DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendment filed September 17, 2026 for the application # 19/049,927 filed on February 10, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are directed toward SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SECURITY TOOLS IN ISOLATED ENVIRONMENTS.
Any claim objection/rejection not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
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 . 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claims 1-20 have been fully considered, but they are moot because of new grounds of rejection.
Double Patenting
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 obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of US patent No. 11,637,866 in view of Linkurious (Cyber security : how to use graphs to do an attack analysis, August 4, 2014, 10 pages).
Linkurious teaches:
receive network data from a computer network on which a first security tool is operating, the network data comprising endpoint data and security event log data (They are designed to analyse logs, network flows and system events for forensics and intrusion detection, Linkurious, page 2);
detect anomalous activity on the computer network based on the network data (Recently Internet Explorer zero-day exploit (CVE-2014-1776) was used in phishing attacks. The hackers sent mails to victims who were asked to login into a website where their identification information was captured. One of the domain used by the hackers was inform.bedircati.com. Among the other domains were profile.sweeneyphotos.com, web.neonbilisim.com andweb.usamultimeters.com. Security providers quickly blocked these domains. Linkurious, pages 2-3);
represented as a graph in a graph-based data store (Within basic security analysis, we represent domains, IPaddresses, and DNS information as nodes, and represent therelationships between them as edges connecting the nodes. In thefollowing example, domains A and B are connected through ashared name server and MX record despite being hosted ondifferent servers. Domain C is linked to domain B through a sharedhost, but has no direct association with domain A. Linkurious, page 4);
MOTIVATION to combine: graph databases like Neo4j, Titan or InfiniteGraph make it easy tostore and query unstructured data, even as the volume grows. That is why companies like Cisco are turning to graph technologies to design the next generation of cybersecurity solutions (Linkurious, page 2).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-20 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-2 of US patent No. 11,637,866 in view of Linkurious. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-2 of US patent No. 11,637,866 in view of Linkurious because each element of the claims of the present application is obvious by the claims 1-2 of US patent No. 11,637,866 in view of Linkurious and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of US patent No. 12,225,055 in view of Linkurious (Cyber security : how to use graphs to do an attack analysis, August 4, 2014, 10 pages).
Linkurious teaches:
receive network data from a computer network on which a first security tool is operating, the network data comprising endpoint data and security event log data (They are designed to analyse logs, network flows and system events for forensics and intrusion detection, Linkurious, page 2);
detect anomalous activity on the computer network based on the network data (Recently Internet Explorer zero-day exploit (CVE-2014-1776) was used in phishing attacks. The hackers sent mails to victims who were asked to login into a website where their identification information was captured. One of the domain used by the hackers was inform.bedircati.com. Among the other domains were profile.sweeneyphotos.com, web.neonbilisim.com andweb.usamultimeters.com. Security providers quickly blocked these domains. Linkurious, pages 2-3);
represented as a graph in a graph-based data store (Within basic security analysis, we represent domains, IPaddresses, and DNS information as nodes, and represent therelationships between them as edges connecting the nodes. In thefollowing example, domains A and B are connected through ashared name server and MX record despite being hosted ondifferent servers. Domain C is linked to domain B through a sharedhost, but has no direct association with domain A. Linkurious, page 4);
MOTIVATION to combine: graph databases like Neo4j, Titan or InfiniteGraph make it easy tostore and query unstructured data, even as the volume grows. That is why companies like Cisco are turning to graph technologies to design the next generation of cybersecurity solutions (Linkurious, page 2).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-20 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-6 of US patent No. 12,225,055 in view of Linkurious. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-6 of US patent No. 12,225,055 in view of Linkurious because each element of the claims of the present application is obvious by the claims 1-6 of US patent No. 12,225,055 in view of Linkurious and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are indicated as allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims of instant application are of the same scope as allowed claims of US 11,637,866.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG KORSAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1938. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:00 AM- 4:00 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, Rupal Dharia can be reached on (571) 272-3880. 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.
/OLEG KORSAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
