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 statements (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2025 and 05/04/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because portions of them are blurry. See Figs. 13 and 15. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 7, 12, 14-15, 18, and 20 of copending Application No. 19/096234 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, the reference application discloses a computer program product for visualizing threat data, the computer program product comprising computer executable code embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium that, when executing on one or more computing devices (Claim 1, Lines 1-5), causes the one or more computing devices to perform the steps of:
receiving event data for an event from a compute instance in an enterprise network (Claim 1, Lines 7-10);
storing the event data in a data lake for long term storage, the data lake organized into a plurality of temporal partitions, and the data lake optimized for long term storage of unstructured data (Claim 1, Lines 7-10);
receiving a lineage for a security event from the compute instance at a threat management facility associated with the enterprise network (Claim 1, Lines 11-12), the lineage including an identifier for a process associated with the event, a time stamp for the process, and process data for a plurality of additional processes causally related to the process, the plurality of additional processes including at least one parent process and at least one child process for the process associated with the event (Claim 1, Lines 18-22);
storing the lineage as timeline data in a data store for the threat management facility (Claim 1, Lines 11-12), the data store optimized for query performance and short term storage (Claim 1, Lines 14-17); and
receiving a request for a threat timeline visualization for the security event from a user, and in response to the request (Claim 1, Lines 23-24), performing the steps of:
displaying the threat timeline visualization to the user based on the timeline data in the lineage, the threat timeline visualization including a graphical representation of the timeline data in the lineage (Claim 1, Lines 25-26),
determining a time for the security event based on the time stamp for the process in the lineage (Claim 3, Lines 3-5),
selecting one of the temporal partitions of the data lake corresponding to the time stamp (Claim 3, Lines 3-5),
querying the one of the temporal partitions for supplemental event data related to the lineage (Claim 3, Lines 5-6),
receiving the supplemental event data from the data lake (Claim 1, Lines 27-28), and
augmenting the threat timeline visualization with the supplemental event data (Claim 1, Lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 2, the reference application further discloses wherein querying the one of the temporal partitions for supplemental event data includes receiving a graphical selection of one of the plurality of additional processes in the lineage within the threat timeline visualization displayed to the user, and querying the data lake for supplemental lineage information related to the one of the plurality of additional processes (Claim 4).
Regarding claim 3, the reference application further discloses wherein querying the one of the temporal partitions for supplemental event data includes receiving a graphical selection of one of the plurality of additional processes in the lineage within the threat timeline visualization displayed to the user, and querying the data lake for supplemental threat data related to the one of the plurality of additional processes (Claim 4).
Regarding claim 4, the reference application further discloses wherein querying the one of the temporal partitions for supplemental event data includes receiving a graphical selection of the process within the threat timeline visualization displayed to the user, and querying the data lake for supplemental threat data related to the process (Claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, the reference application further discloses code that causes the one or more computing devices to perform the step of retrieving reputation data for one or more of the plurality of additional processes in the lineage and storing the reputation data in association with the lineage in the data store (Claim 7).
Claim 6 is disclosed by claims 3 and 12 of the reference application (similar to how claim 1 is disclosed by claims 1 and 3 of the reference application).
Regarding claim 7, the reference application further discloses wherein the threat timeline visualization includes a graphical representation of the timeline data in the lineage (Claim 12, Lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 8, the reference application further discloses wherein the data store includes an elastic storage facility (Claim 12, Lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, the reference application further discloses wherein the process data associated with the event includes one or more parent processes for the process and one or more child processes for the process (Claim 20, Lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 10, the reference application further discloses wherein the process data associated with the event includes a plurality of time stamps for a plurality of processes associated with the process (Claim 20, Lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 11, the reference application further discloses wherein querying the one of the temporal partitions for supplemental event data includes receiving a graphical selection of one of the plurality of additional processes in the lineage within the threat timeline visualization displayed to the user, and querying the data lake for supplemental lineage information related to the one of the plurality of additional processes (Claim 15).
Regarding claim 12, the reference application further discloses wherein querying the one of the temporal partitions for supplemental event data includes receiving a graphical selection of one of the plurality of additional processes in the lineage within the threat timeline visualization displayed to the user, and querying the data lake for supplemental threat data related to the one of the plurality of additional processes (Claim 15).
Regarding claim 13, the reference application further discloses wherein querying the one of the temporal partitions for supplemental event data includes receiving a graphical selection of the process within the threat timeline visualization displayed to the user, and querying the data lake for supplemental threat data related to the process (Claim 14).
Regarding claim 14, the reference application further discloses retrieving reputation data for one or more of the plurality of additional processes in the lineage and storing the reputation data in association with the lineage in the data store (Claim 18).
Claim 15 is disclosed by claims 3 and 20 of the reference application (similar to how claim 1 is disclosed by claims 1 and 3 of the reference application).
Regarding claim 16, the reference application further discloses a data store for the threat management facility, the data store storing the lineage as timeline data and the data store optimized for query performance and short term storage (Claim 12, Lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 17, the reference application further discloses wherein the threat timeline visualization includes a graphical representation of timeline data in the lineage (Claim 12, Lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 18, the reference application further discloses wherein querying the one of the temporal partitions for supplemental event data includes receiving a graphical selection of one of the plurality of processes in the lineage within the threat timeline visualization displayed to the user, and querying the data lake for supplemental lineage information related to the one of the plurality of processes (Claim 15).
Regarding claim 19, the reference application further discloses wherein querying the one of the temporal partitions for supplemental event data includes receiving a graphical selection of one of the plurality of processes in the lineage within the threat timeline visualization displayed to the user, and querying the data lake for supplemental threat data related to the one of the plurality of processes (Claim 15).
Regarding claim 20, the reference application further discloses wherein querying the one of the temporal partitions for supplemental event data includes receiving a graphical selection of a first process displayed within the threat timeline visualization, and querying the data lake for supplemental threat data related to the first process (Claim 14).
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the “threat management facility”, “local security agent”, and “data lake” are non-structural limitations, and in light of the specification these are disclosed as being software (Applicant’s specification, § 0250, Lines 1-2) or could be reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art to be implemented solely via software. Therefore, the claimed subject matter as a whole fails to fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Examiner’s Note
There is no prior art rejection for claims 1-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent No. 10805326 (Wang et al.) – A network security system generates a visualization relative to a conversation timeline for presentation on a user interface.
U.S. Patent No. 12511428 (Talreja) – A data lake for enterprise security is created from an asynchronous stream of security events.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0221589 (Shahar et al.) – Retrieving subject records which satisfy at least one constraint and graphically displaying at least one instance of time oriented data stored in the retrieved subject records.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0357957 (Deen et al.) – Using data obtained from capture agents throughout a network to develop lineage patterns to determine whether a command that initiated a packet flow is hidden or not.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0063884 (Seigel) – Event logs associated with an identifier may be correlated and displayed using vertically stacked timelines that include different aspects of user activity associated with an authenticated username.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0163350 (Chauhan et al.) – Upon generating a network security investigation, users may create investigation timelines that display a collection of events related to the network security investigation.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0250365 (Atkinson et al.) – Display a timeline of events and a visual representation of the related entities identified in the events and augmenting the event with external reconnaissance data.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0400071 (Ray et al.) – Event data from sensors is augmented with contextual information to facilitate improved correlation, analysis, and visualization at a threat management facility.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0114821 (Thomas et al.) – A threat management facility incrementally updates data for use in threat assessments as data from a variety of sources becomes available.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0356955 (Tan et al.) – A multi-dimensional network timeline may be updated in substantially real-time as events are detected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM T TRAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/NAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights