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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: the words “deviceentity” is written as single word, provide proper spacing between words. This occurs throughout the claim set. Appropriate correction is required. Therefore, the corresponding dependent claims are also objected for the same rationale.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12278846. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the said patent anticipates the claimed concept of the instant application as shown in below table.
Instant App. 19081735
Patent #: 12278846
1. A method, comprising: receiving, via a processor, identity provider (IDP) / single sign on (SSO) data that is associated with from at least one of an IDP compute device or and an SSO compute deviceentity, the at least one of the IDP compute device or the SSO compute deviceentity managing access to a plurality of cloud-based applications for a plurality of user compute devices for a plurality of users; receiving, via the processor and from the plurality of user compute devices, browser extension data, the browser extension data captured via a plurality of browser extensions at the plurality of user compute devices;generating, via the processor and without accessing the plurality of cloud-based applications, analytics based on the IDP/SSO data and the browser extension data;causing, via the processor, an action based on the analytics;determining, via the processor, a remedial action to improve cybersecurity associated with the plurality of users and the plurality of user compute devices, based on the analytics; andcausing, via the processor, an indication of the remedial action to be displayed.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the IDP/SSO data includes indications of:for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications, users from the plurality of users using that cloud-based application.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of users are included in a plurality of groups and the IDP/SSO data includes indications of:for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications,users from the plurality of users that have permission to access that cloud-based application and groups from the plurality of groups that have permission to access that cloud-based application.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the IDP/SSO data includes indications of:attributes associated with login attempts to the plurality of cloud-based applications by the plurality of users via the plurality of user compute devices.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of users are members of a common entity, and each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications used by the common entity.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications: users from the plurality of users that are actively using that cloud-based application, and users from the plurality of users that are not actively using that cloud-based application.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of: for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications, failed login attempts to that cloud-based application by users from the plurality of users.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of: for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications, users from the plurality of users using that cloud-based application that have multi-factor authentication enabled to access that cloud-based application.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of: for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications, users from the plurality of users using that cloud-based application that can access that cloud- based application without using multi-factor authentication.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of: for each user from the plurality of users, cloud-based applications from the plurality of cloud-based applications that user has access to.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indication of trends associated with activities performed by the plurality of users at the plurality of cloud-based applications.
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising:receiving raw IDP/SSO data that is associated with the plurality of user compute devices for the plurality of users using the plurality of cloud-based applications;standardizing the raw IDP/SSO data to generate standardized IDP/SSO data; andmodifying the standardized IDP/SSO data using at least one of security information, analysis information, or historical information to generate the IDP/SSO data.
13. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising:receiving, via the processor and from an endpoint agency, a log, the generating including generating the analytics based on the log.
14. An apparatus, comprising:a memory; anda processor operatively coupled to the memory and configured to:receive first IDP/SSO data from at least one of that is associated with a first IDP compute device or a first SSO compute deviceentity, the at least one of the first IDP compute device or the first SSO compute deviceentity configured to manage access to a first plurality of cloud-based applications for a first plurality of user compute devices for a first plurality of users; receive, from the first plurality of user compute devices, browser extension data, the browser extension data captured via a plurality of browser extensions at the first plurality of user compute devices; generate a first set of analytics based on the first IDP/SSO data and the browser extension data, the first set of analytics indicating that a user compute device from the first plurality of user compute devices is attempting to access a cloud-based application from the first plurality of cloud-based applications using an account predetermined as unacceptable to access the cloud- based application from the first plurality of cloud-based applications;cause a first action based on the first set of analytics, the first action including preventing the user compute device from accessing the cloud-based application from the first plurality of cloud-based applications;receive second IDP/SSO data that is (1) different than the first IDP/SSO data and (2) from at least one ofassociated with a second IDP compute device or a second SSO compute deviceentity,the at least one of the second IDP compute device or the second SSO compute deviceentity managing access to a second plurality of cloud-based applications for a second plurality of user compute devices for a second plurality of users, the second plurality of cloud-based applications different than the first plurality of cloud-based applications, the second plurality of user compute devices different than the first plurality of user compute devices, the second plurality of users different than the first plurality of users;generate a second set of analytics based on the second IDP/SSO data; andcause a second action based on the second set of analytics.
15. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive third IDP/SSO data that is (1) different than the first IDP/SSO data and the second IDP/SSO data and (2) associated with a third IDP compute device and a third SSO compute deviceentity, the third IDP compute device and the third SSO compute deviceentity configured to manage access to a third plurality of cloud-based applications for a third plurality of user compute devices for a third plurality of users, the third plurality of cloud-based applications different than the first plurality of cloud-based applications and the second plurality of cloud- based applications, the third plurality of user compute devices different than the first plurality of user compute devices and the second plurality of compute devices, the third plurality of users different than the first plurality of users and the third plurality of users;generate a third set of analytics based on the third IDP/SSO data; andcause a third action based on the third set of analytics.
16. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or computer processors to:receive, from a plurality of user compute devices, browser extension data, the browser extension data (1) captured via a plurality of browser extensions at the plurality of user compute devices and (2) associated with the plurality of user compute devices attempting to access a plurality of cloud-based applications;generate analytics based on the browser extension data, the analytics indicate that a user compute device from the plurality of compute devices is attempting to access a cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications flagged as unauthorized; andcause an action within a network that includes the plurality of user compute devices based on the analytics, the action includes preventing the user compute device from accessing the cloud-based application.
1. A method, comprising: receiving, via a processor, identity provider (IDP) / single sign on (SSO) data from at least one of an IDP compute device or and an SSO compute device, the at least one of the IDP compute device or the SSO compute device managing access to a plurality of cloud-based applications for a plurality of user compute devices for a plurality of users;
receiving, via the processor and from the plurality of user compute devices, browser extension data, the browser extension data captured via a plurality of browser extensions at the plurality of user compute devices;
receiving raw IDP/SSO data that is associated with the plurality of user compute devices for the plurality of users using the plurality of cloud-based applications;
standardizing the raw IDP/SSO data to generate standardized IDP/SSO data;
modifying the standardized IDP/SSO data using at least one of security information, analysis information, or historical information to generate the IDP/SSO data;
generating, via the processor and without accessing the plurality of cloud-based applications, analytics based on the IDP/SSO data and the browser extension data;
causing, via the processor, an action based on the analytics;
determining, via the processor, a remedial action to improve cybersecurity associated with the plurality of users and the plurality of user compute devices, based on the analytics; and
causing, via the processor, an indication of the remedial action to be displayed.
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the IDP/SSO data includes indications of:
for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications, users from the plurality of users using that cloud-based application.
3. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of users are included in a plurality of groups and the IDP/SSO data includes indications of:
for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications,
users from the plurality of users that have permission to access that cloud-based application and groups from the plurality of groups that have permission to access that cloud-based application.
4. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the IDP/SSO data includes indications of:
attributes associated with login attempts to the plurality of cloud-based applications by the plurality of users via the plurality of user compute devices.
5. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of users are members of a common entity, and
each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications used by the common entity.
6. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications:
users from the plurality of users that are actively using that cloud-based application, and
users from the plurality of users that are not actively using that cloud-based application.
7. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of:
for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications,
failed login attempts to that cloud-based application by users from the plurality of users.
8. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of:
for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications,
users from the plurality of users using that cloud-based application that have multi-factor authentication enabled to access that cloud-based application.
9. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of:
for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications,
users from the plurality of users using that cloud-based application that can access that cloud-based application without using multi-factor authentication.
10. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of:
for each user from the plurality of users,
cloud-based applications from the plurality of cloud-based applications that user has access to.
11. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indication of trends associated with activities performed by the plurality of users at the plurality of cloud-based applications.
12. (Cancelled Herein)
13. (Cancelled Previously)
14. (Cancelled Previously)
15. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, via the processor and from an endpoint agency, a log,
the generating including generating the analytics based on the log.
16. An apparatus, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor operatively coupled to the memory and configured to:
receive raw IDP/SSO data that is associated with a first plurality of user compute devices for a first plurality of users using a first plurality of cloud-based applications;
standardize the raw IDP/SSO data to generate standardized IDP/SSO data;
modify the standardized IDP/SSO data using at least one of security information, analysis information, or historical information to generate first IDP/SSO data;
receive the first IDP/SSO data from at least one of a first IDP compute device or a first SSO compute device, the at least one of the first IDP compute device or the first SSO compute device configured to manage access to [[a]]the first plurality of cloud-based applications for [[a]]the first plurality of user compute devices for [[a]]the first plurality of users;
receive, from the first plurality of user compute devices, browser extension data, the browser extension data captured via a plurality of browser extensions at the first plurality of user compute devices;
generate a first set of analytics based on the first IDP/SSO data and the browser extension data, the first set of analytics indicating that a user compute device from the first plurality of user compute devices is attempting to access a cloud-based application from the first plurality of cloud-based applications using an account predetermined as unacceptable to access the cloud-based application from the first plurality of cloud-based applications;
cause a first action based on the first set of analytics, the first action including preventing the user compute device from accessing the cloud-based application from the first plurality of cloud-based applications;
receive second IDP/SSO data that is (1) different than the first IDP/SSO data and (2) from at least one of a second IDP compute device or a second SSO compute device, the at least one of the second IDP compute device or the second SSO compute device managing access to a second plurality of cloud-based applications for a second plurality of user compute devices for a second plurality of users, the second plurality of cloud-based applications different than the first plurality of cloud-based applications, the second plurality of user compute devices different than the first plurality of user compute devices, the second plurality of users different than the first plurality of users;
generate a second set of analytics based on the second IDP/SSO data; and
cause a second action based on the second set of analytics.
17. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive third IDP/SSO data that is (1) different than the first IDP/SSO data and the second IDP/SSO data and (2) associated with a third IDP compute device and a third SSO compute device, the third IDP compute device and the third SSO compute device configured to manage access to a third plurality of cloud-based applications for a third plurality of user compute devices for a third plurality of users, the third plurality of cloud-based applications different than the first plurality of cloud-based applications and the second plurality of cloud-based applications, the third plurality of user compute devices different than the first plurality of user compute devices and the second plurality of compute devices, the third plurality of users different than the first plurality of users and the third plurality of users;
generate a third set of analytics based on the third IDP/SSO data; and
cause a third action based on the third set of analytics.
18. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or processors to:
receive, from a plurality of user compute devices, browser extension data, the browser extension data (1) captured via a plurality of browser extensions at the plurality of user compute devices and (2) associated with the plurality of user compute devices attempting to access a plurality of cloud-based applications;
receive raw IDP/SSO data that is associated with the plurality of user compute devices;
standardize the raw IDP/SSO data to generate standardized IDP/SSO data;
modify the standardized IDP/SSO data using at least one of security information, analysis information, or historical information to generate IDP/SSO data;
generate analytics based on the browser extension data and the IDP / SSO data, the analytics indicate that a user compute device from the plurality of compute devices is attempting to access a cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications flagged as unauthorized; and
cause an action within a network that includes the plurality of user compute devices based on the analytics, the action includes preventing the user compute device from accessing the cloud-based application.
19. (Cancelled Previously)
20. (Cancelled Previously)
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 9 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff et al (US 20200259852), Wo, Robinson (US 11,792,234), Rob and Scherman (US 20180124073), Sch.
Claim 1: Wo teaches a method, comprising: receiving, via a processor, identity provider (IDP) / single sign on (SSO) data that is associated with from at least one of an IDP compute device or and an SSO compute deviceentity, the at least one of the IDP compute device or the SSO compute deviceentity managing access to a plurality of cloud-based applications for a plurality of user compute devices for a plurality of users; ([05, 8, 11, fig. 3] receiving, using processor(s), from a plurality of independent cloud-based, hosted application platforms, activity data and state data for a plurality of users of the application platforms, the activity data being indicative of user activities within the application platforms and the state data being indicative of a status of the users within the application platforms).
generating, via the processor and [without accessing the plurality of cloud-based applications], analytics based on the IDP/SSO data and the [browser extension] data; causing, via the processor, an action based on the analytics; ([05, 8, 11, fig. 3] generating, using processor(s), based on the activity data and the state data, one or more predictive models configured to detect deviations from normal user behavior across the application platforms. [06] Generating one or more predictive models can include: constructing a graphical representation of the activity data and the state data, wherein each node of the graphical representation represents a respective user of the application platforms and each edge connecting the nodes represents an activity among the users and/or entities in the application platforms. The deviation from the normal user behavior can include an abnormal number of login attempts and/or can be indicative of account takeover, can be indicative of anomalous reconnaissance activity, can be or include behavior that is abnormal compared to behavior of other users who have similar roles within an organization that uses the application platforms).
determining, via the processor, a remedial action to improve cybersecurity associated with the plurality of users and the plurality of user compute devices, based on the analytics; ([05] receiving, as output from the one or more predictive models, an indication that an activity of the at least one of the users deviates from the normal user behavior; and facilitating a remedial action to address the indicated deviation).
and causing, via the processor, an indication of the remedial action to be displayed. ([058] The response module takes corrective or remedial action or provide recommendations to address or alleviate existing or potential security-related risks, [029, 54] the classification can be leveraged as input into a data interception or data notification system that prevents data sharing or notifies that data sharing is considered sensitive).
Wo is silent on receiving, via the processor and from the plurality of user compute devices, browser extension data, the browser extension data captured via a plurality of browser extensions at the plurality of user compute devices;
But analogous art Rob teaches receiving, via the processor and from the plurality of user compute devices, browser extension data, the browser extension data captured via a plurality of browser extensions at the plurality of user compute devices; (C7L16-25: an Information Technology (IT) module provides an interface for analyzing log reports and the browser extensions and assigning policies to the client device(s). The administrator of the enterprise reviews the policies, the browser extensions, the network traffic, and the risk associated with the browser extensions. The log reports include analytics on plugins, data shared with plugin manager, the traffic patterns, malicious extensions, and the network traffic).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wo to include the idea of receiving browser extension data as taught by Rob so that the client device(s) behaves differently than if it were to directly connect to the content sites of the webserver (C5L49-51).
The combination of Wo and Rob is silent on without accessing the plurality of cloud-based applications.
But analogous art Sch teaches without accessing the plurality of cloud-based applications. (Abstract: identifying malicious actions taken against servers in a network environment, without having to access log data from individual servers).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined inventions of Wo and Rob to include the idea of generating statistics without accessing cloud servers as taught by Sch so that the benign communications are further filtered to select benign communications with a high confidence score in being benign; not merely those communications not determined to be malicious [036].
Claim 2: The combination of Wo, Rob and Sch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the IDP/SSO data includes indications of: for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications, users from the plurality of users using that cloud-based application. (Wo: [05] activity data and state data for a plurality of users of the application platforms, the activity data being indicative of user activities within the application platforms and the state data being indicative of a status of the users within the application platforms).
Claim 3: The combination of Wo, Rob and Sch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of users are included in a plurality of groups and the IDP/SSO data includes indications of: for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications, users from the plurality of users that have permission to access that cloud-based application and groups from the plurality of groups that have permission to access that cloud-based application. (Wo: [019] cloud activity monitoring and security policy implementation and control are illustrated. Organizations (companies, healthcare facilities, government agencies, schools, groups of users, etc.) include members (individual people, or, in some cases, roles that may be fulfilled by one or more individuals) that operate as users of cloud services offered to the organizations by cloud service providers).
Claim 4: The combination of Wo, Rob and Sch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the IDP/SSO data includes indications of: attributes associated with login attempts to the plurality of cloud-based applications by the plurality of users via the plurality of user compute devices. (Wo: [030] the activity data can be processed and stored in one or more databases that expose and index one or more attributes of activity data…[09] The deviation from the normal user behavior can include an abnormal number of login attempts and/or can be indicative of account takeover).
Claim 5: The combination of Wo, Rob and Sch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of users are members of a common entity, and each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications used by the common entity. (Wo: [020] The cloud service providers host application platforms that members of the organization can access to accomplish various computational tasks related to, for example, word processing, social networking, data storage and access, computer programming, email, or other computer-related tasks).
Claim 6: The combination of Wo, Rob and Sch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications: users from the plurality of users that are actively using that cloud-based application, and users from the plurality of users that are not actively using that cloud-based application. (Wo: [031] activity data may not provide significant insights into entities that have not been promulgating activities through the network or have otherwise been inactive, such as users who are defined or have accounts but are inactive within a cloud service, [056] and the users can be employees, agents, contractors, consultants, students, and/or other members of the organization).
Claim 7: The combination of Wo, Rob and Sch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of: for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications, failed login attempts to that cloud-based application by users from the plurality of users. (Wo: [042] Detection may involve evaluating the velocity or frequency of failed login attempts and patterns in event activities to predict or detect a brute force attack).
Claim 9: The combination of Wo, Rob and Sch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of: for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications, users from the plurality of users using that cloud-based application that can access that cloud-based application without using multi-factor authentication. (Wo: [027] if a user is authenticated without an appropriate authentication mechanism for a particular application or for enabling a particular application function within the application, the IAM system may require the user to provide the appropriate authentication mechanism before being authorized with suitable permissions or access levels to use the particular application; [051, 56] All post authentication activity between a user or entity and one or more cloud applications connected to the system can be identified, and various parameters associated with the authentication activity events can be extracted... the application platforms can be accessed through a network by users of client devices).
Claim 10: The combination of Wo, Rob and Sch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indications of: for each user from the plurality of users, cloud-based applications from the plurality of cloud-based applications that user has access to. (Wo: [06] the status of the users can include a user role, a user permission, and/or a user privilege).
Claim 11: The combination of Wo, Rob and Sch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the analytics includes indication of trends associated with activities performed by the plurality of users at the plurality of cloud-based applications. (Wo: [21] analytics can include determining models of normal and/or abnormal behavior in user activity and detecting patterns of suspicious activity in one cloud service or across multiple cloud services).
Claim 12: The combination of Wo, Rob and Sch teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving raw IDP/SSO data that is associated with the plurality of user compute devices for the plurality of users using the plurality of cloud-based applications; standardizing the raw IDP/SSO data to generate standardized IDP/SSO data; and modifying the standardized IDP/SSO data using at least one of security information, analysis information, or historical information to generate the IDP/SSO data. (Wo: [25] … both of the underlying entities can now point to the merged entity, allowing for an ability to reference or deference the merged or raw version of the entity…, [21] using machine learning and other algorithms to consolidate and normalize data to ensure activities are associated with the proper entity... to perform threat detection and to provide recommendations concerning appropriate responses to different categories of threats... [41] where a semantic representation is used to implement an entity resolution process).
Claim 13: The combination of Wo, Rob and Sch teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, via the processor and from an endpoint agency, a log, the generating including generating the analytics based on the log. (Wo: [04] extracting user and event data from transaction logs, databases, and/or exposed web services, [32] deriving state data from activity data can include or require identifying an event that correlates exactly to the change in state. This can also require not missing an event in the cloud service logs and/or the security monitoring and control system logs).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wo, Rob and Sch as applied to claims above, and further in view of Lin et al (US 20230388282), Lin.
Claim 8: The combination of Wo, Rob and Sch teaches the method of claim 1, but silent on wherein the analytics includes indications of: for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications, users from the plurality of users using that cloud-based application that have multi-factor authentication enabled to access that cloud-based application.
But analogous art Lin teaches wherein the analytics includes indications of: for each cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications, users from the plurality of users using that cloud-based application that have multi-factor authentication enabled to access that cloud-based application. ([027] the IAM system couples a username/password authentication mechanism with more complex multi-factor authentication (MFA) mechanisms; [047] each of the services is implemented on one or more internal processing circuits with respect to the IAM system or implemented on one or more external processing circuits as part of a cloud-based computing system).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined inventions of Wo, Rob and Sch to include the idea of multi-factor authentication as taught by Lin so that authorization service generates the authorization policies according to the app functions and the requirements provided by the app providers, and executes suitable ones of the authorization policies to generate the authorization tokens according to the user attribute set of the user in the app user profile [056].
Claim(s) 14 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff et al (US 20200259852), Wo and Robinson (US 11,792,234), Rob.
Claim 14: Wo teaches an apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor operatively coupled to the memory and configured to (Fig. 3): receive first IDP/SSO data from at least one of that is associated with a first IDP compute device or a first SSO compute deviceentity, the at least one of the first IDP compute device or the first SSO compute deviceentity configured to manage access to a first plurality of cloud-based applications for a first plurality of user compute devices for a first plurality of users; generate a first set of analytics based on the first IDP/SSO data and the browser extension data, the first set of analytics indicating that a user compute device from the first plurality of user compute devices is attempting to access a cloud-based application from the first plurality of cloud-based applications using an account predetermined as unacceptable to access the cloud- based application from the first plurality of cloud-based applications; cause a first action based on the first set of analytics, the first action including preventing the user compute device from accessing the cloud-based application from the first plurality of cloud-based applications; receive second IDP/SSO data that is (1) different than the first IDP/SSO data and (2) from at least one of associated with a second IDP compute device or a second SSO compute deviceentity, the at least one of the second IDP compute device or the second SSO compute deviceentity managing access to a second plurality of cloud-based applications for a second plurality of user compute devices for a second plurality of users, the second plurality of cloud-based applications different than the first plurality of cloud-based applications, the second plurality of user compute devices different than the first plurality of user compute devices, the second plurality of users different than the first plurality of users; generate a second set of analytics based on the second IDP/SSO data; and cause a second action based on the second set of analytics. ([05, 8, 11, fig. 3] receiving, using processor(s), from a plurality of independent cloud-based, hosted application platforms, activity data and state data for a plurality of users of the application platforms, the activity data being indicative of user activities within the application platforms and the state data being indicative of a status of the users within the application platforms; [05, 8, 11, fig. 3] generating, using processor(s), based on the activity data and the state data, one or more predictive models configured to detect deviations from normal user behavior across the application platforms. [06] Generating one or more predictive models can include: constructing a graphical representation of the activity data and the state data, wherein each node of the graphical representation represents a respective user of the application platforms and each edge connecting the nodes represents an activity among the users and/or entities in the application platforms. The deviation from the normal user behavior can include an abnormal number of login attempts and/or can be indicative of account takeover, can be indicative of anomalous reconnaissance activity, can be or include behavior that is abnormal compared to behavior of other users who have similar roles within an organization that uses the application platforms; [05] receiving, as output from the one or more predictive models, an indication that an activity of the at least one of the users deviates from the normal user behavior; and facilitating a remedial action to address the indicated deviation; [058] The response module takes corrective or remedial action or provide recommendations to address or alleviate existing or potential security-related risks, [029, 54] the classification can be leveraged as input into a data interception or data notification system that prevents data sharing or notifies that data sharing is considered sensitive; [05] activity data and state data for a plurality of users of the application platforms, the activity data being indicative of user activities within the application platforms and the state data being indicative of a status of the users within the application platforms; [019] cloud activity monitoring and security policy implementation and control are illustrated. Organizations (companies, healthcare facilities, government agencies, schools, groups of users, etc.) include members (individual people, or, in some cases, roles that may be fulfilled by one or more individuals) that operate as users of cloud services offered to the organizations by cloud service providers; [030] the activity data can be processed and stored in one or more databases that expose and index one or more attributes of activity data…[09] The deviation from the normal user behavior can include an abnormal number of login attempts and/or can be indicative of account takeover; [020] The cloud service providers host application platforms that members of the organization can access to accomplish various computational tasks related to, for example, word processing, social networking, data storage and access, computer programming, email, or other computer-related tasks; [031] activity data may not provide significant insights into entities that have not been promulgating activities through the network or have otherwise been inactive, such as users who are defined or have accounts but are inactive within a cloud service, [056] and the users can be employees, agents, contractors, consultants, students, and/or other members of the organization; [042] Detection may involve evaluating the velocity or frequency of failed login attempts and patterns in event activities to predict or detect a brute force attack; [051, 56] All post authentication activity between a user or entity and one or more cloud applications connected to the system can be identified, and various parameters associated with the authentication activity events can be extracted... the application platforms can be accessed through a network by users of client devices; [21] analytics can include determining models of normal and/or abnormal behavior in user activity and detecting patterns of suspicious activity in one cloud service or across multiple cloud services; [25] … both of the underlying entities can now point to the merged entity, allowing for an ability to reference or deference the merged or raw version of the entity…, [21] using machine learning and other algorithms to consolidate and normalize data to ensure activities are associated with the proper entity... to perform threat detection and to provide recommendations concerning appropriate responses to different categories of threats... [41] where a semantic representation is used to implement an entity resolution process; [05] facilitating a remedial action to address the indicated deviation, [21] Analytics include providing an alert and recommending remedial measures in the cloud service(s) in which suspicious activity is detected and/or remedial measures to be taken in cloud services... [23] data representing the same entity has different names, extensions, or other metadata associated with it, [30] additional context information for an activity may be captured and stored, such as an IP address, process status information, client machine identification information, and/or effects of the activity on the target device, account or object).
Wo is silent on receive, from the first plurality of user compute devices, browser extension data, the browser extension data captured via a plurality of browser extensions at the first plurality of user compute devices;
But analogous art Rob teaches receive, from the first plurality of user compute devices, browser extension data, the browser extension data captured via a plurality of browser extensions at the first plurality of user compute devices; (C7L16-25: an Information Technology (IT) module provides an interface for analyzing log reports and the browser extensions and assigning policies to the client device(s). The administrator of the enterprise reviews the policies, the browser extensions, the network traffic, and the risk associated with the browser extensions. The log reports include analytics on plugins, data shared with plugin manager, the traffic patterns, malicious extensions, and the network traffic).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wo to include the idea of receiving browser extension data as taught by Rob so that the client device(s) behaves differently than if it were to directly connect to the content sites of the webserver (C5L49-51).
Claim 15: The combination of Wo and Rob teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive third IDP/SSO data that is (1) different than the first IDP/SSO data and the second IDP/SSO data and (2) associated with a third IDP compute device and a third SSO compute deviceentity, the third IDP compute device and the third SSO compute deviceentity configured to manage access to a third plurality of cloud-based applications for a third plurality of user compute devices for a third plurality of users, the third plurality of cloud-based applications different than the first plurality of cloud-based applications and the second plurality of cloud- based applications, the third plurality of user compute devices different than the first plurality of user compute devices and the second plurality of compute devices, the third plurality of users different than the first plurality of users and the third plurality of users; generate a third set of analytics based on the third IDP/SSO data; and cause a third action based on the third set of analytics. (Wo: [055, Fig. 3] system for detecting and managing security-related activities associated with a plurality of independent cloud-based, hosted application platforms 302-3 (third set). A server system provides functionality for collecting and processing data associated with user activities on the application platforms. The server system includes software components and databases that can be deployed at one or more data centers in one or more geographic locations, for example, or on a local network ... The software components can include subcomponents that can execute on the same or on different individual data processing apparatus. The server system databases can include an activity data database and a state data database. The databases can reside in one or more physical storage systems).
Claim 16: Wo teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or computer processors to (Fig. 3): generate analytics based on the browser extension data, the analytics indicate that a user compute device from the plurality of compute devices is attempting to access a cloud-based application from the plurality of cloud-based applications flagged as unauthorized; and cause an action within a network that includes the plurality of user compute devices based on the analytics, the action includes preventing the user compute device from accessing the cloud-based application. ([05, 8, 11, fig. 3] receiving, using processor(s), from a plurality of independent cloud-based, hosted application platforms, activity data and state data for a plurality of users of the application platforms, the activity data being indicative of user activities within the application platforms and the state data being indicative of a status of the users within the application platforms; [05, 8, 11, fig. 3] generating, using processor(s), based on the activity data and the state data, one or more predictive models configured to detect deviations from normal user behavior across the application platforms. [06] Generating one or more predictive models can include: constructing a graphical representation of the activity data and the state data, wherein each node of the graphical representation represents a respective user of the application platforms and each edge connecting the nodes represents an activity among the users and/or entities in the application platforms. The deviation from the normal user behavior can include an abnormal number of login attempts and/or can be indicative of account takeover, can be indicative of anomalous reconnaissance activity, can be or include behavior that is abnormal compared to behavior of other users who have similar roles within an organization that uses the application platforms; [05] receiving, as output from the one or more predictive models, an indication that an activity of the at least one of the users deviates from the normal user behavior; and facilitating a remedial action to address the indicated deviation; [058] The response module takes corrective or remedial action or provide recommendations to address or alleviate existing or potential security-related risks, [029, 54] the classification can be leveraged as input into a data interception or data notification system that prevents data sharing or notifies that data sharing is considered sensitive; [05] activity data and state data for a plurality of users of the application platforms, the activity data being indicative of user activities within the application platforms and the state data being indicative of a status of the users within the application platforms; [019] cloud activity monitoring and security policy implementation and control are illustrated. Organizations (companies, healthcare facilities, government agencies, schools, groups of users, etc.) include members (individual people, or, in some cases, roles that may be fulfilled by one or more individuals) that operate as users of cloud services offered to the organizations by cloud service providers; [030] the activity data can be processed and stored in one or more databases that expose and index one or more attributes of activity data…[09] The deviation from the normal user behavior can include an abnormal number of login attempts and/or can be indicative of account takeover; [020] The cloud service providers host application platforms that members of the organization can access to accomplish various computational tasks related to, for example, word processing, social networking, data storage and access, computer programming, email, or other computer-related tasks; [031] activity data may not provide significant insights into entities that have not been promulgating activities through the network or have otherwise been inactive, such as users who are defined or have accounts but are inactive within a cloud service, [056] and the users can be employees, agents, contractors, consultants, students, and/or other members of the organization; [042] Detection may involve evaluating the velocity or frequency of failed login attempts and patterns in event activities to predict or detect a brute force attack; [051, 56] All post authentication activity between a user or entity and one or more cloud applications connected to the system can be identified, and various parameters associated with the authentication activity events can be extracted... the application platforms can be accessed through a network by users of client devices; [21] analytics can include determining models of normal and/or abnormal behavior in user activity and detecting patterns of suspicious activity in one cloud service or across multiple cloud services; [25] … both of the underlying entities can now point to the merged entity, allowing for an ability to reference or deference the merged or raw version of the entity…, [21] using machine learning and other algorithms to consolidate and normalize data to ensure activities are associated with the proper entity... to perform threat detection and to provide recommendations concerning appropriate responses to different categories of threats... [41] where a semantic representation is used to implement an entity resolution process; [05] facilitating a remedial action to address the indicated deviation, [044] actions taken in previous incidents (e.g., preventative or remedial actions) are implemented as a defined incident workflow, specific to the observed activity; [21] Analytics include providing an alert and recommending remedial measures in the cloud service(s) in which suspicious activity is detected and/or remedial measures to be taken in cloud services... [23] data representing the same entity has different names, extensions, or other metadata associated with it, [30] additional context information for an activity may be captured and stored, such as an IP address, process status information, client machine identification information, and/or effects of the activity on the target device, account or object).
Wo is silent on receive, from a plurality of user compute devices, browser extension data, the browser extension data (1) captured via a plurality of browser extensions at the plurality of user compute devices and (2) associated with the plurality of user compute devices attempting to access a plurality of cloud-based applications;
But analogous art Rob teaches receive, from a plurality of user compute devices, browser extension data, the browser extension data (1) captured via a plurality of browser extensions at the plurality of user compute devices and (2) associated with the plurality of user compute devices attempting to access a plurality of cloud-based applications; (C2L10-14: a request is made using a local application running on a client device, access to a functionality on a browser extension. The browser extension is requested for installation on the client device; C6L27-29: policy-based browser system manages browser extensions used to access services in cloud-based multi-tenant system(s); C7L1-25: another policy permits the use of browser extensions for accessing calendar applications from the client device. Client supports the user app, apps running on the client device or a browser in communication with the mid-link server … an Information Technology (IT) module provides an interface for analyzing log reports and the browser extensions and assigning policies to the client device(s). The administrator of the enterprise reviews the policies, the browser extensions, the network traffic, and the risk associated with the browser extensions. The log reports include analytics on plugins, data shared with plugin manager, the traffic patterns, malicious extensions, and the network traffic).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wo to include the idea of receiving browser extension data as taught by Rob so that the client device(s) behaves differently than if it were to directly connect to the content sites of the webserver (C5L49-51).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Badri Champakesan whose telephone number is (571)270-3867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30am-4.30pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BADRINARAYANAN /Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494.
Prosecution Insights