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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a threat concatenator that performs first association processing for concatenating at least part of threat analysis information with first evaluation specification information”; “a vulnerability concatenator that performs second association processing for concatenating at least part of vulnerability analysis information with the first evaluation specification information”; “a re-definer that generates and outputs second evaluation specification information by redefining”; and “a feedback device that feeds back the second evaluation specification information as evaluated specification information” in claim 1-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “a threat concatenator,” “a vulnerability concatenator,” and “a re-definer” in claims 1, 6, and 10, and “a feedback device” in claims 5, 9, and 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written description merely identifies generic functional components, including threat concatenator 11, vulnerability concatenator 12, re-definer 13, and evaluation database 14, but does not disclose sufficient corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions. Claims 2-5 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, claims 7-9 depend directly or indirectly from claim 6, and claims 11-13 depend directly or indirectly from claim 10. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the limitation “countermeasure information against the threat” does not reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claims. Claim 8 recites “when the threat analysis information includes information on a countermeasure against the threat corresponding to a missing evaluation specification”; however, the phrase “on a against the threat” is grammatically unclear. It is unclear whether the claim intends to recite “countermeasure information against the threat,” “information on a countermeasure against the threat,” or some other limitation. Therefore, the scope of claim 8 is unclear.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the term “the threat analyzer” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 9 depend from claim 6. Claim 6 recites “a threat concatenor” and a “re-definer”, but does not previously introduce “a threat analyzer”. Claim 9 recites “a feedback device that feeds back the second evaluation specification information as evaluated specification information to the threat analyzer” and further recites “the threat analyzer generates the threat analysis information.” It is unclear what structure or component is being referenced by “the threat analyzer” because the claim does not previously introduce that element. Therefore, the scope of claim 8 is unclear.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the limitation “concatenating at least part of vulnerability analysis information with first evaluation specification information” does not reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claims. Claim 10 recites “a vulnerability concatenator that performs second association processing for concatenating at least part of vulnerability analysis information with first evaluation specification information”; however, the claim language is grammatically unclear and does not make clear what information is being concatenated with what other information. It is unclear whether the claim intends to recite “concatenating at least part of vulnerability analysis information with first evaluation specification information” or some other limitation. Therefore, the scope of claim 10 is unclear.
Claims 11-13 depend directly or indirectly from claim 10 and therefore inherit the indefiniteness of claim 10.
Claim 13 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the term “the vulnerability analyzer” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 13 depend from claim 10. Claim 10 recites “a vulnerability concatenor” and a “re-definer”, but does not previously introduce “a vulnerability analyzer”. Claim 13 recites “a feedback device that feeds back the second evaluation specification information as evaluated specification information to the vulnerability analyzer” and further recites “the vulnerability analyzer generates the vulnerability analysis information.” It is unclear what structure or component is being referenced by “the vulnerability analyzer” because the claim does not previously introduce that element. Therefore, the scope of claim 13 is unclear.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the term “the threat information” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and is inconsistent with the earlier recited term “threat analysis information.” Claim 14 recites “performing first association processing for concatenating at least part of threat analysis information with first evaluation specification information” and further recites “the threat analysis information indicating a result of analysis of a threat to information security of the evaluation target device.” However, the claim does not previously introduce “threat information.” It is unclear whether “the threat information” refer to the previously recited “threat analysis information” or to different information. Therefore, the scope of claim 14 is unclear.
Claims depending from the rejected claims inherit the indefiniteness of their respective parent claims. Accordingly, claims 11-13 depend directly or indirectly from claim 10 and inherit the indefiniteness of claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 5-6, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions for ““a threat concatenator,” “a vulnerability concatenator,” and “a re-definer”, and “a feedback device”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the invention had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 5, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 5, 9, and 13 recite that “the evaluation specification information” indicates “a result of the evaluation of the evaluation target device obtained by the evaluation conducted in accordance with the second evaluation specification information.” The specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date, of second evaluation specification information itself indicating the result of the evaluation.
The specification describes second evaluation specification information d13 as information generated by re-definer 13, output to evaluation device 32, stored in evaluation database 14, and used by evaluation device 32 to evaluate evaluation target 40. The specification separately describes result information d32 and determination information d33as being generated after the evaluation is conducted. The specification further describes evaluated specification information d14 as being generated by adding determination information d33 to second evaluation specification information d13 already stored in evaluation database 14.
Thus, the specification distinguishes second evaluation specification information d13, which is used to conduct the evaluation, from evaluated specification information 14, which includes the evaluated result or determination information. The claims, however, recite that second evaluation specification information itself indicates the evaluation result obtained by the evaluation conducted in accordance with the second evaluation specification information. The specification therefore does not reasonably convey possession of full scope of the claimed limitation.
As per MPEP § 2161.01, problems satisfying the written description requirement for original claims often occur when claim language is generic or functional, or both. Ariad, 593 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant [inventor] has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant [inventor] has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.").
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. "[T]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor . . . to claim any and all means for achieving that objective." LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733.
Claims depending from the rejected claims inherit the written description deficiency of their respective parent claims. Accordingly, no additional claims depend from claims 5, 9, and 13.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 15, and 16:
Applying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (SMET), does the claim as a whole fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Yes.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are directed to an evaluation support system including memory and a processor, and therefore fall within the machine category. Claims 14, 15, and 16 are directed to an evaluation support method executed by a computer, and therefore fall within the process category.
Applying Step 2A of the SMET, also known at this stage as the Alice/Mayo Test, Prong One, is the claim as a whole directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes.
The claim recites the abstract steps of:
Receiving or using threat analysis information;
Receiving or using vulnerability information;
Receiving or using first evaluation specification information;
Performing first association processing;
Performing second association processing;
Concatenating information;
Re-defining evaluation specifications;
Generating and outputting second evaluation specification information, and feeding back evaluated specification information amount to collecting information, analyzing information, organizing information, associating information, updating information, and reporting the result, which fall within the mental process grouping. The limitations are also directed to data organization and data manipulation because the claimed invention associate’s threat/vulnerability analysis data with evaluation specification data and outputs updated evaluation specification data. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(iii)(C)).
It should be noted that a person either with or without a physical aid, review threat analysis information, review vulnerability analysis information, review first evaluation specification information, associate countermeasure information or vulnerability identification information with evaluation specifications, identify missing evaluation specifications, add missing evaluation specifications, and report updated evaluation specifications information. Therefore, the claimed concept can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Applying Step 2A, Prong Two, does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No.
The claim recites the additional elements of:
Memory that stores a program;
a processor;
a computer;
a threat concatenator;
a vulnerability concatenator;
a re-definer;
a feedback device;
evaluation target device;
first evaluation specification information;
second evaluation specification information; and
evaluated specification information.
A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. However, the additional elements recited above do no such thing and do not improve the functioning of the computer, processor, memory, database, or evaluation target device. The claimed invention merely uses off the generic computer components to gather, associate, organize, update, and output security evaluation information. The memory stores a program, the processor executes the program, and the functional units performs high level information processing. The claim does not recite any particularized data structure, specialized security testing hardware, improved vulnerability scanner, improved threat analysis engine, improved evaluation device, improved computer performance, or improvement to computer functionality itself. However, courts have indicated that gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Electric Power group, 830 F.3d at 1353-54).
Thus, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as argued above.
Applying Step 2B, do the additional elements amount to an inventive concept? No.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1982-83, is not enough to supply an inventive concept. The additional elements are generic computer components carrying out routine computer functions, such as storing data, processing data, associating data, generating data, and feeding back data. These additional elements are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 15, and 16 fails Step 2B, the claim as a whole is found ineligible for being drawn to an abstract idea and therefore is non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-9, and 11-13:
The dependent claims do not alter the analysis applied to independent claims 1, 6, and 10.
Claim 2 merely recites associating information indicating a countermeasure against the threat with an evaluation specification for each evaluation item.
Claim 3 merely recites associating identification information on the vulnerability with an evaluation specification for each evaluation item.
Claim 4 merely recites adding a missing evaluation specification and corresponding identification information on the vulnerability.
Claim 5 merely recites feeding back evaluated specification information to a threat analyzer and a vulnerability analyzer.
Claim 7 merely recites associating information indicating a countermeasure against the threat with an evaluation specification for each evaluation item.
Claim 8 merely recites adding a missing evaluation specification and corresponding countermeasure information against the threat.
Claim 9 merely recites feeding back evaluated specification information to a threat analyzer.
Claim 11 merely recites associating identification information on the vulnerability with an evaluation specification for each evaluation item.
Claim 12 merely recites adding a missing evaluation specification and corresponding identification information on the vulnerability.
Claim 13 merely recites feeding back evaluated specification information to a vulnerability analyzer.
These additional limitations either further narrow the abstract idea, specify the type of information being organized or associated, or add routine data feedback features. None of these limitations integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 2-5, 7-9, and 11-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugimoto et al, (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0029153 A1, hereinafter “Sugimoto”)
As to claim 1, Sugimoto teaches:
An evaluation support system for supporting an evaluation of an evaluation target device: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0039, 0041]: “The threat analysis system 10 is a computer system that analyzes a relationship between a vulnerability and a threat from a viewpoint of a business operator in addition to vulnerability information and information of a threat for each device caused by the vulnerability to enable threat analysis more suitable for a security requirement of a system. The administration target device 101 is a device that configures a system (threat analysis target system) administered by an administrator as a threat analysis target.”);
the evaluation support system comprising: memory that stores a program; and a processor: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0078, 0080]: “The computer 701 includes a CPU 702 (Central Processing Unit), the memory 703 configured of a volatile storage element such as a RAM (Random Access Memory), the external storage 704 configured of an appropriate nonvolatile storage element such as an SSD (Solid State Drive) or a hard disk drive. Moreover, the control units 202, 302, 402, 502, 603, the transmission/reception units 201, 301, 401, 501, 601, and the input/output unit 602 of each of the devices illustrated in FIGS. 2 to 6 are implemented by the CPU 702 loading, on the memory 703, an appropriate program stored in the foregoing external storage 704 and executing the same program.”);
wherein the processor executes the program to operate as: a threat concatenator that performs first association processing for concatenating at least part of threat analysis information with first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0063, 0067, 0090-0091]: “The control unit 502 includes a vulnerability-detection result collecting unit 503, a vulnerability information collecting unit 504, a design information collecting unit 505, a threat analysis processing unit 506, an influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507, and a threat-analysis result output unit 508. The threat analysis processing unit 506 is a processing unit that uses the information on the database 107 to analyze, for example, whether the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101 is related to a threat from a viewpoint of the business operator defined in the design information. In FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an example of the control operation information table 804. In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201.”);
(Sugimoto teaches the threat analysis processing unit 506 and control operation information table 804, which includes a control operation ID and related threat ID. Under BRI, table 804 corresponds to the first evaluation specification information, and the relationship between the threat ID and control operation ID corresponds to first association processing for concatenating threat analysis information with first evaluation specification information.)
the threat analysis information indicating a result of analysis of a threat to information security of the evaluation target device: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0088, 0089, 0067]: “In FIG. 11, the threat information table from the viewpoint of the business operator 803 has a threat ID 1101, a threat degree 1102, and other threat information 1103 as data items. The threat ID 1101 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the threat. The threat degree 1102 is a score of a magnitude of damage incurred when the threat occurs. The other threat information 1103 is information regarding the threat such as the threat name. The threat analysis processing unit 506 is a processing unit that uses the information on the database 107 to analyze, for example, whether the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101 is related to a threat from a viewpoint of the business operator defined in the design information.”);
(Threat information including threat ID, threat degree, and other threat information and the threat analysis processing unit analyzes whether a vulnerability of the administration target device is related to threat. This corresponds to threat analysis information indicating a result of analysis of a threat to information security of the evaluation target device.)
the first evaluation specification information indicating one or more evaluation specifications of the evaluation target device; (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0091, 0092]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. The other control operation information 1206 is information regarding the control operation such as a control operation name.”);
(Control operation information table 804 including control operation IDs, control operation types, device IDs, threat IDs, and control operation names. Under BRI, this corresponds to the first evaluation specification information indicating one or more specifications of the evaluation target device.)
a vulnerability concatenator that performs second association processing for concatenating at least part of vulnerability analysis information with the first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0063, 0068, 0093-0094]: “The control unit 502 includes a vulnerability-detection result collecting unit 503, a vulnerability information collecting unit 504, a design information collecting unit 505, a threat analysis processing unit 506, an influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507, and a threat-analysis result output unit 508. Moreover, for example, the threat analysis processing unit 506 further associates a control operation having a vulnerability influence degree of a predetermined value (e.g., a value larger than 0%), the vulnerability influence degree being corresponding to a type of the vulnerability included in the device, and a type of the control operation related to the device on the basis of third information in which the type of the vulnerability included in the device, the type of the control operation related to the device, and the vulnerability influence degree of the vulnerability on the control operation are associated with one another, the third information being stored in the storage unit (e.g., a vulnerability type 1301, a control operation type 1302, and a vulnerability influence degree 1304 in a vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 described later). In FIG. 13, the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 has the vulnerability type 1301, the control operation type 1302, a control operation point 1303, and the vulnerability influence degree 1304 as data items. The vulnerability type 1301 is a type of the vulnerability. The control operation type 1302 is a type of the control operation. In the example of FIG. 13, a relationship between the vulnerability and the control operation is managed for each type by a pair of the vulnerability type 1301 and the control operation type 1302.”);
(The threat analysis processing unit 506 associates vulnerability type information with control operation information using vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805. This corresponds to a vulnerability concatenator performing second association processing for concatenating vulnerability analysis information with the first evaluation specific information.)
the vulnerability analysis information indicating a result of analysis of vulnerability of the information security of the evaluation target device; (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0042, 0057, 0084-0085]: “The vulnerability detector 103 is a device that collects information about the target system of the threat analysis, that is, the administration target device 101 (system information, identification information and the like of each of the administration target devices 101), and detects the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101. The vulnerability detection processing unit 304 is a processing unit that detects a vulnerability possessed by the relevant device on the basis of a predetermined algorithm. In FIG. 9, the vulnerability detection result table 801 has the device ID 901, the vulnerability ID 902, and other device information 903 as data items. The device ID 901 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the device. The vulnerability ID 902 is an ID of the vulnerability possessed by the device represented by the corresponding device ID 901.”);
(A vulnerability detector and vulnerability detection processing unit that detect vulnerabilities possessed by the administrator target device and store the result in vulnerability detection result table 801.)
and a re-definer that generates and outputs second evaluation specification information by redefining, based on the first association processing and the second association processing: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0068, 0070, 0095, 0097]: “As an additional note, the threat analysis processing unit 506 associates the vulnerability included in the device and the threat in the threat analysis target system with each other, for example, on the basis of first information and second information. Moreover, for example, the threat analysis processing unit 506 further associates a control operation having a vulnerability influence degree of a predetermined value (e.g., a value larger than 0%), the vulnerability influence degree being corresponding to a type of the vulnerability included in the device, and a type of the control operation related to the device on the basis of third information. The threat-analysis result output unit 508 is a processing unit that transmits the threat analysis result derived by the threat analysis processing unit 506 and the influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507 to the client device 106 via the transmission/reception unit 501. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. In the present embodiment, the threat analysis server 105 stores, in the threat analysis result table 806, processing results from the threat analysis by the predetermined algorithm.”);
(The threat analysis processing unit 506 associate’s vulnerability information, threat information, and control operation information, and stores the result in threat analysis result table 806. It also teaches that output unit 508 transmit the threat analysis result. Under BRI, unit 506 and 508 correspond to the re-definer, and table 806 is a re-defined version of the control-operation/evaluation specifications indicated by table 804.)
the one or more evaluation specifications indicated by the first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090, 0095, 0132]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. The threat analysis processing unit 506 searches the threat analysis result table 806, using, as a key, the pair of the device ID and the relevant vulnerability ID included in the vulnerability detection result, and if it is determined that there is no record related to the pair of the relevant device ID and vulnerability ID, newly generates a record, and sets a value of the relevant item in the set of control operations related to the vulnerability detection result information and the vulnerability (step S1909).”);
(Control operation information table 804 and threat analysis result table 806, which includes a control operation ID list generated after association with vulnerability and threat information. Under BRI, table 806 is a re-defined version of the control-operation/evaluation specifications indicated by table 804.)
As to claim 2, Sugimoto teaches:
wherein the first evaluation specification information indicates, for each evaluation item, an evaluation specification corresponding to the evaluation item: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0092]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. The other control operation information 1206 is information regarding the control operation such as a control operation name.”);
(Table 804 includes control operation IDs and related control operation information. Under BRI, each control operation ID corresponds to an evaluation item, and related control operation information corresponds to an evaluation specification.)
and the threat concatenator performs the first association processing by concatenating: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0063, 0067-0068]: “The control unit 502 includes a vulnerability-detection result collecting unit 503, a vulnerability information collecting unit 504, a design information collecting unit 505, a threat analysis processing unit 506, an influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507, and a threat-analysis result output unit 508. The threat analysis processing unit 506 is a processing unit that uses the information on the database 107 to analyze, for example, whether the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101 is related to a threat from a viewpoint of the business operator defined in the design information. As an additional note, the threat analysis processing unit 506 associates the vulnerability included in the device and the threat in the threat analysis target system with each other, for example, on the basis of first information in which the device configuring the threat analysis target system (e.g., the administration target device 101) and the vulnerability included in the device (e.g., a device ID 901 and a vulnerability ID 902 in a vulnerability detection result table 801 described later) are associated with each other, and second information in which the device and the threat from the viewpoint of the business operator assumed in the threat analysis target system.”);
(Threat analysis processing unit 506 performs association processing using database information, corresponding to the claimed threat concatenator.)
for each evaluation item in the first evaluation specification information, information indicating a countermeasure against the threat with the first evaluation specification information to associate the information with the evaluation specification corresponding to the evaluation item: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0091, 0095]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items.”);
(Sugimoto’s links control operation IDs with related threat IDs. Under BRI, a control operation /control instruction tied to a threat ID corresponds to countermeasures information against the threat, and table 806 associates that information with the corresponding evaluation specification.)
the information indicating a result of analysis of the evaluation item and being included in the threat analysis information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0088-0089, 0091, 0095]: “In FIG. 11, the threat information table from the viewpoint of the business operator 803 has a threat ID 1101, a threat degree 1102, and other threat information 1103 as data items. The threat ID 1101 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the threat. The threat degree 1102 is a score of a magnitude of damage incurred when the threat occurs. The other threat information 1103 is information regarding the threat such as the threat name. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items.”);
(Sugimoto teaches threat IDs, threat degrees, and threat influence information linked to control operation IDs. This corresponds to information indicating a result of analysis of the evaluation item included in the threat analysis information.)
As to claim 3, Sugimoto teaches:
wherein the first evaluation specification information indicates, for each evaluation item, an evaluation specification corresponding to the evaluation item: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0092]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. The other control operation information 1206 is information regarding the control operation such as a control operation name.”);
(Table 804 includes control operation IDs and related control operation information. Under BRI, each control operation ID corresponds to an evaluation item, and related control operation information corresponds to an evaluation specification.)
and the vulnerability concatenator performs the second association processing by concatenating: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0063, 0068, 0093-0094]: “The control unit 502 includes a vulnerability-detection result collecting unit 503, a vulnerability information collecting unit 504, a design information collecting unit 505, a threat analysis processing unit 506, an influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507, and a threat-analysis result output unit 508. Moreover, for example, the threat analysis processing unit 506 further associates a control operation having a vulnerability influence degree of a predetermined value (e.g., a value larger than 0%), the vulnerability influence degree being corresponding to a type of the vulnerability included in the device, and a type of the control operation related to the device on the basis of third information in which the type of the vulnerability included in the device, the type of the control operation related to the device, and the vulnerability influence degree of the vulnerability on the control operation are associated with one another. In FIG. 13, the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 has the vulnerability type 1301, the control operation type 1302, a control operation point 1303, and the vulnerability influence degree 1304 as data items. The vulnerability type 1301 is a type of the vulnerability. The control operation type 1302 is a type of the control operation. In the example of FIG. 13, a relationship between the vulnerability and the control operation is managed for each type by a pair of the vulnerability type 1301 and the control operation type 1302.”);
for each evaluation item in the first evaluation specification information, identification information on the vulnerability with the first evaluation specification information to associate the identification information with the evaluation specification corresponding to the evaluation item: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0084-85, 0093-0095]: “In FIG. 9, the vulnerability detection result table 801 has the device ID 901, the vulnerability ID 902, and other device information 903 as data items. The device ID 901 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the device. The vulnerability ID 902 is an ID of the vulnerability possessed by the device represented by the corresponding device ID 901. In FIG. 13, the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 has the vulnerability type 1301, the control operation type 1302, a control operation point 1303, and the vulnerability influence degree 1304 as data items. The vulnerability type 1301 is a type of the vulnerability. The control operation type 1302 is a type of the control operation. In the example of FIG. 13, a relationship between the vulnerability and the control operation is managed for each type by a pair of the vulnerability type 1301 and the control operation type 1302. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items.”);
(Sugimoto teaches vulnerability ID/type and associates vulnerability type with control operation type. Table 806 further includes vulnerability ID/type and a control operation ID list.)
the identification information indicating a result of analysis of the evaluation item and being included in the vulnerability analysis information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0042, 0057, 0084-0085, 0095]: “The vulnerability detector 103 is a device that collects information about the target system of the threat analysis, that is, the administration target device 101 (system information, identification information and the like of each of the administration target devices 101), and detects the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101. The vulnerability detection processing unit 304 is a processing unit that detects a vulnerability possessed by the relevant device on the basis of a predetermined algorithm. In FIG. 9, the vulnerability detection result table 801 has the device ID 901, the vulnerability ID 902, and other device information 903 as data items. The device ID 901 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the device. The vulnerability ID 902 is an ID of the vulnerability possessed by the device represented by the corresponding device ID 901. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items.”);
(Vulnerability detection result table 801 including vulnerability ID 902 and table 806 including vulnerability ID 1402 and vulnerability type 1403.)
As to claim 4, Sugimoto teaches:
wherein, when the vulnerability analysis information includes identification information on the vulnerability corresponding to a missing evaluation specification that is an evaluation specification not indicated by the first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0084-0085, 0126-0127]: “In FIG. 9, the vulnerability detection result table 801 has the device ID 901, the vulnerability ID 902, and other device information 903 as data items. The device ID 901 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the device. The vulnerability ID 902 is an ID of the vulnerability possessed by the device represented by the corresponding device ID 901. Moreover, the threat analysis processing unit 506 searches the threat analysis result table 806, using, as a key, a pair of the device ID included in the vulnerability detection result information, and the relevant vulnerability type, and if it is determined that there is no record regarding the pair of the relevant device ID and the vulnerability type, the processing in steps S1903 to S1906 is performed. Next, if it is determined that there is no related threat detection result in the processing in step S1902, the threat analysis processing unit 506 generates a set of control operations related to the detected vulnerability (step S1903).”);
(Sugimoto teaches vulnerability ID/type information and a “no record” condition for the relevant device ID and vulnerability type.)
the re-definer re-defines the one or more evaluation specifications indicated by the first evaluation specification information by adding the missing evaluation specification and the identification information on the vulnerability corresponding to the missing evaluation specification: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0129-0130, 0132]: “Moreover, the threat analysis processing unit 506 searches the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805, using, as a key, the set of the relevant vulnerability type, the control operation type included in the control operation information, and the relevant control operation point, and acquires the vulnerability influence degree regarding a group of the relevant vulnerability type, the control operation type. Next, if the threat analysis processing unit 506 determines in the processing in step S1905 that there is a relationship between the detected vulnerability and the control operation, the relevant control operation is added to the set of control operations related to the detected vulnerabilities. If it is determined that there is no record related to the pair of the relevant device ID and vulnerability ID, newly generates a record, and sets a value of the relevant item in the set of control operations related to the vulnerability detection result information and the vulnerability (step S1909).”);
(Adding the relevant control operation and newly generating a record when no record exists.)
to the first evaluation specification information that has undergone the first association processing and the second association processing: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090, 0095, 0097, 0132]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. In the present embodiment, the threat analysis server 105 stores, in the threat analysis result table 806, processing results from the threat analysis by the predetermined algorithm. Newly generates a record, and sets a value of the relevant item in the set of control operations related to the vulnerability detection result information and the vulnerability (step S1909).”);
(Sugimoto teaches table 804 as the first evaluation specification information and table 806 as the generated result. Under BRI, the newly generated record in table 806 adds the missing control operation/evaluation specification and vulnerability identification information after the association processing.)
As to claim 6, Sugimoto teaches:
An evaluation support system for supporting an evaluation of an evaluation target device: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0039, 0041]: “The threat analysis system 10 is a computer system that analyzes a relationship between a vulnerability and a threat from a viewpoint of a business operator in addition to vulnerability information and information of a threat for each device caused by the vulnerability to enable threat analysis more suitable for a security requirement of a system. The administration target device 101 is a device that configures a system (threat analysis target system) administered by an administrator as a threat analysis target.”);
the evaluation support system comprising: memory that stores a program; and a processor: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0078, 0080]: “The computer 701 includes a CPU 702 (Central Processing Unit), the memory 703 configured of a volatile storage element such as a RAM (Random Access Memory), the external storage 704 configured of an appropriate nonvolatile storage element such as an SSD (Solid State Drive) or a hard disk drive. Moreover, the control units 202, 302, 402, 502, 603, the transmission/reception units 201, 301, 401, 501, 601, and the input/output unit 602 of each of the devices illustrated in FIGS. 2 to 6 are implemented by the CPU 702 loading, on the memory 703, an appropriate program stored in the foregoing external storage 704 and executing the same program.”);
wherein the processor executes the program to operate as: a threat concatenator that performs first association processing for concatenating at least part of threat analysis information with first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0063, 0067, 0090-0091]: “The control unit 502 includes a vulnerability-detection result collecting unit 503, a vulnerability information collecting unit 504, a design information collecting unit 505, a threat analysis processing unit 506, an influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507, and a threat-analysis result output unit 508. The threat analysis processing unit 506 is a processing unit that uses the information on the database 107 to analyze, for example, whether the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101 is related to a threat from a viewpoint of the business operator defined in the design information. In FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an example of the control operation information table 804. In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201.”);
(Sugimoto teaches the threat analysis processing unit 506 and control operation information table 804, which includes a control operation ID and related threat ID. Under BRI, table 804 corresponds to the first evaluation specification information, and the relationship between the threat ID and control operation ID corresponds to first association processing for concatenating threat analysis information with first evaluation specification information.)
the threat analysis information indicating a result of analysis of a threat to information security of the evaluation target device: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0088, 0089, 0067]: “In FIG. 11, the threat information table from the viewpoint of the business operator 803 has a threat ID 1101, a threat degree 1102, and other threat information 1103 as data items. The threat ID 1101 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the threat. The threat degree 1102 is a score of a magnitude of damage incurred when the threat occurs. The other threat information 1103 is information regarding the threat such as the threat name. The threat analysis processing unit 506 is a processing unit that uses the information on the database 107 to analyze, for example, whether the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101 is related to a threat from a viewpoint of the business operator defined in the design information.”);
(Threat information including threat ID, threat degree, and other threat information and the threat analysis processing unit analyzes whether a vulnerability of the administration target device is related to threat. This corresponds to threat analysis information indicating a result of analysis of a threat to information security of the evaluation target device.)
the first evaluation specification information indicating one or more evaluation specifications of the evaluation target device; (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0091, 0092]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. The other control operation information 1206 is information regarding the control operation such as a control operation name.”);
(Control operation information table 804 including control operation IDs, control operation types, device IDs, threat IDs, and control operation names. Under BRI, this corresponds to the first evaluation specification information indicating one or more specifications of the evaluation target device.)
and a re-definer that generates and outputs second evaluation specification information by re-defining: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0068, 0070, 0095, 0097]: “As an additional note, the threat analysis processing unit 506 associates the vulnerability included in the device and the threat in the threat analysis target system with each other, for example, on the basis of first information and second information. Moreover, for example, the threat analysis processing unit 506 further associates a control operation having a vulnerability influence degree of a predetermined value (e.g., a value larger than 0%), the vulnerability influence degree being corresponding to a type of the vulnerability included in the device, and a type of the control operation related to the device on the basis of third information. The threat-analysis result output unit 508 is a processing unit that transmits the threat analysis result derived by the threat analysis processing unit 506 and the influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507 to the client device 106 via the transmission/reception unit 501. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. In the present embodiment, the threat analysis server 105 stores, in the threat analysis result table 806, processing results from the threat analysis by the predetermined algorithm.”);
(The threat analysis processing unit 506 associate’s vulnerability information, threat information, and control operation information, and stores the result in threat analysis result table 806. It also teaches that output unit 508 transmit the threat analysis result. Under BRI, unit 506 and 508 correspond to the re-definer, and table 806 is a re-defined version of the control-operation/evaluation specifications indicated by table 804.)
based on the first association processing, the one or more evaluation specifications indicated by the first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0091, 0095, 0132]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. The threat analysis processing unit 506 searches the threat analysis result table 806, using, as a key, the pair of the device ID and the relevant vulnerability ID included in the vulnerability detection result, and if it is determined that there is no record related to the pair of the relevant device ID and vulnerability ID, newly generates a record, and sets a value of the relevant item in the set of control operations related to the vulnerability detection result information and the vulnerability (step S1909).”);
(Control operation information table 804 and threat analysis result table 806, which includes a control operation ID list generated after association with vulnerability and threat information. Under BRI, table 806 is a re-defined version of the control-operation/evaluation specifications indicated by table 804.)
As to claim 7, Sugimoto teaches:
wherein the first evaluation specification information indicates, for each evaluation item, an evaluation specification corresponding to the evaluation item: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0092]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. The other control operation information 1206 is information regarding the control operation such as a control operation name.”);
(Table 804 includes control operation IDs and related control operation information. Under BRI, each control operation ID corresponds to an evaluation item, and related control operation information corresponds to an evaluation specification.)
and the threat concatenator performs the first association processing by concatenating: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0063, 0067-0068]: “The control unit 502 includes a vulnerability-detection result collecting unit 503, a vulnerability information collecting unit 504, a design information collecting unit 505, a threat analysis processing unit 506, an influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507, and a threat-analysis result output unit 508. The threat analysis processing unit 506 is a processing unit that uses the information on the database 107 to analyze, for example, whether the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101 is related to a threat from a viewpoint of the business operator defined in the design information. As an additional note, the threat analysis processing unit 506 associates the vulnerability included in the device and the threat in the threat analysis target system with each other, for example, on the basis of first information in which the device configuring the threat analysis target system (e.g., the administration target device 101) and the vulnerability included in the device (e.g., a device ID 901 and a vulnerability ID 902 in a vulnerability detection result table 801 described later) are associated with each other, and second information in which the device and the threat from the viewpoint of the business operator assumed in the threat analysis target system.”);
(Threat analysis processing unit 506 performs association processing using database information, corresponding to the claimed threat concatenator.)
for each evaluation item in the first evaluation specification information, information indicating a countermeasure against the threat with the first evaluation specification information to associate the information with the evaluation specification corresponding to the evaluation item: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0091, 0095]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items.”);
(Sugimoto’s links control operation IDs with related threat IDs. Under BRI, a control operation /control instruction tied to a threat ID corresponds to countermeasures information against the threat, and table 806 associates that information with the corresponding evaluation specification.)
the information indicating a result of analysis of the evaluation item and being included in the threat analysis information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0088-0089, 0091, 0095]: “In FIG. 11, the threat information table from the viewpoint of the business operator 803 has a threat ID 1101, a threat degree 1102, and other threat information 1103 as data items. The threat ID 1101 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the threat. The threat degree 1102 is a score of a magnitude of damage incurred when the threat occurs. The other threat information 1103 is information regarding the threat such as the threat name. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items.”);
(Sugimoto teaches threat IDs, threat degrees, and threat influence information linked to control operation IDs. This corresponds to information indicating a result of analysis of the evaluation item included in the threat analysis information.)
As to claim 8, Sugimoto teaches:
wherein, when the threat analysis information includes information on a countermeasure against the threat corresponding to a missing evaluation specification that is an evaluation specification not indicated by the first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0067, 0090-0091, 0126-0127]: “The threat analysis processing unit 506 is a processing unit that uses the information on the database 107 to analyze, for example, whether the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101 is related to a threat from a viewpoint of the business operator defined in the design information. In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. Moreover, the threat analysis processing unit 506 searches the threat analysis result table 806, using, as a key, a pair of the device ID included in the vulnerability detection result information, and the relevant vulnerability type, and if it is determined that there is no record regarding the pair of the relevant device ID and the vulnerability type, the processing in steps S1903 to S1906 is performed. Next, if it is determined that there is no related threat detection result in the processing in step S1902, the threat analysis processing unit 506 generates a set of control operations related to the detected vulnerability (step S1903).”);
(Sugimoto links control operation IDs with threat IDs. Under BRI, a control operation/control instruction tied to a threat ID corresponds to countermeasure information against the threat, and the “no record” condition corresponds to a missing evaluation specification.)
the re-definer re-defines the one or more evaluation specifications indicated by the first evaluation specification information by adding the missing evaluation specification and the information on the countermeasure against the threat corresponding to the missing evaluation specification: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0130, 0132, 0095]: “Next, if the threat analysis processing unit 506 determines in the processing in step S1905 that there is a relationship between the detected vulnerability and the control operation, the relevant control operation is added to the set of control operations related to the detected vulnerabilities. If it is determined that there is no record related to the pair of the relevant device ID and vulnerability ID, newly generates a record, and sets a value of the relevant item in the set of control operations related to the vulnerability detection result information and the vulnerability (step S1909) In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items.”);
(Adding the relevant control operation and newly generating a record when no record exists.)
to the first evaluation specification information that has undergone the first association processing: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090, 0095, 0097, 0132]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. In the present embodiment, the threat analysis server 105 stores, in the threat analysis result table 806, processing results from the threat analysis by the predetermined algorithm. Newly generates a record, and sets a value of the relevant item in the set of control operations related to the vulnerability detection result information and the vulnerability (step S1909).”);
(Sugimoto teaches table 804 as the first evaluation specification information and table 806 as the generated result. Under BRI, the newly generated record in table 806 adds the missing control operation/evaluation specification and vulnerability identification information after the association processing.)
As to claim 10, Sugimoto teaches:
An evaluation support system for supporting an evaluation of an evaluation target device: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0039, 0041]: “The threat analysis system 10 is a computer system that analyzes a relationship between a vulnerability and a threat from a viewpoint of a business operator in addition to vulnerability information and information of a threat for each device caused by the vulnerability to enable threat analysis more suitable for a security requirement of a system. The administration target device 101 is a device that configures a system (threat analysis target system) administered by an administrator as a threat analysis target.”);
the evaluation support system comprising: memory that stores a program; and a processor: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0078, 0080]: “The computer 701 includes a CPU 702 (Central Processing Unit), the memory 703 configured of a volatile storage element such as a RAM (Random Access Memory), the external storage 704 configured of an appropriate nonvolatile storage element such as an SSD (Solid State Drive) or a hard disk drive. Moreover, the control units 202, 302, 402, 502, 603, the transmission/reception units 201, 301, 401, 501, 601, and the input/output unit 602 of each of the devices illustrated in FIGS. 2 to 6 are implemented by the CPU 702 loading, on the memory 703, an appropriate program stored in the foregoing external storage 704 and executing the same program.”);
wherein the processor executes the program to operate as: a vulnerability concatenator that performs second association processing for concatenating at least part of vulnerability analysis information with first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0063, 0068, 0093-0094]: “The control unit 502 includes a vulnerability-detection result collecting unit 503, a vulnerability information collecting unit 504, a design information collecting unit 505, a threat analysis processing unit 506, an influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507, and a threat-analysis result output unit 508. Moreover, for example, the threat analysis processing unit 506 further associates a control operation having a vulnerability influence degree of a predetermined value (e.g., a value larger than 0%), the vulnerability influence degree being corresponding to a type of the vulnerability included in the device, and a type of the control operation related to the device on the basis of third information in which the type of the vulnerability included in the device, the type of the control operation related to the device, and the vulnerability influence degree of the vulnerability on the control operation are associated with one another. In FIG. 13, the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 has the vulnerability type 1301, the control operation type 1302, a control operation point 1303, and the vulnerability influence degree 1304 as data items. The vulnerability type 1301 is a type of the vulnerability. The control operation type 1302 is a type of the control operation. In the example of FIG. 13, a relationship between the vulnerability and the control operation is managed for each type by a pair of the vulnerability type 1301 and the control operation type 1302.”);
(Sugimoto’s threat analysis processing unit 506 associate’s vulnerability information with control operation information using table 805.)
the vulnerability analysis information indicating a result of analysis of vulnerability of information security of the evaluation target device: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0042, 0057, 0084-0085]: “The vulnerability detector 103 is a device that collects information about the target system of the threat analysis, that is, the administration target device 101 (system information, identification information and the like of each of the administration target devices 101), and detects the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101. The vulnerability detection processing unit 304 is a processing unit that detects a vulnerability possessed by the relevant device on the basis of a predetermined algorithm. In FIG. 9, the vulnerability detection result table 801 has the device ID 901, the vulnerability ID 902, and other device information 903 as data items. The device ID 901 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the device. The vulnerability ID 902 is an ID of the vulnerability possessed by the device represented by the corresponding device ID 901.”);
(A vulnerability detector and vulnerability detection processing unit that detect vulnerabilities possessed by the administrator target device and store the result in vulnerability detection result table 801.)
the first evaluation specification information indicating one or more evaluation specifications of the evaluation target device; (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0091, 0092]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. The other control operation information 1206 is information regarding the control operation such as a control operation name.”);
(Control operation information table 804 including control operation IDs, control operation types, device IDs, threat IDs, and control operation names. Under BRI, this corresponds to the first evaluation specification information indicating one or more specifications of the evaluation target device.)
and a re-definer that generates and outputs second evaluation specification information by re-defining: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0068, 0070, 0095, 0097]: “As an additional note, the threat analysis processing unit 506 associates the vulnerability included in the device and the threat in the threat analysis target system with each other, for example, on the basis of first information and second information. Moreover, for example, the threat analysis processing unit 506 further associates a control operation having a vulnerability influence degree of a predetermined value (e.g., a value larger than 0%), the vulnerability influence degree being corresponding to a type of the vulnerability included in the device, and a type of the control operation related to the device on the basis of third information. The threat-analysis result output unit 508 is a processing unit that transmits the threat analysis result derived by the threat analysis processing unit 506 and the influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507 to the client device 106 via the transmission/reception unit 501. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. In the present embodiment, the threat analysis server 105 stores, in the threat analysis result table 806, processing results from the threat analysis by the predetermined algorithm.”);
(The threat analysis processing unit 506 associate’s vulnerability information, threat information, and control operation information, and stores the result in threat analysis result table 806. It also teaches that output unit 508 transmit the threat analysis result. Under BRI, unit 506 and 508 correspond to the re-definer, and table 806 is a re-defined version of the control-operation/evaluation specifications indicated by table 804.)
based on the second association processing, the one or more evaluation specifications indicated by the first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0091, 0095, 0132]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. In FIG. 13, the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 has the vulnerability type 1301, the control operation type 1302, a control operation point 1303, and the vulnerability influence degree 1304 as data items. The vulnerability type 1301 is a type of the vulnerability. The control operation type 1302 is a type of the control operation. In the example of FIG. 13, a relationship between the vulnerability and the control operation is managed for each type by a pair of the vulnerability type 1301 and the control operation type 1302. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. The threat analysis processing unit 506 searches the threat analysis result table 806, using, as a key, the pair of the device ID and the relevant vulnerability ID included in the vulnerability detection result, and if it is determined that there is no record related to the pair of the relevant device ID and vulnerability ID, newly generates a record, and sets a value of the relevant item in the set of control operations related to the vulnerability detection result information and the vulnerability (step S1909).”);
(Sugimoto teaches table 804, vulnerability/control operation table 805, and table 806, which includes a control operation ID list after vulnerability/control operation association. Under BRI, table 806 is a re-defined version of the control-operation/evaluation specifications indicated by table 804.)
As to claim 11, Sugimoto teaches:
wherein the first evaluation specification information indicates, for each evaluation item, an evaluation specification corresponding to the evaluation item: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0092]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. The other control operation information 1206 is information regarding the control operation such as a control operation name.”);
(Table 804 includes control operation IDs and related control operation information. Under BRI, each control operation ID corresponds to an evaluation item, and related control operation information corresponds to an evaluation specification.)
and the vulnerability concatenator performs the second association processing by concatenating: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0063, 0068, 0093-0094]: “The control unit 502 includes a vulnerability-detection result collecting unit 503, a vulnerability information collecting unit 504, a design information collecting unit 505, a threat analysis processing unit 506, an influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507, and a threat-analysis result output unit 508. Moreover, for example, the threat analysis processing unit 506 further associates a control operation having a vulnerability influence degree of a predetermined value (e.g., a value larger than 0%), the vulnerability influence degree being corresponding to a type of the vulnerability included in the device, and a type of the control operation related to the device on the basis of third information in which the type of the vulnerability included in the device, the type of the control operation related to the device, and the vulnerability influence degree of the vulnerability on the control operation are associated with one another. In FIG. 13, the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 has the vulnerability type 1301, the control operation type 1302, a control operation point 1303, and the vulnerability influence degree 1304 as data items. The vulnerability type 1301 is a type of the vulnerability. The control operation type 1302 is a type of the control operation. In the example of FIG. 13, a relationship between the vulnerability and the control operation is managed for each type by a pair of the vulnerability type 1301 and the control operation type 1302.”);
for each evaluation item in the first evaluation specification information, identification information on the vulnerability with the first evaluation specification information to associate the identification information with the evaluation specification corresponding to the evaluation item: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0084-85, 0093-0095]: “In FIG. 9, the vulnerability detection result table 801 has the device ID 901, the vulnerability ID 902, and other device information 903 as data items. The device ID 901 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the device. The vulnerability ID 902 is an ID of the vulnerability possessed by the device represented by the corresponding device ID 901. In FIG. 13, the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 has the vulnerability type 1301, the control operation type 1302, a control operation point 1303, and the vulnerability influence degree 1304 as data items. The vulnerability type 1301 is a type of the vulnerability. The control operation type 1302 is a type of the control operation. In the example of FIG. 13, a relationship between the vulnerability and the control operation is managed for each type by a pair of the vulnerability type 1301 and the control operation type 1302. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items.”);
(Sugimoto teaches vulnerability ID/type and associates vulnerability type with control operation type. Table 806 further includes vulnerability ID/type and a control operation ID list.)
the identification information indicating a result of analysis of the evaluation item and being included in the vulnerability analysis information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0042, 0057, 0084-0085, 0095]: “The vulnerability detector 103 is a device that collects information about the target system of the threat analysis, that is, the administration target device 101 (system information, identification information and the like of each of the administration target devices 101), and detects the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101. The vulnerability detection processing unit 304 is a processing unit that detects a vulnerability possessed by the relevant device on the basis of a predetermined algorithm. In FIG. 9, the vulnerability detection result table 801 has the device ID 901, the vulnerability ID 902, and other device information 903 as data items. The device ID 901 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the device. The vulnerability ID 902 is an ID of the vulnerability possessed by the device represented by the corresponding device ID 901. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items.”);
(Vulnerability detection result table 801 including vulnerability ID 902 and table 806 including vulnerability ID 1402 and vulnerability type 1403.)
As to claim 12, Sugimoto teaches:
wherein, when the vulnerability analysis information includes identification information on the vulnerability corresponding to a missing evaluation specification that is an evaluation specification not indicated by the first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0084-0085, 0126-0127]: “In FIG. 9, the vulnerability detection result table 801 has the device ID 901, the vulnerability ID 902, and other device information 903 as data items. The device ID 901 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the device. The vulnerability ID 902 is an ID of the vulnerability possessed by the device represented by the corresponding device ID 901. Moreover, the threat analysis processing unit 506 searches the threat analysis result table 806, using, as a key, a pair of the device ID included in the vulnerability detection result information, and the relevant vulnerability type, and if it is determined that there is no record regarding the pair of the relevant device ID and the vulnerability type, the processing in steps S1903 to S1906 is performed. Next, if it is determined that there is no related threat detection result in the processing in step S1902, the threat analysis processing unit 506 generates a set of control operations related to the detected vulnerability (step S1903).”);
(Sugimoto teaches vulnerability ID/type information and a “no record” condition for the relevant device ID and vulnerability type.)
the re-definer re-defines the one or more evaluation specifications indicated by the first evaluation specification information by adding the missing evaluation specification and the identification information on the vulnerability corresponding to the missing evaluation specification: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0129-0130, 0132]: “Moreover, the threat analysis processing unit 506 searches the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805, using, as a key, the set of the relevant vulnerability type, the control operation type included in the control operation information, and the relevant control operation point, and acquires the vulnerability influence degree regarding a group of the relevant vulnerability type, the control operation type. Next, if the threat analysis processing unit 506 determines in the processing in step S1905 that there is a relationship between the detected vulnerability and the control operation, the relevant control operation is added to the set of control operations related to the detected vulnerabilities. If it is determined that there is no record related to the pair of the relevant device ID and vulnerability ID, newly generates a record, and sets a value of the relevant item in the set of control operations related to the vulnerability detection result information and the vulnerability (step S1909).”);
(Adding the relevant control operation and newly generating a record when no record exists.)
to the first evaluation specification information that has undergone the second association processing and the second association processing: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090, 0093-0095, 0132]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. In FIG. 13, the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 has the vulnerability type 1301, the control operation type 1302, a control operation point 1303, and the vulnerability influence degree 1304 as data items. The vulnerability type 1301 is a type of the vulnerability. The control operation type 1302 is a type of the control operation. In the example of FIG. 13, a relationship between the vulnerability and the control operation is managed for each type by a pair of the vulnerability type 1301 and the control operation type 1302. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. Newly generates a record, and sets a value of the relevant item in the set of control operations related to the vulnerability detection result information and the vulnerability (step S1909).”);
(Sugimoto teaches table 804 as the first evaluation specification information and table 806 as the generated result. Under BRI, the newly generated record in table 806 adds the missing control operation/evaluation specification and vulnerability identification information after the association processing.)
As to claim 14, Sugimoto teaches:
An evaluation support method executed by a computer, for supporting an evaluation of an evaluation target device: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0039, 0041, 0077]: “The threat analysis system 10 is a computer system that analyzes a relationship between a vulnerability and a threat from a viewpoint of a business operator in addition to vulnerability information and information of a threat for each device caused by the vulnerability to enable threat analysis more suitable for a security requirement of a system. The administration target device 101 is a device that configures a system (threat analysis target system) administered by an administrator as a threat analysis target. Each of the administration target device 101, the vulnerability detector 103, the vulnerability information disclosing organization 104, and the threat analysis server 105 is configured by a computer 701.”);
the evaluation support method comprising: performing first association processing for concatenating at least part of threat analysis information with first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0067, 0090, 0091]: “The threat analysis processing unit 506 is a processing unit that uses the information on the database 107 to analyze, for example, whether the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101 is related to a threat from a viewpoint of the business operator defined in the design information. In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201.”);
(Sugimoto links control operation IDs with threat IDs. Under BRI, this corresponds to the first association processing between threat analysis information and first evaluation specification information.)
the threat analysis information indicating a result of analysis of a threat to information security of the evaluation target device: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0088-0089, 0067]: “The control unit 502 includes a vulnerability-detection result collecting unit 503, a vulnerability information collecting unit 504, a design information collecting unit 505, a threat analysis processing unit 506, an influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507, and a threat-analysis result output unit 508. The threat analysis processing unit 506 is a processing unit that uses the information on the database 107 to analyze, for example, whether the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101 is related to a threat from a viewpoint of the business operator defined in the design information. In FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an example of the control operation information table 804. In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201.”);
(Sugimoto teaches the threat analysis processing unit 506 and control operation information table 804, which includes a control operation ID and related threat ID. Under BRI, table 804 corresponds to the first evaluation specification information, and the relationship between the threat ID and control operation ID corresponds to first association processing for concatenating threat analysis information with first evaluation specification information.)
the first evaluation specification information indicating one or more evaluation specifications of the evaluation target device; (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0091, 0092]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. The other control operation information 1206 is information regarding the control operation such as a control operation name.”);
(Control operation information table 804 including control operation IDs, control operation types, device IDs, threat IDs, and control operation names. Under BRI, this corresponds to the first evaluation specification information indicating one or more specifications of the evaluation target device.)
performing second association processing for concatenating at least part of vulnerability analysis information with the first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0068, 0093-0094]: “Moreover, for example, the threat analysis processing unit 506 further associates a control operation having a vulnerability influence degree of a predetermined value (e.g., a value larger than 0%), the vulnerability influence degree being corresponding to a type of the vulnerability included in the device, and a type of the control operation related to the device on the basis of third information in which the type of the vulnerability included in the device, the type of the control operation related to the device, and the vulnerability influence degree of the vulnerability on the control operation are associated with one another, the third information being stored in the storage unit (e.g., a vulnerability type 1301, a control operation type 1302, and a vulnerability influence degree 1304 in a vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 described later). In FIG. 13, the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 has the vulnerability type 1301, the control operation type 1302, a control operation point 1303, and the vulnerability influence degree 1304 as data items. The vulnerability type 1301 is a type of the vulnerability. The control operation type 1302 is a type of the control operation. In the example of FIG. 13, a relationship between the vulnerability and the control operation is managed for each type by a pair of the vulnerability type 1301 and the control operation type 1302.”);
(The threat analysis processing unit 506 associates vulnerability type information with control operation information using vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805. This corresponds to a vulnerability concatenator performing second association processing for concatenating vulnerability analysis information with the first evaluation specific information.)
the vulnerability analysis information indicating a result of analysis of vulnerability of the information security of the evaluation target device; (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0042, 0057, 0084-0085]: “The vulnerability detector 103 is a device that collects information about the target system of the threat analysis, that is, the administration target device 101 (system information, identification information and the like of each of the administration target devices 101), and detects the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101. The vulnerability detection processing unit 304 is a processing unit that detects a vulnerability possessed by the relevant device on the basis of a predetermined algorithm. In FIG. 9, the vulnerability detection result table 801 has the device ID 901, the vulnerability ID 902, and other device information 903 as data items. The device ID 901 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the device. The vulnerability ID 902 is an ID of the vulnerability possessed by the device represented by the corresponding device ID 901.”);
(A vulnerability detector and vulnerability detection processing unit that detect vulnerabilities possessed by the administrator target device and store the result in vulnerability detection result table 801.)
and generating and outputting second evaluation specification information by re-defining: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0068, 0070, 0095, 0097]: “As an additional note, the threat analysis processing unit 506 associates the vulnerability included in the device and the threat in the threat analysis target system with each other, for example, on the basis of first information and second information. Moreover, for example, the threat analysis processing unit 506 further associates a control operation having a vulnerability influence degree of a predetermined value (e.g., a value larger than 0%), the vulnerability influence degree being corresponding to a type of the vulnerability included in the device, and a type of the control operation related to the device on the basis of third information. The threat-analysis result output unit 508 is a processing unit that transmits the threat analysis result derived by the threat analysis processing unit 506 and the influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507 to the client device 106 via the transmission/reception unit 501. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. In the present embodiment, the threat analysis server 105 stores, in the threat analysis result table 806, processing results from the threat analysis by the predetermined algorithm.”);
(The threat analysis processing unit 506 associate’s vulnerability information, threat information, and control operation information, and stores the result in threat analysis result table 806. It also teaches that output unit 508 transmit the threat analysis result. Under BRI, unit 506 and 508 correspond to the re-definer, and table 806 is a re-defined version of the control-operation/evaluation specifications indicated by table 804.)
based on the first association processing and the second association processing, the one or more evaluation specifications indicated by the first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090, 0093-0095, 0132]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. In FIG. 13, the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 has the vulnerability type 1301, the control operation type 1302, a control operation point 1303, and the vulnerability influence degree 1304 as data items. The vulnerability type 1301 is a type of the vulnerability. The control operation type 1302 is a type of the control operation. In the example of FIG. 13, a relationship between the vulnerability and the control operation is managed for each type by a pair of the vulnerability type 1301 and the control operation type 1302. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. Newly generates a record, and sets a value of the relevant item in the set of control operations related to the vulnerability detection result information and the vulnerability (step S1909).”);
(Sugimoto teaches table 804 as the first evaluation specification information and table 806 as the generated result. Under BRI, the newly generated record in table 806 adds the missing control operation/evaluation specification and vulnerability identification information after the association processing.)
As to claim 15, Sugimoto teaches:
An evaluation support method, executed by a computer, for supporting an evaluation of an evaluation target device: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0039, 0041, 0077]: ““The threat analysis system 10 is a computer system that analyzes a relationship between a vulnerability and a threat from a viewpoint of a business operator in addition to vulnerability information and information of a threat for each device caused by the vulnerability to enable threat analysis more suitable for a security requirement of a system. The administration target device 101 is a device that configures a system (threat analysis target system) administered by an administrator as a threat analysis target. Each of the administration target device 101, the vulnerability detector 103, the vulnerability information disclosing organization 104, and the threat analysis server 105 is configured by a computer 701.”);
the evaluation support method comprising: performing first association processing for concatenating at least part of threat analysis information with first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0067, 0090, 0091]: “The threat analysis processing unit 506 is a processing unit that uses the information on the database 107 to analyze, for example, whether the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101 is related to a threat from a viewpoint of the business operator defined in the design information. In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201.”);
(Sugimoto links control operation IDs with threat IDs. Under BRI, this corresponds to the first association processing between threat analysis information and first evaluation specification information.)
the threat analysis information indicating a result of analysis of a threat to information security of the evaluation target device: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0088-0089, 0067]: “The control unit 502 includes a vulnerability-detection result collecting unit 503, a vulnerability information collecting unit 504, a design information collecting unit 505, a threat analysis processing unit 506, an influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507, and a threat-analysis result output unit 508. The threat analysis processing unit 506 is a processing unit that uses the information on the database 107 to analyze, for example, whether the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101 is related to a threat from a viewpoint of the business operator defined in the design information. In FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an example of the control operation information table 804. In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201.”);
(Sugimoto teaches the threat analysis processing unit 506 and control operation information table 804, which includes a control operation ID and related threat ID. Under BRI, table 804 corresponds to the first evaluation specification information, and the relationship between the threat ID and control operation ID corresponds to first association processing for concatenating threat analysis information with first evaluation specification information.)
the first evaluation specification information indicating one or more evaluation specifications of the evaluation target device; (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0091, 0092]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. The other control operation information 1206 is information regarding the control operation such as a control operation name.”);
(Control operation information table 804 including control operation IDs, control operation types, device IDs, threat IDs, and control operation names. Under BRI, this corresponds to the first evaluation specification information indicating one or more specifications of the evaluation target device.)
generating and outputting second evaluation specification information by re-defining, based on the first association processing: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0068, 0070, 0095, 0097]: “As an additional note, the threat analysis processing unit 506 associates the vulnerability included in the device and the threat in the threat analysis target system with each other, for example, on the basis of first information and second information. Moreover, for example, the threat analysis processing unit 506 further associates a control operation having a vulnerability influence degree of a predetermined value (e.g., a value larger than 0%), the vulnerability influence degree being corresponding to a type of the vulnerability included in the device, and a type of the control operation related to the device on the basis of third information. The threat-analysis result output unit 508 is a processing unit that transmits the threat analysis result derived by the threat analysis processing unit 506 and the influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507 to the client device 106 via the transmission/reception unit 501. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. In the present embodiment, the threat analysis server 105 stores, in the threat analysis result table 806, processing results from the threat analysis by the predetermined algorithm.”);
(The threat analysis processing unit 506 associate’s vulnerability information, threat information, and control operation information, and stores the result in threat analysis result table 806. It also teaches that output unit 508 transmit the threat analysis result. Under BRI, unit 506 and 508 correspond to the re-definer, and table 806 is a re-defined version of the control-operation/evaluation specifications indicated by table 804.)
the one or more evaluation specifications indicated by the first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0091, 0095, 0132]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. The threat analysis processing unit 506 searches the threat analysis result table 806, using, as a key, the pair of the device ID and the relevant vulnerability ID included in the vulnerability detection result, and if it is determined that there is no record related to the pair of the relevant device ID and vulnerability ID, newly generates a record, and sets a value of the relevant item in the set of control operations related to the vulnerability detection result information and the vulnerability (step S1909).”);
(Control operation information table 804 and threat analysis result table 806, which includes a control operation ID list generated after association with vulnerability and threat information. Under BRI, table 806 is a re-defined version of the control-operation/evaluation specifications indicated by table 804.)
As to claim 16, Sugimoto teaches:
An evaluation support method, executed by a computer, for supporting an evaluation of an evaluation target device: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0039, 0041, 0077]: ““The threat analysis system 10 is a computer system that analyzes a relationship between a vulnerability and a threat from a viewpoint of a business operator in addition to vulnerability information and information of a threat for each device caused by the vulnerability to enable threat analysis more suitable for a security requirement of a system. The administration target device 101 is a device that configures a system (threat analysis target system) administered by an administrator as a threat analysis target. Each of the administration target device 101, the vulnerability detector 103, the vulnerability information disclosing organization 104, and the threat analysis server 105 is configured by a computer 701.”);
the evaluation support method comprising: performing second association processing for concatenating at least part of vulnerability analysis information with first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0063, 0068, 0093-0094]: “The control unit 502 includes a vulnerability-detection result collecting unit 503, a vulnerability information collecting unit 504, a design information collecting unit 505, a threat analysis processing unit 506, an influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507, and a threat-analysis result output unit 508. Moreover, for example, the threat analysis processing unit 506 further associates a control operation having a vulnerability influence degree of a predetermined value (e.g., a value larger than 0%), the vulnerability influence degree being corresponding to a type of the vulnerability included in the device, and a type of the control operation related to the device on the basis of third information in which the type of the vulnerability included in the device, the type of the control operation related to the device, and the vulnerability influence degree of the vulnerability on the control operation are associated with one another, the third information being stored in the storage unit (e.g., a vulnerability type 1301, a control operation type 1302, and a vulnerability influence degree 1304 in a vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 described later). In FIG. 13, the vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805 has the vulnerability type 1301, the control operation type 1302, a control operation point 1303, and the vulnerability influence degree 1304 as data items. The vulnerability type 1301 is a type of the vulnerability. The control operation type 1302 is a type of the control operation. In the example of FIG. 13, a relationship between the vulnerability and the control operation is managed for each type by a pair of the vulnerability type 1301 and the control operation type 1302.”);
(The threat analysis processing unit 506 associates vulnerability type information with control operation information using vulnerability/control operation correspondence table 805. This corresponds to a vulnerability concatenator performing second association processing for concatenating vulnerability analysis information with the first evaluation specific information.)
the vulnerability analysis information indicating a result of analysis of vulnerability of information security of the evaluation target device: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0042, 0057, 0084-0085]: “The vulnerability detector 103 is a device that collects information about the target system of the threat analysis, that is, the administration target device 101 (system information, identification information and the like of each of the administration target devices 101), and detects the vulnerability possessed by the administration target device 101. The vulnerability detection processing unit 304 is a processing unit that detects a vulnerability possessed by the relevant device on the basis of a predetermined algorithm. In FIG. 9, the vulnerability detection result table 801 has the device ID 901, the vulnerability ID 902, and other device information 903 as data items. The device ID 901 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the device. The vulnerability ID 902 is an ID of the vulnerability possessed by the device represented by the corresponding device ID 901.”);
(A vulnerability detector and vulnerability detection processing unit that detect vulnerabilities possessed by the administrator target device and store the result in vulnerability detection result table 801.)
the first evaluation specification information indicating one or more evaluation specifications of the evaluation target device; (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0091, 0092]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. The other control operation information 1206 is information regarding the control operation such as a control operation name.”);
(Control operation information table 804 including control operation IDs, control operation types, device IDs, threat IDs, and control operation names. Under BRI, this corresponds to the first evaluation specification information indicating one or more specifications of the evaluation target device.)
generating and outputting second evaluation specification information by re-defining, based on the first association processing: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0068, 0070, 0095, 0097]: “As an additional note, the threat analysis processing unit 506 associates the vulnerability included in the device and the threat in the threat analysis target system with each other, for example, on the basis of first information and second information. Moreover, for example, the threat analysis processing unit 506 further associates a control operation having a vulnerability influence degree of a predetermined value (e.g., a value larger than 0%), the vulnerability influence degree being corresponding to a type of the vulnerability included in the device, and a type of the control operation related to the device on the basis of third information. The threat-analysis result output unit 508 is a processing unit that transmits the threat analysis result derived by the threat analysis processing unit 506 and the influence-degree evaluation processing unit 507 to the client device 106 via the transmission/reception unit 501. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. In the present embodiment, the threat analysis server 105 stores, in the threat analysis result table 806, processing results from the threat analysis by the predetermined algorithm.”);
(The threat analysis processing unit 506 associate’s vulnerability information, threat information, and control operation information, and stores the result in threat analysis result table 806. It also teaches that output unit 508 transmit the threat analysis result. Under BRI, unit 506 and 508 correspond to the re-definer, and table 806 is a re-defined version of the control-operation/evaluation specifications indicated by table 804.)
the one or more evaluation specifications indicated by the first evaluation specification information: (see Sugimoto, [¶¶0090-0091, 0095, 0132]: “In FIG. 12, the control operation information table 804 has a control operation ID 1201, a threat ID 1202, a control operation type 1203, the start point device ID 1204, the end point device ID 1205, and other control operation information 1206 as data items. The control operation ID 1201 is an identifier uniquely assigned to the control operation (control instruction). The threat ID 1202 is an ID of the threat related to the corresponding control operation ID 1201. In FIG. 14, the threat analysis result table 806 has a device ID 1401, a vulnerability ID 1402, a vulnerability type 1403, a control operation ID list 1404, a control operation influence degree list 1405, a threat ID list 1406, and a threat influence degree list 1407, and system influence degree 1408 as data items. The threat analysis processing unit 506 searches the threat analysis result table 806, using, as a key, the pair of the device ID and the relevant vulnerability ID included in the vulnerability detection result, and if it is determined that there is no record related to the pair of the relevant device ID and vulnerability ID, newly generates a record, and sets a value of the relevant item in the set of control operations related to the vulnerability detection result information and the vulnerability (step S1909).”);
(Control operation information table 804 and threat analysis result table 806, which includes a control operation ID list generated after association with vulnerability and threat information. Under BRI, table 806 is a re-defined version of the control-operation/evaluation specifications indicated by table 804.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al, (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0029153 A1, hereinafter Sugimoto) in view of Kawauchi et al, (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0121739 A1, hereinafter Kawauchi).
As to claim 5, Sugimoto teaches all the limitations recites in claim 1 above.
Sugimoto does not teach, but Kawauchi teaches:
wherein the processor further operates as: a feedback device that feeds back the second evaluation specification information as evaluated specification information to a threat analyzer and a vulnerability analyzer, the second evaluation specification information indicating a result of the evaluation of the evaluation target device obtained by the evaluation conducted in accordance with the second evaluation specification information: (see Kawauchi, [¶¶0036, 0039, 0093, 0095]: “The risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1 has the threat analysis processing unit 3 into which design information is inputted from the input/output processing unit 2, the countermeasure planning unit 4 into which a threat analysis result is inputted from the threat analysis processing unit 3, the security test planning unit 5 into which a countermeasure plan candidate is inputted from the countermeasure planning unit 4, the evaluation calculation unit 6 into which a test requirement is inputted from the security test planning unit 5, the result processing unit 7 into which an evaluation result is inputted from the evaluation calculation unit 6, the product information DB 11 to which product information is outputted from the result processing unit 7, the vulnerability analysis unit 8 into which vulnerability information is inputted from the input/output processing unit 2. It also has the vulnerability analysis unit 8 that is inputted with vulnerability information from the input/output processing unit 2, the product applicability determination unit 9 that determines from the information regarding new vulnerabilities and past product information whether vulnerability information applies to a product. In step 104, the user 108 inputs the test list stipulated in the test table 900 to the risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1, via the input/output processing unit 2 or the communication unit 80. A determination is made as to whether a test method adapted from the test table 900 illustrated in FIG. 11 applies to a vulnerability relating to an attack method indicated in FIG. 6, and a determination is made as to whether to implement a test for each vulnerability. Product information including a countermeasure candidate list and test candidates are outputted to the result processing unit 8.”);
the threat analyzer generates the threat analysis information by analyzing the threat to the evaluation target device, and the vulnerability analyzer generates the vulnerability analysis information by analyzing the vulnerability of the evaluation target device: (see Kawauchi, [¶¶0036, 0039, 0060, 0091-0093]: “The risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1 has the threat analysis processing unit 3 into which design information is inputted from the input/output processing unit 2, the countermeasure planning unit 4 into which a threat analysis result is inputted from the threat analysis processing unit 3. It also has the vulnerability analysis unit 8 that is inputted with vulnerability information from the input/output processing unit 2. The threat analysis information table 500 is a list that exhaustively specifies, with respect to the specification item 502 on the design specification and the asset 503, from which attack starting point (entry function number 505 (FROM)) is there an attack from and what impact (threat event 707) does the attack have on the IoT device. In step 102, the user 108 inputs the threat analysis information stipulated in the threat analysis information table 500 to the risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1, via the input/output processing unit 2 or the communication unit 80. The threat analysis information exhaustively specifies threat events with respect to all assets that a specification item holds. In step 103, the user 108 inputs the countermeasure candidate list stipulated in the countermeasure table 800 illustrated in FIG. 10 to the risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1, via the input/output processing unit 2 or the communication unit 80. In step 104, A determination is made as to whether a test method adapted from the test table 900 illustrated in FIG. 11 applies to a vulnerability relating to an attack method indicated in FIG. 6, and a determination is made as to whether to implement a test for each vulnerability.”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Sugimoto’s evaluation support system to include the evaluation result processing and stored product/security information feedback techniques taught by Kawauchi. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to feed evaluated specification information back to the threat analyzer and vulnerability analyzer so that later threat analysis and vulnerability analysis could use stored evaluation results, product information, and security countermeasure information. The combination would have yielded the predictable benefit of improving later threat/vulnerability analysis and security countermeasure planning using previously generated evaluation results.
As to claim 9, Sugimoto teaches all the limitations recites in claim 6 above.
Sugimoto does not teach, but Kawauchi teaches:
wherein the processor further operates as: a feedback device that feeds back the second evaluation specification information as evaluated specification information to the threat analyzer, the second evaluation specification information indicating a result of the evaluation of the evaluation target device obtained by the evaluation conducted in accordance with the second evaluation specification information: (see Kawauchi, [¶¶0036, 0039, 0093, 0095]: “The risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1 has the evaluation calculation unit 6 into which a test requirement is inputted from the security test planning unit 5, the result processing unit 7 into which an evaluation result is inputted from the evaluation calculation unit 6, the product information DB 11 to which product information is outputted from the result processing unit 7. It also has the product applicability determination unit 9 that determines from the information regarding new vulnerabilities and past product information whether vulnerability information applies to a product. In step 104, the user 108 inputs the test list stipulated in the test table 900 to the risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1, via the input/output processing unit 2 or the communication unit 80. A determination is made as to whether a test method adapted from the test table 900 illustrated in FIG. 11 applies to a vulnerability relating to an attack method indicated in FIG. 6, and a determination is made as to whether to implement a test for each vulnerability. Product information including a countermeasure candidate list and test candidates are outputted to the result processing unit 8.”);
and the threat analyzer generates the threat analysis information by performing threat analysis on the evaluation target device: (see Kawauchi, [¶¶0036, 0059-0060, 0091]: “The risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1 has the threat analysis processing unit 3 into which design information is inputted from the input/output processing unit 2, the countermeasure planning unit 4 into which a threat analysis result is inputted from the threat analysis processing unit 3. The threat analysis information table 500 is configured from an asset item number 501, an asset 502, an attack scenario number 504, an entry function number 505, an attack target function number 506, and a threat event 507. The threat analysis information table 500 is a list that exhaustively specifies, with respect to the specification item 502 on the design specification and the asset 503, from which attack starting point (entry function number 505 (FROM)) is there an attack from and what impact (threat event 707) does the attack have on the IoT device. In step 102, the user 108 inputs the threat analysis information stipulated in the threat analysis information table 500 to the risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1, via the input/output processing unit 2 or the communication unit 80. The threat analysis information exhaustively specifies threat events with respect to all assets that a specification item holds.”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Sugimoto’s evaluation support system to include the evaluation result processing and stored product security information feedback techniques taught by Kawauchi. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to feed evaluated specification information back to the threat analyzer so that later threat analysis could use stored evaluation results, product information, and security countermeasure information. The combination would have yielded the predictable benefit of improving later threat analysis and risk determination using previously generated evaluation results.
As to claim 13, Sugimoto teaches all the limitations recites in claim 10 above.
Sugimoto does not teach, but Kawauchi teaches:
wherein the processor further operates as: a feedback device that feeds back the second evaluation specification information as evaluated specification information to the threat analyzer, the second evaluation specification information indicating a result of the evaluation of the evaluation target device obtained by the evaluation conducted in accordance with the second evaluation specification information: (see Kawauchi, [¶¶0036, 0039, 0093, 0095]: “The risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1 has the evaluation calculation unit 6 into which a test requirement is inputted from the security test planning unit 5, the result processing unit 7 into which an evaluation result is inputted from the evaluation calculation unit 6, the product information DB 11 to which product information is outputted from the result processing unit 7. It also has the product applicability determination unit 9 that determines from the information regarding new vulnerabilities and past product information whether vulnerability information applies to a product. In step 104, the user 108 inputs the test list stipulated in the test table 900 to the risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1, via the input/output processing unit 2 or the communication unit 80. A determination is made as to whether a test method adapted from the test table 900 illustrated in FIG. 11 applies to a vulnerability relating to an attack method indicated in FIG. 6, and a determination is made as to whether to implement a test for each vulnerability. Product information including a countermeasure candidate list and test candidates are outputted to the result processing unit 8.”);
and the vulnerability analyzer generates the vulnerability analysis information by performing vulnerability analysis on the evaluation target device: (see Kawauchi, [¶¶0036, 0039, 0092, 0095]: “The risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1 has the vulnerability analysis unit 8 into which vulnerability information is inputted from the input/output processing unit 2. It also has the product applicability determination unit 9 that determines from the information regarding new vulnerabilities and past product information whether vulnerability information applies to a product. In step 103, the user 108 inputs the countermeasure candidate list stipulated in the countermeasure table 800 illustrated in FIG. 10 to the risk evaluation and countermeasure planning system 1, via the input/output processing unit 2 or the communication unit 80. In step 104, A determination is made as to whether a test method adapted from the test table 900 illustrated in FIG. 11 applies to a vulnerability relating to an attack method indicated in FIG. 6, and a determination is made as to whether to implement a test for each vulnerability.”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Sugimoto’s evaluation support system to include the evaluation result processing and stored product security information feedback techniques taught by Kawauchi. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to feed evaluated specification information back to the vulnerability analyzer so that later vulnerability analysis could use stored evaluation results, product information, and security countermeasure information. The combination would have yielded the predictable benefit of improving later threat analysis and risk determination using previously generated evaluation results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARHAM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-8950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5 pm. Alternate Friday off..
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571) 270-5143. 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.
/A.N.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALI S ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights