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 Objections
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the collisions”, should read, “the potential collisions”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6 and 16 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. The term “important events” in claims 6 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “important” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Correction/Clarification is required.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilmore et al. (US 2018/0020021 A1), hereinafter, “Gilmore”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Gilmore discloses an apparatus and corresponding method for processing security events within a data fabric, wherein the apparatus comprising:
a processor (See, Fig. 5, Numeral 512); and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor (See, Fig. 5, Numeral 504), the memory containing instructions configuring the processor to:
receive information from at least one organizational data source (See, Paragraphs 0016 and 0061);
receive data comprising a security event (See, Paragraphs 0017 and 0060);
augment the received data by applying the received information to the received data (See, Paragraphs 0097-0100 and 0153); and
take at least one action based on the augmented data (See, Paragraphs 0104, 0112-0113).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is incorporated and Gilmore further discloses wherein the received information is non-security information (See, Paragraphs 0016 and 0061).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is incorporated and Gilmore further discloses wherein the at least one action is generating an alert of a potential security threat based on the augmented data (See, Paragraphs 0104, 0112-0113).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is incorporated and Gilmore further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to derive at least one rule from the received information and wherein applying the received information comprises applying the at least one derived rule to the received data, and the at least one action is prescribed by the at least one derived rule (See, Paragraphs 0016, 0061 and 0097-0100).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the rejection of claims 4 and 14 is incorporated and Gilmore further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive input enabling or disabling the at least one derived rule (See, Paragraphs 0094, 0125 and 0131).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is incorporated and Gilmore further discloses wherein augmenting the received data comprises applying a machine learning model to the received data to associate the received data with at least one category (See, Paragraphs 0005, 0061, 0109 and 0129)
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the rejection of claims 7 and 17 is incorporated and Gilmore further discloses wherein the at least one action is routing the augmented data based on the at least one category (See, Paragraphs 0061, 0104, 0112-0113 and 0121).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, rejections of claims 1 and 17 are incorporated and Gilmore further discloses wherein the at least one action is storing the augmented data for later review (See, Paragraph 0129).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is incorporated and Gilmore further discloses wherein the at least one action is retrieving historical security events from a data storage system and forwarding the retrieved events to facilitate further investigation (See, Paragraphs 0093, 0130 and 0153).
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore in view of Buck et al. (US 2021/0243595 A1), hereinafter, “Buck”.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, the rejection of claims 4 and 14 is incorporated and Gilmore does not explicitly disclose evaluate the at least one derived rule to identify potential collisions with important events and reconcile the collisions to create an improved rule.
Buck discloses evaluating at least one rule to identify potential collisions with important events and reconcile the collisions to create an improved rule (See, Paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to evaluate, in the system of Gilmore, at least one rule to identify potential collisions with important events and reconcile the collisions to create an improved rule as taught by Buck in order to avoid implementation of security rules with enterprise policy with union or privacy policies (See, Buck, Paragraph 0030).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nickle (US 2008/0307525 A1).
Belgi et al. (US 2025/0260707 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH PALIWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/YOGESH PALIWAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights