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 .
1. This action is in response to the communication filed on March 6, 2025. Claims 1-19 were originally received for consideration. No preliminary amendments for the claims have been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. Initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS (form 1449), received on March 6, 2025 and April 9, 2026, have been attached to this Office Action.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,357. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are anticipated or rendered obvious by the claims of the ‘357 Patent.
Claim 1 of the present application discloses generating a potential lateral movement path (‘357: generating a lateral movement path), the potential lateral movement path including an identifier of a first workload and an identifier of a second workload (‘357: claim 1: including an identifier of the second workload), wherein a representation of the second workload and a representation of the first workload are each connected to a representation of a CNP key in a security database (‘357: claim 1: detecting in a security database a representation of a second workload connected to the representation of a second private CNP key), wherein the security database further includes a representation of the computing environment (‘357: claim 1: the CNP is in a cloud computing environment; also see Claim 11: wherein the second workload is exposed to a network external to the cloud computing environment), determining that the potential lateral movement path includes an exposure to an external network (‘357: claim 1: detecting lateral movement based on an exposed CNP key in a cloud computing environment), inspecting the first workload to detect a vulnerability (‘357: claim 1: inspecting a first workload for a private CNP key). The ‘357 Patent does not explicitly disclose determining an impact on the second workload in response to detecting a vulnerability on the first workload. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify the second workload being impacted based on a detected vulnerability because the identification of an exposed CNP key and generating a lateral movement path are used to identify workloads who may be affected by a compromised credential which is disclosed by the claims of the ‘357 Patent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that determining an impact is analogous to the discovery of a compromised credential which could affect/impact the security of the computing environment. Independent claims 10 and 11 are analogous claims to claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale. The dependent claims 3-5 and 13-15 are also all rendered obvious by the claims of the ‘357 Patent as they merely add a preventative measure and periodically inspect the workloads which would have been obvious to do in light of the detection mechanisms disclosed by the claims of the ‘357 Patent. The other dependent claims 2, 6-12, and 16-19 disclose limitations that are explicitly disclosed by the claims of ‘357.
Therefore, the claims are obvious in view of the ‘357 Patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Jung Kim can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR/
09/30/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights