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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 11/15/24, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending;
Claims 3-4, 17 over come the prior of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
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 abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, 16 recited as “determine whether the target activity is a valid activity, training data comprising a set of training operating parameters pertaining to a plurality of valid activities occurring in an untampered process, executing within the industrial control system; and generate an indication to depict the target activity as one of a valid activity and an unauthorized activity”, and claim 12 recited as “training data to categorize a target activity performed in relation to a target process as one of a valid activity and unauthorized activity, based on an actual operational data pertaining to the target activity” are the process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting “by processing device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind (e.g., including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
For example, but for the “a processor, detection model” language, the context of the above limitations in claim 1 and 16 encompass that a person can mentally determine or recognize a particular data/activity is valid or suspicious based on received/obtained information. If the data is not a valid data, the person can alert or inform to the other regarding the issue that the data is invalid. Further, the context of limitation in claim 12 above encompass that a person can mentally categorizing, grouping or sorting which data is suspicious/invalid data, and which data is valid data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under the 2A prong 1 analysist.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application with respect to the 2A prong 2 analysist. In particular, the claim using a processor, a detection model to perform the abstract idea as recited above. The claim is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic processor, detection model) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Further, obtaining actual operational data (claim 1 and 16), and retrieving training data (in claim 12) are not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely storing data in a memory and outputting the data. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to the 2B analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discuss above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform all of the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, obtaining actual operational data (claim 1 and 16), and retrieving training data (in claim 12) are not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely storing data in a memory and outputting the data which are considered as well understood routine conventional as it has been held by the court. Particularly in receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Noting that claim to a system is held ineligible for the same reason, e.g., the generically-recited computers add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Therefore, the independents 1, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-15, 17-20 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1 and 11 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CABADI ET AL (US 2017/0357908). Herein after CABADI.
As for claim 1, CABADI discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by the processor {see at least figure 5} to: obtain actual operational data of an operational component operating in any one of multiple architectural levels of an industrial control system, wherein the actual operational data comprises actual operating parameters corresponding to a target activity performed in relation to a target process, the target process executing within the industrial control system {see at least figure 3, pars. 0005, 0037, 0039, 0058}; based on the actual operational data, use a detection model to determine whether the target activity is a valid activity, wherein the detection model is trained based on training data comprising a set of training operating parameters pertaining to a plurality of valid activities occurring in an untampered process, executing within the industrial control system {see at least figure 4, steps 404-406, pars. 0057-0058}; and generate an indication to depict the target activity as one of a valid activity and an unauthorized activity in response to the determination using the detection model {see at least pars. 0047, 0048}.
As for claim 2, CABADI discloses wherein the operational component is one of a control system and a device deployed within one of the multiple architectural levels of the industrial control system {see at least figures 1-3, pars. 0038-0039}.
As for claim 5, CABADI discloses the operational components are to operate within an operational technology network of the industrial control system {see at least pars. 0040, 0041, 0044, 0045, 0050-0051}.
As for claim 6, CABADI discloses wherein the actual operational data is obtained in real-time or in batches {see at last par. 0053}.
As for claim 7, CABADI discloses wherein the actual operating parameters are obtained from sources includes event and alarm histories {see at least pars. 0008-0009, 0012, 0056, 0057}.
As for claim 8, CABADI discloses wherein the actual operational data comprises an identifier linking the operational component to the actual operating parameters {see at least pars. 0040-0041}.
As for claim 9, CABADI discloses wherein the indication depicts the identifier of the one of the control systems and devices to which the target activity pertains to {see at least pars. 0040-0041}.
As for claim 10, CABADI discloses wherein the indication is a visual alert {see at least par. 0043}.
As for claim 11, CABADI discloses wherein the operational component comprises a sensor {see at least par. 0039}.
As for claim 12, CABADI discloses a method comprising: retrieving training data pertaining to a plurality of operational components operating across multiple architectural levels within an operational technology network of an industrial control system, wherein the training data comprises a set of training operating parameters corresponding to a plurality of valid activities and unauthorized activities to have occurred in a process executing within the industrial control system {see at least figure 4, pars. 0057-0058}; and training a detection model based on the training data, wherein the detection model once trained is to categorize a target activity performed in relation to a target process as one of a valid activity and unauthorized activity, based on an actual operational data pertaining to the target activity {see at least figure 4, pars. 0057-0058, 0067}.
As for claim 13, CABADI discloses wherein the training data comprises data corresponding one or more failure observed during operation {see at least par. 0041}.
As for claim 15, CABADI discloses receiving additional operating parameters from an administrator of the industrial control system; and further training the detection model based on the additional operating parameters {see at least pars. 0037, 0041, 0063, 0068}.
As for claims 14, 16, 18-20, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejections above. They are therefore considered rejected as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kroyzer et al (US 2016/0330225): A method of detecting anomalies in an industrial control system includes analyzing data of correct operational parameters from at least one input device.
Jones et al (US 2024/0430232): A protection system, method and security device can protect an operational technology (OT) system having connected hardware equipment including at least an interface that can receive a control communication and an industrial control device for controlling at least one industrial device.
Obermeier et al (US 10,187,411): A method and system for automatic signaling an alert when a possible intrusion occurs in an industrial automation and control system, based on security events which occur in the industrial automation and control system or are externally fed into the system.
Fichter et al (US 2023/0379353): providing system resiliency in an Industrial Control System (ICS) having an operational technology (OT) network. An orchestration engine can determine a security alert indicating a security attack against an affected controller, and instruct a virtualization server to instantiate a virtual controller performing the set of functions performed by the affected controller
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights