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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 03/31/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavendra; Arun Kumar et al. US 20220067099 (hereinafter Raghavendra) in view of Ferreira Lima; Guilherme et al. US 20230033211 (hereinafter Ferreira).
As per claim 1, Raghavendra teaches: A method comprising: obtaining, by a device, telemetry data collected within a cloud computing environment; forming, by the device, a temporal graph that represents changes in the cloud computing environment over time based on the telemetry data (Raghavendra: para. 2-4,14 and 36);
Raghavendra does not teach; however, Ferreira discloses:
mapping, by the device, the temporal graph into a knowledge graph for storage in a graph database (“Knowledge structurer 308 structures events and temporal relations into graph format, for example, builds a knowledge graph of the events and temporal relations and stores the graph in a knowledge graph database 310 or repository.” Ferreira: para. 47); and
making, by the device, the graph database available to an artificial intelligence model that issues queries to detect security threats to the cloud computing environment (“The AI system can automatically identify and support curation of contextualized temporal information in a given document and can retrieve one or more documents with a similar temporal structure.” Ferreira: para. 20.Also see para. 47 and 65 utilizing the method for security and policy matters in a cloud infrastructure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Raghavendra with the teachings of Ferreira to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in a predictable manner to combine utilization of knowledge graph database and AI technology to solve security issue in a cloud environment.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Raghavendra teaches: forming the temporal graph comprises: forming one or more timeseries using the telemetry data on which the temporal graph is based (timestamps of when errors occurred are identified (Raghavendra: para. 35-37).
As per claim 11, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to method of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 13, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to method of claim 3 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 20, this claim defines a computer-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to method of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavendra in view of Ferreira and further in view of Wu; Min et al. US 20230140423 (hereinafter Wu).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira does not teach; however, Wu discloses: the artificial intelligence model issues the queries using a Turing-complete, imperative query language (“OGM is described as follows. It is an abbreviation of Object Graph Mapping and is a concept first proposed by Neo4j. Its function is close to that of a Relational Mapping (ORM) framework of relational databases such as Hibernate and Mybatis. It allows the user to add, delete, modify, and query vertices, edges, paths, and subgraphs in a graph database by operating (classes) objects in programming languages. Specific database operation statements (such as Cypher of Neo4j) are implemented by the OGM framework. In this way, the user only needs to use familiar Python or Java without learning a database operation language. In addition, the programming language (Python or Java) is Turing-complete and more flexible than languages such as Cypher.” Wu: para. 133).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira with the teachings of Wu to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to enhance the flexibility of the method.
As per claim 12, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to method of claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavendra in view of Ferreira and further in view of MENON NISHA et al. EP 4513289 (hereinafter Nisha).
As per claims 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira does not teach; however, Nisha discloses: the knowledge graph associates a temporal event with one or more entities in the cloud computing environment (Nisha: para. 52-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira with the teachings of Nisha to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to identify the source of anomaly in a network.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira does not teach; however, Nisha discloses: providing, by the device, a threat detection catalog for use by the artificial intelligence model that defines a query structure associated with a particular detection task (Nisha: para. 52-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira with the teachings of Nisha to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to identify the source of anomaly in a network and provide remedy for the identified anomaly.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein. The combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira does not teach; however, Nisha discloses: the particular detection task comprises one of: threat detection or suspicious activity detection for the cloud computing environment (Nisha: para. 52-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira with the teachings of Nisha to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to identify anomalies in a computer networks.
As per claim 14, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to method of claim 4 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 15, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to method of claim 5 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 16, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to method of claim 6 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavendra in view of Ferreira and further in view of Schooley; Timothy James US 20240070274 (hereinafter Schooley).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira does not teach; however, Schooley discloses: providing an indication of a detected security threat to a user interface (Schooley: para. 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira with the teachings of Schooley to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to notify a user about status of a malware in the system.
As per claim 18, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to method of claim 8 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavendra in view of Ferreira and further in view of Skarphedinsson; Njall et al. US 12563071 (hereinafter Skarphedinsson).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira does not teach; however, Skarphedinsson discloses: the cloud computing environment is a Kubernetes Environment (Skarphedinsson: Abs. and col. 93, lines 32-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira with the teachings of Skarphedinsson to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to further enhance the utility of the method.
As per claim 19, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to method of claim 9 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavendra in view of Ferreira and further in view of Doshi; Kshitij Arun et al. US 20220124005 (hereinafter Doshi).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira does not teach; however, Doshi discloses: the device obtains the telemetry data from at least one of: a Falco dacmonset, cBPF, a Fluent Bit data exporter, an Open Cybersccurity Schema Framework (OCSF) data collection utility, or an Open Telemetry (OTel) collector (The Local Resources Telemetry Agent may be a component of the Resource Demand Gateway or be in communication with the gateway and is used to monitor local resources using telemetry from various sources such as Telegraf, Collectd, Vmware vstats, Zabbix or other commercial telemetry collectors, open telemetry collectors deployed as sidecars, or open telemetry deployed as a gateway/aggregator. Doshi: para. 210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Raghavendra and Ferreira with the teachings of Doshi to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied as a safety barrier to clean data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights