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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/26/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 02/25/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an Amendment Application received on 05/26/2026. In the application, claims 1-2, 7, 10-11, 16, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 3-6, 8-9, 12-15, and 17-18 remain original. No claim has been cancelled and no new claim has been added.
For this Office Action, claims 1-20 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s remarks regarding amended claims have been reviewed, however, remarks are not found to be persuasive and amendments still recite an Abstract Idea. After review, the remarks have been summarized as follows:
# 1. This claim language is tied to operation of an apparatus under thermal conditions, not to an abstract evaluation divorced from technology. Applicant submits that the claimed operations are not practically performed in the human mind because the claim is directed to configuring an apparatus to select and perform security actions in response to device temperature ranges during operation of the apparatus. The claim therefore does not merely recite observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion (Page # 9).
Examiner’s Response
Regarding remark # 1, that “claim is directed to configuring an apparatus to select and perform security actions in response to device temperature ranges during operation of the apparatus. The claim therefore does not merely recite observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion”, examiner respectfully disagree.
The amendment limitations still recite an Abstract Idea under patent eligibility guidelines because they describe generic data-processing steps: measuring a value (temperature), categorizing data based on that value (matching it to a security level), and making a rule-based decision (performing an action), which can be performed in the human mind or with generic computer components without adding a specific, inventive technical solution.
# 2. Amended claim 1 is analogous in some respects to USPTO Example 1, claim 1, which was found eligible because it was "directed towards performing isolation and eradication of computer viruses, worms, and other malicious code, a concept inextricably tied to computer technology." Here, amended claim 1 similarly recites temperature exploit mitigation for an apparatus by determining "a first temperature range," determining "from a plurality of security levels associated with the apparatus, a first security level based on the first temperature range," and "perform[ing] a first security action associated with the first security level." Like the eligible claim in Example 1, amended claim 1 is rooted in protecting devices and data from security threats, not in organizing human activity or performing a mental process (Page # 9).
Examiner’s Response
Regarding remark # 2, that instant amended claim is analogous in some respects to USPTO Example 1, examiner respectfully disagree. The claim 1 in USPTO Example 1 is directed to multiple steps of receiving an electronic communication containing malicious in a memory boot sector, a quarantine sector, and a non-quarantine sector. The steps comprise of storing, extracting, scanning, flagging, continue scanning the malicious code, and subsequently creating a new clean data file, transferring the clean data to the memory and deleting all remaining data from the quarantine sector. The claim 1 in Example 1 recites detailed steps of receiving and analyzing a malicious code and cleaning the malicious code through various techniques, it is stored as clean file. These steps cannot be performed by a human mind and therefore are found patent eligible.
Whereas the steps in instant claim are straight forward where the temperature range of an apparatus is being determine and based on the temperature range being at certain level which is equivalent to security level, an action is performed. These steps disclose Temperature determination, Range comparison, and Action execution which are the steps can be in the human mind using pen and paper or with generic computer components without adding a specific, inventive technical solution.
# 3. Applicant’s remarks related to Step 2A, Prong 2 & Step 2B related USPTO Example 26 and Finjan and SRI-type computer-security claims (Page # 10-13).
Examiner’s Response
Regarding remark # 3, examiner respectfully disagree that instant claim limitations recite similar concept as claims in USPTO Example 26 & Finjan and SRI-type computer-security. As mentioned, in regards to remark # 2, the claims in Example 26 & Finjan and SRI-type computer-security recite detailed steps besides providing additional details in the specification whereas the instant claim limitations recite steps which definitely fall under the Abstract Idea guidelines.
With regards to Applicant’s remarks that the ordered combination is supported by the instant specification’s explanation, examiner respectfully disagree with this notion and would like to note that claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology and Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 (Abstract Idea)
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claims 1, 10, and 19 fall into one of the four statutory categories of “an apparatus, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium” claims. Nevertheless, the claim(s) still is/are considered as abstract idea (i.e., Mental process comprising concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) for the following prongs and reasons.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite the abstract idea of:
“determine a first temperature of the apparatus (Mental process: a human administrator can determine temperature of the apparatus/device);
determine the first temperature of the apparatus is within a first temperature range (Mental process: the human administrator can determine if the apparatus/device temperature is within a first range);
determine, from a plurality of security levels associated with the apparatus, a first security level based on the first temperature range (Mental process: the human administrator determine various security level of the apparatus/device based on the determination of the temperature within the first range);
wherein each security level of the plurality of security levels is associated with a respective temperature range of a plurality of temperature ranges (Mental process: the human administrator defines various security levels which are associated with a respective temperature range of a plurality of temperature ranges); and
perform a first security action associated with the first security level (Mental process: the human administrator performs appropriate security action relevant to the security level)”.
Step 2A: Prong 2: The judicial exceptions (i.e., at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium) is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional element to perform beyond routine steps. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.5(a) II).
These limitations recite an abstract idea under patent eligibility guidelines because they describe generic data-processing steps: measuring a value (temperature), categorizing data based on that value (matching it to a security level), and making a rule-based decision (performing an action), which can be performed in the human mind or with generic computer components without adding a specific, inventive technical solution.
Analysis of Limitations
Temperature determination: Reading a physical sensor value, though tied to hardware, acts as a generic data-gathering step rather than a specific hardware improvement.
Range comparison: Categorizing data into predefined tiers or security levels is a mental process of comparison and classification.
Action execution: Triggering a pre-arranged response based on a category is a standard rule-based business or organizational concept applied generically.
In this particular case, the additional elements of the claim are:
“an apparatus comprising memory and processor”.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions (instant spec. [0032-0033]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do 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 claims do not reflect improvement in the technology. Further, mere automated instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e., an apparatus comprising memory and processor) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer.
To support this factual conclusion, the examiner takes Official Notice that one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found processors and/or software well-known and routine in technology that involves computers (instant spec. PGPub [0032-0033] discloses that the functions of the disclosed claims can be implemented using generic computer(s)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the examiner asserts that the above noted elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not constitute as “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 of respective independent claims have been analyzed and fall into one of the statutory categories and therefore passes step 1 analysis. However, under step 2, 2A & 2B analysis, the dependent claims recite mental processes which can be implemented by one or more human users using pen and paper. Thus, dependent claims also recite abstract idea and considered ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Premnath et al., (US20170126704A1) in view of Xu., (US20240340982A1).
Regarding claim 1, Premnath discloses:
An apparatus (i.e., computing device 120) for temperature exploit mitigation ([0029] The network environment 100 includes computing device 120, which can include IoT device; [0051] FIG. 4 illustrates a method 401 for detecting anomalous behavior, such as malware, in an IoT device by monitoring temperature sensors within the device according to various embodiments), the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (FIG. 1B; [0030-0031]) and configured to:
determine a first temperature (i.e., CPU core temperature sensor 118 a) of the apparatus (FIG. 2D; [0046] The CPU core temperature sensor 118 a may generate temperature output data over time as a pattern 135 k during operation. The pattern 135 k may be input to the malware detection module 210. In determination block 215 a, a processor of the computing device 120 may determine whether the pattern 135 k corresponds to the CPU profile 220 a including in consideration of task information 213 a);
determine the first temperature of the apparatus is within a first temperature range (i.e., corresponds to the CPU profile) ([0046] In response to determining that the pattern 135 k corresponds to the CPU profile 220 a including in consideration of task information 213 a (i.e., determination block 215 a=“yes”) , the processor may provide no malware report);
perform a first security action associated with the first security level ([0061] In some embodiments, a reply from received from the IoT communication network in block 419 may be a command to perform a corrective action, such as shutting down, rebooting, etc.).
Premnath fails to disclose:
determine, from a plurality of security levels associated with the apparatus, a first security level based on the first temperature range; wherein each security level of the plurality of security levels is associated with a respective temperature range of a plurality of temperature ranges.
However, Xu discloses:
determine, from a plurality of security levels associated with the apparatus, a first security level based on the first temperature range ([0082] FIG. 4 is a schematic flowchart of a security level determining method according to an embodiment of this application; [0186] Generally, the environment monitoring data changes in some risk scenarios. Whether there is a risk of danger currently can be determined based on the environment monitoring data, and then the security level can be determined);
wherein each security level of the plurality of security levels is associated with a respective temperature range of a plurality of temperature ranges ([0187] For example, an ambient temperature rises in a fire. In this case, in an example 1 shown in Table 1, the condition 1 may be, for example, that a temperature is greater than a threshold 1. If the threshold 1 is 50° C., when the smart door lock determines, based on the obtained environment monitoring data, that a current indoor/in-vehicle temperature is greater than 50° C., the smart door lock may determine that there is a fire risk, and determine the security level as the dangerous mode).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature monitoring system of Premnath and include a system which monitors environment temperature data at various levels, as disclosed by Xu.
The motivation to include system which monitors environment temperature data at various levels is to proactively take mitigation actions before the environment temperatures reaches a dangerous level.
Regarding claim 10, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 19, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 11, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Premnath et al., (US20170126704A1) in view of Xu., (US20240340982A1) and further in view of Coutts et al., (US20170074729A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Premnath and Xu discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine a second temperature (i.e., the MODEM core temperature sensor 118 j) associated with a change in temperature of the apparatus (Prem: [0047] The MODEM core temperature sensor 118 j may generate temperature output data over time as a pattern 135 l during operation. The pattern 135 l may be input to the malware detection module 210);
determine the second temperature of the apparatus is within a second temperature range, the second temperature range associated with temperatures that are higher than temperatures of the first temperature range (Prem: [0047] In determination block 215 b, the processor of the computing device 120 may determine whether the pattern 135 l corresponds to the MODEM profile 220 b including in consideration of task information 213 b. In response to determining that the pattern 135 l corresponds to the MODEM profile 220 b including in consideration of task information 213 b (i.e., determination block 215 b=“yes”), the processor may provide no malware report);
determine, from the plurality of security levels, a second security level based on the second temperature range (Xu: [0186] Generally, the environment monitoring data changes in some risk scenarios. Whether there is a risk of danger currently can be determined based on the environment monitoring data, and then the security level can be determined; [0187] For example, an ambient temperature rises in a fire. In this case, in an example 1 shown in Table 1, the condition 1 may be, for example, that a temperature is greater than a threshold 1. If the threshold 1 is 50° C., when the smart door lock determines, based on the obtained environment monitoring data, that a current indoor/in-vehicle temperature is greater than 50° C., the smart door lock may determine that there is a fire risk, and determine the security level as the dangerous mode); and
perform a second security action associated with the second security level (Prem: [0047] In response to determining that the pattern 135 l does not correspond to the MODEM profile 220 b including in consideration of task information 213 b (i.e., determination block 215 b=“no”), the processor may provide the malware report 219)
the combination of Prem and Xu fails to disclose:
wherein performance of the second security action uses less processing power than performance of the first security action.
However, Coutts discloses:
wherein performance of the second security action uses less processing power (i.e., reduction in the frequency of the CPU due to high temperatures results in improved CPU performance) than performance of the first security action ([0031] In operation, the temperature manager 120 monitors the temperature of the CPU 130 using the temperature readings from the thermal sensor 110. If the temperature rises above a temperature threshold, the temperature manager 120 may initiate temperature mitigation, in which the temperature manager 120 takes action to reduce the temperature of the CPU 130. The temperature manager 120 may reduce the temperature by reducing the operating frequency of the CPU 130, reducing the supply voltage Vdd, or both; [0043] The temperature manager 220 may perform temperature mitigation by commanding the adjustable clock source 140 to reduce (scale down) the frequency of the CPU, commanding the adjustable power source 150 to reduce the supply voltage Vdd, or both; [0044] The reduced margin allows the CPU to operate at higher speed for a longer period of time before thermal mitigation is initiated, thereby improving performance).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify temperature monitoring system of Premnath and Xu and include a temperature management system comprising temperature manager dedicated to monitor the temperature of the CPU and takes appropriate action when the temperature is beyond threshold, as disclosed by Coutts.
The motivation to monitor temperature of the CPU and take appropriate action in case the temperature is beyond threshold is to allow the CPU to operate at higher speed for a longer period of time, thereby improving performance.
Regarding claim 11, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Premnath, Xu and Coutts discloses:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: detect a cybersecurity attack based on a change from the first temperature to the second temperature (Premnath: [0004] Various embodiments include methods of detecting a malware infection of a computing device in a communication network that may include monitoring outputs of temperature sensors associated with elements of the computing device, comparing monitored output of the temperature sensors to a profile of temperatures associated with normal operation of the computing device, and reporting a deviation of the monitored output of the temperature sensors from the profile of temperatures associated with normal operation; [0006] In some embodiments, reporting the deviation may include reporting an indication of a malware infection of the computing device. Some embodiments may further include comparing the monitored outputs of the temperature sensors with a malware profile of temperatures associated with operations of the computing device indicative of a malware infection).
Regarding claim 13, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 4 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Premnath, Xu and Coutts discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine a cooling action (i.e., reduce the temperature of CPU) based on the first temperature and the first security action; and perform the cooling action (Coutts: [0026] For example, when a temperature reading reaches a temperature threshold, the temperature manager may take steps to reduce the temperature such as throttling back (reducing) the operating frequency of a CPU. This reduces the temperature by reducing the dynamic power dissipation of the CPU; [0066] For example, if the estimated hotspot temperature in the first CPU 930 exceeds a temperature threshold, the temperature manager 935 may initiate temperature mitigation to reduce the temperature of the first CPU 930).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify temperature monitoring system of Premnath in view of Xu and include a temperature management system comprising temperature manager dedicated to monitor the temperature of the CPU and takes appropriate action when the temperature is beyond threshold, as disclosed by Coutts.
The motivation to monitor temperature of the CPU and take appropriate action in case the temperature is beyond threshold is to allow the CPU to operate at higher speed for a longer period of time, thereby improving performance.
Regarding claim 14, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Premnath et al., (US20170126704A1) in view of Xu., (US20240340982A1) in view of Coutts et al., (US20170074729A1) and further in view of Shabbir et al., (US20210325947A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Premnath, Xu, and Coutts fails to disclose:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first security action and the second security action include at least one of encryption of data, partial encryption of data, authentication of data, partial authentication of data, reduction of collected data resolution, or transition of the apparatus to an idle mode.
However, Shabbir discloses:
wherein the first security action and the second security action include at least one of encryption of data, partial encryption of data, authentication of data, partial authentication of data, reduction of collected data resolution, or transition of the apparatus to an idle mode (i.e., keeping the CPU power to open loop [OL] power level) ([0015] A predictive logic algorithm is disclosed that uses CPU power and a CPU core count to estimate an expected CPU temperature jump if CPU loading suddenly increases from a standby mode to a fully-loaded configuration (while CPU power level is used in this disclosure, the same principles can apply to memory devices, data communications devices, graphics processing units (GPU) or other system components); [0016] To accomplish this, the present disclosure uses a CPU load line curve to calculate the CPU power that would be considered “idle power” at which to maintain the CPU idle temp, which is the open loop target; [0017] If the current CPU power load is greater than the idle load (idle load is termed as open loop [OL] power level), automated baseline fan speed (“ABFS”) control will be capped to the OL power level fan speed. The OL power-based fan speed will not be adjusted beyond this CPU power level; [0051] At 214, the cooling baseline is capped at the open loop level. In one example embodiment, the cooling baseline can be capped to prevent closed loop control from decreasing the cooling level below a level that is needed to prevent an instantaneous temperature increase above the maximum design temperature).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify temperature monitoring system of Premnath in view of Xu in view of Coutts and include an algorithm for transitioning between open loop and closed loop cooling control, as disclosed by Shabbir.
The motivation to include the algorithm is to maintain appropriate CPU temperature in order to prevent an instantaneous temperature increase above the maximum design temperature.
Regarding claim 12, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Premnath, Xu, and Coutts fails to disclose:
The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the cooling action includes at least one of activation of a fan, adjustment of a fan speed, activation of direct liquid cooling, or performance of liquid immersion cooling.
However, Shabbir discloses:
wherein the cooling action includes at least one of activation of a fan, adjustment of a fan speed, activation of direct liquid cooling, or performance of liquid immersion cooling ([0048] At 208, a fan speed for CPU open loop power limit is generated. In one example embodiment, the fan speed can be set to a level that results in sufficient cooling at the CPU open loop power limit to prevent an excessive transient temperature spike causing the CPU temperature to go over design limit).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify temperature monitoring system of Premnath in view of Xu in view of Coutts and include an algorithm for transitioning between open loop and closed loop cooling control, as disclosed by Shabbir.
The motivation to include the algorithm is to maintain appropriate CPU temperature in order to prevent an instantaneous temperature increase above the maximum design temperature.
Regarding claim 15, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Claim(s) 7-9, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Premnath et al., (US20170126704A1) in view of Xu., (US20240340982A1) in view of Carmack et al., (US12034740B1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Premnath, and Xu fails to disclose:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a server.
However, Carmack discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a server (Col. 4, Line # 15-22; In the present disclosure, the term “zone” may be used to refer to a logical division of physical or virtual resources in which a software application may be executed. Thus, each of the zones 104A-04B may refer to a particular geographic region, particular data center, a particular room in a data center, a particular set of server racks within the particular room, a particular rack within the set of server racks, a particular computing device within the rack).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify temperature monitoring system of Premnath in view of Xu and include a system which includes an environment that comprises of a server, as disclosed by Carmack.
The motivation to implement temperature monitoring system in the environment that comprises of a server is to improve server performance through temperature monitoring.
Regarding claim 16, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 7 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Premnath, and Xu fails to disclose:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first security action includes a reduction in a duty cycle of data transmission associated with the apparatus.
However, Carmack discloses:
wherein the first security action includes a reduction in a duty cycle of data transmission associated with the apparatus (Col. 26, Line # 62-67; However, the process 900 may be performed prior to migrating the application in order to determine whether the application could present a threat to another application in the zone. Therefore, in 902, a level of threat presented by the application in question to another application may be determined; Col. 27, Line # 41-53; However, if the threat level indicates a medium threat (that is, the computed threat level may indicate that the application being migrated may present some security risk, but it is still uncertain whether the application actually does present a threat to the target application), in 908, an action to take may be to halt migration of the application. Halting migration of the application may be any of a variety of things, such as postponing migration of the application for a predetermined amount of time, setting a rule forbidding the application to be migrated to the target zone, requiring a customer-owner of the target application to confirm whether the migration of the application should be performed or not, etc.).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify temperature monitoring system of Premnath in view of Xu and include a system which is able to determine threat level between application and based on the threat level, control communication cycles between the application, as disclosed by Carmack.
The motivation to implement determination and control of communication cycles between application is to prevent malicious communication from occurring between the application.
Regarding claim 17, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 8 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Premnath, and Xu fails to disclose:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first security action includes disablement of communication between the apparatus and a device.
However, Carmack discloses:
wherein the first security action includes disablement of communication between the apparatus and a device (Col. 7, Line # 11-24; Such blockage may be performed by blocking a port of communication used by the first software application 102A, blocking/ignoring communications originating from an Internet protocol address being used by the first software application 102A, or blocking/ignoring communications that match a particular digital fingerprint used in communications by the first software application 102A. Additionally, if the first software application 102A is executing within of the virtual computing system service of the computing resource service provider making the determination 106, the computing resource service provider may perform a scan and disable all occurrences of the particular first software application 102A executing within the virtual computing system service).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify temperature monitoring system of Premnath in view of Xu and include a system which is able to determine threat level between application and based on the threat level, control communication cycles between the application, as disclosed by Carmack.
The motivation to implement determination and control of communication cycles between application is to prevent malicious communication from occurring between the application.
Regarding claim 18, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 9 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights