompt by a large language model (LLM) is disclosed.)
Ayed, Mantin and Law do not, but in related art, Shenoy discloses corresponding to the particular tenant to the modified configuration file associated with the firewall. (Paragraph [0055] E.N. The tenant configuration information includes configuration information for tenants and tenant accounts, as well as user accounts associated with each tenant account.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law to incorporate the teachings of Shenoy because Ayed, Mantin and Law do not explicitly disclose the files associated with the firewall is associated with a particular tenant which is disclosed by Shenoy. Incorporating the teachings of Shenoy to Ayed, Mantin and Law allows for the large language model’s firewall to determine the rules/polices that need to be followed for each particular tenant.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayed (US20250245425) in view of Mantin (US20250335574) and in further view of Law (US20110072506), Shenoy (US20190098037) and Cyprus (US20100325730).
Regarding Claim 12, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law and Shenoy discloses the method of Claim 11. Ayed, Mantin, Law and Shenoy do not, but in related art, Cyprus discloses further comprising determining to revert the modified configuration file associated with the firewall to a previous version of a custom configuration file for the file in response to determining that there are one or more errors associated with the modified configuration file. (Paragraph [0080] E.N. The VST Client restores the previous firewall configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art is able to determine that if there are any errors, the client is able to restore the previous firewall configurations to mitigate said errors.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law and Shenoy to incorporate the teachings of Cyprus because Ayed, Mantin, Law and Shenoy do not explicitly disclose determining errors with the modified configuration files which is taught by Cyprus. Incorporating the teachings of Cyprus to Ayed, Mantin, Law and Shenoy allow for the determination of any errors in the firewall configuration files.
Regarding Claim 13, Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law, Shenoy and Cyprus discloses the method of Claim 12. Ayed, Mantin, Law and Shenoy do not, but in related art, Cyprus discloses wherein the previous version is a most recent verified version of the custom configuration file. (Paragraph [0080] E.N. The VST Client restores the previous firewall configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art can determine that the previous configuration is the most recent verified version)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ayed in view of Mantin and in further view of Law and Shenoy to incorporate the teachings of Cyprus because Ayed, Mantin, Law and Shenoy do not explicitly disclose the previous version is a most recent verified version of the custom configuration files which is taught by Cyprus. Incorporating the teachings of Cyprus to Ayed, Mantin, Law and Shenoy allow for the determination of any errors in the firewall configuration files.
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 AAYUSH ARYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2838. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/AAYUSH ARYAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights