DETAILED ACTION
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 amendments file on 07/14/2026 has been received and entered. Currently claims 1-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 USC § 103 Claim Rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. US 20150213369 hereinafter referred to as Brandt in view of O’Neil US 10439985 hereinafter referred to as O’Neil.
As per claim 1, Brandt teaches a computer-implemented method for automatically generating a security configuration for a control system, comprising (Brandt [0002], [0038]: relates to industrial control systems, see e.g., (“system and methodology facilitating automation security in a networked-based industrial controller environment… security analysis tool receives abstract factory models or descriptions for input and generates an output that can include security guidelines, components, topologies, procedures, rules, policies”):
providing first data configured as engineering data related to information about the control system (Brandt [FIG. 2], [0051]: receives factory input data which models engineering data, see e.g., “a security analysis tool 240 is provided that receives factory input data 244 describing or modeling various aspects of the automation assets 220, network devices 224, network 230, and/or system 200”);
providing second data related to topology model data of the control system (Brandt [FIG.2], [0052]: “the security analysis tool 240 can receive input from the validation tool 260 e.g., three new network devices detected in topology”);
generating the security configuration for the control system by a policy generator based on the first data and/or the second data; wherein the generated security configuration includes at least a security dataset for the control system (Brandt [FIG. 2], [0051]: security analysis tool constitutes a policy generator which processes the factory input data and topology data, and generates security output data, see e.g., “The security analysis tool 240 processes the factory input data 244 and generates security output data 250 which is then deployed to machines and/or users in order to facilitate suitable network security measures and practices in the system 200”).
Brandt does not explicitly teach wherein the topology model data includes automated machine-learning (ML) models, wherein the ML models also contain at least one of an application type, communication endpoints, and interconnections between applications.
O’Neil teaches wherein the topology model data includes automated machine-learning (ML) models, wherein the ML models also contain at least one of an application type, communication endpoints, and interconnections between applications (O’neil [Col. 2, Lines 65-67], [Col. 6, Lines 45-54], [Clm. 1]: "The system 100 and method 200 apply machine learning to such gathered information to create a model 104 based on the collected network communication information… A matching module 116 in the remote server 110 may identify flow objects that correspond to the two ends of an application-to-application communication, and then combine some or all of the data from the two flow objects into a combined data structure that is referred to herein as a “match object,”… A “match,” in other words, represents the two corresponding flows at opposite (i.e., source and destination) ends of an application-to-application communication… wherein the at least one feature-value pair includes at least one feature from a set comprising a source host, a source application, a destination host, and a destination application").
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Brandt of providing second data related to topology model data of the control system with the teachings of O’Neil to include topology model data including automated ML models, and the ML models containing at least one of application type, communication endpoints, and interconnections between applications in order to provide a more comprehensive and automated topology model for efficient system control and resource tracking.
As per claim 2, Brandt in view of O’Neil teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein after generating the security configuration, the method further comprises optimizing the security configuration based on third data related to at least a security requirement of the control system (Brandt [0054-0055]: generating configuration, then optimizing them based on cost/risk factors which constitutes data related to security requirements, see e.g., “Security Analysis Method noted above, and security analyzer 400, can also be modeled on a risk-based/cost-based approach… suitable level of protection can be determined to facilitate integrity, privacy, and/or availability of assets based on risk and/or cost… security analyzer 400 can output multiple sets of security outputs 410 corresponding to multiple tiers of security strength, where stronger security recommendations are typically associated with greater costs… the multiple sets of security outputs can include estimates of the economic and performance costs associated with each set, allowing the user to make an informed selection regarding which level of recommended security is most suitable for the needs of a given automation system”).
As per claim 3, Brandt in view of O’Neil teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising providing feedback regarding a system condition information of the control system to the policy generator, to adjust the generated security configuration of the control system (Brandt [0052]: provides feedback by generating new or adjustments based on previous response, see e.g., “security analysis tool 240 can receive input from the validation tool 260 e.g., three new network devices detected in topology, wherein the security analysis tool generates new or adjusted security output data 250 in response thereto”).
As per claim 4, Brandt in view of O’Neil teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the method is performed at least partially in an offline phase during a startup phase of the control system (Brandt [0049]: “functions performed by the security analysis tool, which include generating security recommendations and configuration information based on user-provided factory description information, can be performed off-line and thus do not necessarily require connection to a network”).
As per claim 5, Brandt in view of O’Neil teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 3, wherein providing feedback is performed in an online phase during a runtime operation of the control system (Brandt [FIG. 1], [FIG. 2], [0049], [0052]: active operational phase of a system, detecting changes and exchanging data, see e.g., “security tools 240, 250 and/or 260 can share or exchange information between tools… security analysis tool 240 can receive input from the validation tool 260 (e.g., three new network devices detected in topology), wherein the security analysis tool generates new or adjusted security output data 250 in response thereto… one or more of the automation assets 220 may directly access the network 230 and/or may employ the network devices 224 to achieve network access”).
As per claim 7, Brandt in view of O’Neil teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the generated security configuration restricts at least one of: a communication capability between components of the control system, limits a resource-consumption of at least one component of the control system, restricts access to at least one computational resource of the at least one component of the control system, enabling user authentication and authorized access to the control system, or enabling logging of security events with respect of the control system (Brandt [0061-0062]: “location-based policies can be initiated e.g., all network requests from listed URL's are to be denied, network requests from Pittsburgh server limited to 100 per day… Other policies may be related to the type of requests e.g., all requests to write data to the PLC are to be denied, outside devices cannot update analog module configuration data, communications module to provide status data only, etc. In general, substantially any policy that defines, regulates, and/or limits network activities in view of security considerations can be employed”).
As per claim 10, Brandt in view of O’Neil teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 2, wherein after generating the security configuration, the method further comprises optimizing the security configuration based on fourth data related to at least a safety requirement of the control system (Brandt [0054]: security analyzer uses identified high risk assets to optimize security configurations, see e.g., “automation assets carrying a high risk of injury to personnel or having the potential to compromise the integrity of a manufactured product if operated abnormally as may result from a network security breach can be identified as high-risk assets in the factory data… The security recommendations, configurations, and policies generated by the security analyzer can be tailored to the automation system or process described by the factory data 420 by prioritizing protection of high-risk or high-cost automation assets”).
As per claim 12, the claim discloses a system corresponding to the method claim 1 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of O’Neil, and further in view of Woolward US 10264025 hereinafter referred to as Woolward.
As per claim 6, Brandt in view of O’Neil teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Brandt does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one security dataset addresses at least one parameter for a container orchestration system, at least including nodes, pods, applications, and inter-component communications within a cluster.
Woolward teaches wherein the at least one security dataset addresses at least one parameter for a container orchestration system, at least including nodes, pods, applications, and inter-component communications within a cluster (Woolward [0005], [0032], [0034]: security dataset addressing container orchestration parameters by identifying authorized
application/service communication, relationships between containers, and specific ports and
protocols, see e.g., “generating a high-level declarative security policy associated with the deployed container… the high-level declarative security policy indicating at least an application or service with which the deployed container is permitted to communicate… Orchestration layer 310 can manage and deploy containers across one or more environments 200.sub.1-200.sub.W in one or more data centers of data center… protocols and/or ports that should be used by a container and who the container should talk to e.g., relationships between containers, such as other applications and/or services the container should talk to, and the like”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Brandt in view of O’Neil of an automated security configuration generation method with the teachings of Woolward to include generating security policies addressing container orchestration parameters in order to solve the problem of manual policy management in containerized environments which would yield predictable benefits of automated security configuration for control system deployment (Woolward [0018]).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of O’Neil, and further in view of Dunagan et al. US 20100192195 hereinafter referred to as Dunagan.
As per claim 8, Brandt in view of O’Neil teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 3.
Brandt in view of O’Neil does not explicitly disclose wherein providing feedback regarding a system condition information of the control system to the policy generator is supported by a human who is interactively queried for feedback that helps adapt and improve the security configuration of the control system.
Dunagan teaches wherein providing feedback regarding a system condition information of the control system to the policy generator is supported by a human who is interactively queried for feedback that helps adapt and improve the security configuration of the control system (Dunagan [0007], [0028-0030]: "Analysis component 102 can present to information
technology administrators using administrator component 104 a small number of high value security configuration changes... Analysis component 102 can present to information technology administrators using administrator component 104 a small number of high value
security configuration changes. The information technology administrator then utilizing
administrator component 104 can choose or select the changes that they deem most
appropriate given their particular working environment as well as those changes that they
prefer not to make… then take the feedback from administrator component 104 and can
simulate the desired changes and learn the kinds of changes most acceptable to an information technology administrator”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Brandt in view of O’Neil of a security analysis tool with the teachings of Dunagan to include human feedback to adapt and improve the security configuration in order to use human feed to evaluate and refine automatically generated security configurations (Dunagan [0028-0030]).
As per claim 11, Brandt in view of O’Neil teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Brandt in view of O’Neil does not explicitly disclose wherein after generating the security configuration, the method further comprises simulating the security configuration to assess its impact on a performance parameter of the control system.
Dunagan teaches wherein after generating the security configuration, the method further comprises simulating the security configuration to assess its impact on a performance parameter of the control system (Dunagan [0007], [0030-0031]: after security configurations
are generated, the system simulates desired changes to evaluate their impact before they are
deployed, allows the administrator to assess whether the changes would adversely affect
system, see e.g., “systems can thereafter incorporate this feedback, both simulating the desired changes and/or learning the kinds of changes most acceptable to the administrator… Analysis component 102 can then take the feedback from administrator component 104 and can simulate the desired changes and learn the kinds of changes most acceptable to an information technology administrator… simulating the desired changes, learning the changes that are most acceptable to an information technology manager, and thereafter proposing new sets of security configuration changes can be repeated until the information technology administrator is satisfied with the security plan”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Brandt in view of O’Neil of a security analysis tool with the teachings of Dunagan to include simulating the security configuration to assess its impact in order to evaluate the trade-offs between security and performance before deployment and allowing the assessment of the impact of the generated security configuration on system performance (Dunagan [0030-0031]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of O’Neil, and further in view of Bush et al. US 10097585 hereinafter referred to as Bush.
As per claim 9, Brandt in view of O’Neil teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Brandt in view of O’Neil does not explicitly disclose wherein the policy generator uses an at least partly a database that stores previously generated and optimized security configurations for the control system.
Bush teaches wherein the policy generator uses an at least partly a database that stores previously generated and optimized security configurations for the control system (Bush [Col. 13, Lines 34-41], [Col. 15, Lines 35-37, 45-48]: model 216 constitutes the database and
instruction translation component constitutes policy generator, see e.g., “the model 216 is
updated to record the set of industrial assets and the security relationships therebetween, as
defined by the zones, conduits, channels, and any other zone-level and/or asset-level security
attributes… instruction translation component 206 translates the high-level, user-defined
security policies… into security configuration data… ensure that subsequent re-configurations of the devices do not conflict with a previously established security policy… Based on the
model… may detect such re-configurations, determine that the re-configuration conflicts with
the previously defined security policy”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Brandt in view of O’Neil of a security analysis tool with the teachings of Bush to include a database that stores security configurations in order to enable reuse of prior configurations and conflict detection (Bush [Col. 15, Lines 35-53]).
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 CAROLINE HOANG-ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-4pm.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at (571) 272-3739. 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.
/C.H.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2495
/HENRY TSANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights