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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to: an original application filed on 30 December 2024.
2. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and claims 1, 11 and 12 are independent claims.
Priority
3. Priority date claimed has been considered.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed on 30 December 2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Double Patenting
5. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents /process/ file/efs/guidance /eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under the grounds of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting, as they are deemed unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12244634. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are considered not patentably distinct from one another, as they convey the same inventive concept. Specifically, both sets of claims disclose a method for CYBERSECURITY IDENTITY RISK DETECTION UTILIZING DISK CLONING. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention’s filing, to employ this approach to prevent and protect data from cyber-attack, thereby rendering the claims unpatentable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Loureiro et al. (US Publication No. 20170111384), hereinafter Loureiro and in view of Klee et al. (US Publication No. 20160266800), hereinafter Klee.
Regarding claim 1:
A method for inspecting a resource deployed in a cloud computing environment for a cybersecurity threat, comprising (Loureiro, abstract), wherein, the system for analyzing vulnerabilities connects to the clone or to the disk copy; the system for analyzing vulnerabilities analyzes the vulnerabilities of the clone or of the disk copy.
detecting a virtual instance deployed in a cloud computing environment, the virtual instance associated with an original disk (Loureiro, ¶39, ¶11), wherein, the clone or the disk copy may be clones or disk copies not of the original virtual production server, but of the backup virtual production server, or of copies of this original virtual production server.
generating a cloned disk directly based on the original disk, wherein the original disk is provisioned storage from a cloud storage system (Loureiro, ¶37, Fig.2), wherein, once the connection has been made, the analysis system 4 uses an API, present in the system 1, that allows the server 2 to be cloned via the specific key comprising cloning (or disk copy) rights with which the analysis system 4 was provided. The key is provided to the cloud computer system and this system then creates a clone (or disk copy) of the virtual server 2.
Loureiro does not explicitly suggest, generating a cloned disk descriptor associated with the cloned disk, the cloned disk descriptor pointing to the provisioned storage; however, in a same field of endeavor Klee discloses this limitation (Klee, ¶6, ¶15), wherein, “descriptor file,” and at least one data file, referred to herein as the “extent file.” The extent file stores the virtual disk's data, which is accessible to the VM. The descriptor file contains metadata accessible to the host's core virtualization stack for management of the extent file. For example, the descriptor file points to one or more extent files to indicate which extent files belong to the virtual disk and to provide the layout of a virtual disk. The descriptor and extent files for a virtual disk are migrated, cloned, and otherwise copied together
inspecting the cloned disk for a cybersecurity object, the cybersecurity object indicating a cybersecurity risk (Loureiro, abstract, Fig.2), the system for analyzing vulnerabilities analyzes the vulnerabilities of the clone or of the disk copy.
Loureiro does not explicitly suggest, and releasing the cloned disk in response to completing inspection of the cloned disk; however, in a same field of endeavor Klee discloses this limitation (Klee, ¶8-9), wherein, To gain access to a locked virtual disk, applications extract information about the current owner of a virtual disk from its associated metadata file, and then send a request to the current owner of the virtual disk to close the virtual disk. In response, the current owner writes the new owner information into the metadata file and then closes the disk. Upon receiving notification that the virtual disk has been released for its use, the new owner opens the virtual disk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of cloning disk to analyze vulnerabilities of Loureiro with the generating disk descriptor and releasing cloned disk disclosed in Klee to provide the layout of a virtual disk, stated by Klee at ¶6.
Regarding claim 2:
further comprising: generating a representation in a security database of: the virtual instance, the original disk, and the cybersecurity object (Loureiro, ¶38-39).
Regarding claim 3:
further comprising: connecting the representation of the virtual instance with the representation of the cybersecurity object, in response to detecting the cybersecurity object on the cloned disk (Loureiro, ¶3-4).
Regarding claim 4:
wherein the security database includes a representation of the cloud computing environment (Loureiro, ¶22).
Regarding claim 5:
further comprising: initiating a mitigation action in response to detecting the cybersecurity object (Loureiro, ¶21).
Regarding claim 7:
further comprising: inspecting the cloned disk for any one of: an exposure, a vulnerability, a malware, a ransomware, a spyware, a bot, a weak password, an exposed password, an exposed certificate, a misconfiguration, a suspicious event, and any combination thereof (Loureiro, abstract).
Regarding claim 8:
further comprising: accessing an inspection account in the cloud computing environment; and generating the cloned disk in the inspection account (Loureiro, ¶30).
Regarding claim 9:
further comprising: providing access to the cloned disk to an inspector workload, the inspector workload deployed in an inspection environment communicatively coupled with the cloud computing environment. (Loureiro, ¶30).
Regarding claim 10:
further comprising: mounting the cloned disk to an inspector workload, wherein the inspector workload is deployed in an inspection environment and configured to inspect the cloned disk for the cybersecurity object (Loureiro, ¶30, ¶14).
Regarding claim 11:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for inspecting a resource deployed in a cloud computing environment for a cybersecurity threat, the set of instructions comprising (Loureiro, abstract):
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processing circuitries of a device, cause the device to (Loureiro, ¶30):
detect a virtual instance deployed in a cloud computing environment, the virtual instance associated with an original disk (Loureiro, ¶39, ¶11), wherein, the clone or the disk copy may be clones or disk copies not of the original virtual production server, but of the backup virtual production server, or of copies of this original virtual production server.
generate a cloned disk directly based on the original disk, wherein the original disk is provisioned storage from a cloud storage system (Loureiro, ¶37, Fig.2), wherein, once the connection has been made, the analysis system 4 uses an API, present in the system 1, that allows the server 2 to be cloned via the specific key comprising cloning (or disk copy) rights with which the analysis system 4 was provided. The key is provided to the cloud computer system and this system then creates a clone (or disk copy) of the virtual server 2.
Loureiro does not explicitly suggest, generate a cloned disk descriptor associated with the cloned disk, the cloned disk descriptor pointing to the provisioned storage; however, in a same field of endeavor Klee discloses this limitation (Klee, ¶6, ¶15), wherein, “descriptor file,” and at least one data file, referred to herein as the “extent file.” The extent file stores the virtual disk's data, which is accessible to the VM. The descriptor file contains metadata accessible to the host's core virtualization stack for management of the extent file. For example, the descriptor file points to one or more extent files to indicate which extent files belong to the virtual disk and to provide the layout of a virtual disk. The descriptor and extent files for a virtual disk are migrated, cloned, and otherwise copied together
inspect the cloned disk for a cybersecurity object, the cybersecurity object indicating a cybersecurity risk (Loureiro, abstract, Fig.2), the system for analyzing vulnerabilities analyzes the vulnerabilities of the clone or of the disk copy.
Loureiro does not explicitly suggest, and release the cloned disk in response to completing inspection of the cloned disk; however, in a same field of endeavor Klee discloses this limitation (Klee, ¶8-9), wherein, To gain access to a locked virtual disk, applications extract information about the current owner of a virtual disk from its associated metadata file, and then send a request to the current owner of the virtual disk to close the virtual disk. In response, the current owner writes the new owner information into the metadata file and then closes the disk. Upon receiving notification that the virtual disk has been released for its use, the new owner opens the virtual disk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of cloning disk to analyze vulnerabilities of Loureiro with the generating disk descriptor and releasing cloned disk disclosed in Klee to provide the layout of a virtual disk, stated by Klee at ¶6.
Regarding claim 12:
detect a virtual instance deployed in a cloud computing environment, the virtual instance associated with an original disk (Loureiro, ¶39, ¶11), wherein, the clone or the disk copy may be clones or disk copies not of the original virtual production server, but of the backup virtual production server, or of copies of this original virtual production server.
generate a cloned disk directly based on the original disk, wherein the original disk is provisioned storage from a cloud storage system (Loureiro, ¶37, Fig.2), wherein, once the connection has been made, the analysis system 4 uses an API, present in the system 1, that allows the server 2 to be cloned via the specific key comprising cloning (or disk copy) rights with which the analysis system 4 was provided. The key is provided to the cloud computer system and this system then creates a clone (or disk copy) of the virtual server 2.
Loureiro does not explicitly suggest, generate a cloned disk descriptor associated with the cloned disk, the cloned disk descriptor pointing to the provisioned storage; however, in a same field of endeavor Klee discloses this limitation (Klee, ¶6, ¶15), wherein, “descriptor file,” and at least one data file, referred to herein as the “extent file.” The extent file stores the virtual disk's data, which is accessible to the VM. The descriptor file contains metadata accessible to the host's core virtualization stack for management of the extent file. For example, the descriptor file points to one or more extent files to indicate which extent files belong to the virtual disk and to provide the layout of a virtual disk. The descriptor and extent files for a virtual disk are migrated, cloned, and otherwise copied together
inspect the cloned disk for a cybersecurity object, the cybersecurity object indicating a cybersecurity risk (Loureiro, abstract, Fig.2), the system for analyzing vulnerabilities analyzes the vulnerabilities of the clone or of the disk copy.
Loureiro does not explicitly suggest, and release the cloned disk in response to completing inspection of the cloned disk; however, in a same field of endeavor Klee discloses this limitation (Klee, ¶8-9), wherein, To gain access to a locked virtual disk, applications extract information about the current owner of a virtual disk from its associated metadata file, and then send a request to the current owner of the virtual disk to close the virtual disk. In response, the current owner writes the new owner information into the metadata file and then closes the disk. Upon receiving notification that the virtual disk has been released for its use, the new owner opens the virtual disk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of cloning disk to analyze vulnerabilities of Loureiro with the generating disk descriptor and releasing cloned disk disclosed in Klee to provide the layout of a virtual disk, stated by Klee at ¶6.
Regarding claim 13:
wherein the one or more processing circuitries are further configured to: generate a representation in a security database of: the virtual instance, the original disk, and the cybersecurity object (Loureiro, ¶38-39).
Regarding claim 14:
wherein the one or more processing circuitries are further configured to: connect the representation of the virtual instance with the representation of the cybersecurity object, in response to detecting the cybersecurity object on the cloned disk (Loureiro, ¶3-4).
Regarding claim 15:
wherein the security database includes a representation of the cloud computing environment (Loureiro, ¶22).
Regarding claim 16:
wherein the one or more processing circuitries are further configured to: initiate a mitigation action in response to detecting the cybersecurity object (Loureiro, ¶21).
Regarding claim 18:
wherein the one or more processing circuitries are further configured to: inspect the cloned disk for any one of: an exposure, a vulnerability, a malware, a ransomware, a spyware, a bot, a weak password, an exposed password, an exposed certificate, a misconfiguration, a suspicious event, and any combination thereof (Loureiro, abstract).
Regarding claim 19:
wherein the one or more processing circuitries are further configured to: access an inspection account in the cloud computing environment; and generate the cloned disk in the inspection account (Loureiro, ¶30).
Regarding claim 20:
wherein the one or more processing circuitries are further configured to: provide access to the cloned disk to an inspector workload, the inspector workload deployed in an inspection environment communicatively coupled with the cloud computing environment (Loureiro, ¶30).
Regarding claim 21:
wherein the one or more processing circuitries are further configured to: mount the cloned disk to an inspector workload, wherein the inspector workload is deployed in an inspection environment and configured to inspect the cloned disk for the cybersecurity object (Loureiro, ¶14, ¶30).
7. Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Loureiro in view of Klee and in view of Singh et al. (US Publication No. 20210034791), hereinafter Singh.
Regarding claim 6:
Loureiro in view of Klee does not explicitly suggest, further comprising: determining that the original disk is an encrypted disk; detecting an encryption key utilized to decrypt the encrypted disk; and generating an encryption pointer for the cloned disk descriptor to the detected encryption key; however, in a same field of endeavor Singh discloses this limitation (Singh, ¶42-43, ¶52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of cloning disk to analyze vulnerabilities of Loureiro in view of Klee with the method of encrypting/decrypting key disclosed in Singh to protect data from the disk, stated by Singh at ¶22.
Regarding claim 17:
Loureiro in view of Klee does not explicitly suggest, wherein the one or more processing circuitries are further configured to: determine that the original disk is an encrypted disk; detect an encryption key utilized to decrypt the encrypted disk; and generate an encryption pointer for the cloned disk descriptor to the detected encryption key; however, in a same field of endeavor Singh discloses this limitation (Singh, ¶42-43, ¶52).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Loureiro in view of Klee and Singh applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Monjour Rahim whose telephone number is (571)270-3890.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. 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 CANANDA) or 571-272-1000.
/Monjur Rahim/
Patent Examiner
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Art Unit: 2436; Phone: 571.270.3890
E-mail: monjur.rahim@uspto.gov
Fax: 571.270.4890
Prosecution Insights