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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83 because, for FIG. 1-3, mere numerical and abbreviated references on abstract boxes do not sufficiently aid in the understanding of the invention; descriptive labels are required. The objected reference numerals include: 102, 104, 202, 204, 206, 302, 304, 306, etc.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract filed 02/04/2025 appears to be a cover sheet with multiple paragraphs/sections, over 150 words in length.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 15-16, 20-21, 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “so as so generate…” in line 8. This appears to be a typographical error. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “so as [[so]] -to generate…”
Claims 11, 15-16, 20-21, 25 are not in one sentence form because they include hyphens to delineate elements/steps of the claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 11-14
Claim 11: “a first module (202) configured to receive…”
Claims 11-12: “the second module being/is configured to process…”
Claim 13: “the second module is further configured to derive…”
Claim 14: “the second module is further configured to aggregate…”
A) Generic placeholder/Non-structural term: “module”
B) Functional language: “receive”, “process”, “derive”, “aggregate” and Linking phrase: “configured to”
C) Not modified by sufficient structure: “first”, “second”
Claim 15
“a third module configured to communicate…”
A) Generic placeholder/Non-structural term: “module”
B) Functional language: “communicate” and Linking phrase: “configured to”
C) Not modified by sufficient structure: “third”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 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.
Regarding claim 11-15, claim limitations “first module”, “second module” and “third module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding, “first module”, “second module” and “third module”, page 27 lines 29-31, disclose “Each of the first module 202, the second module 204 and the third module 206 can correspond to one or both of a hardware-based module and a software-based module, according to an embodiment of the disclosure” but discloses no definite structure of the module because page 39 lines 21-23 disclose “Such embodiments are intended to be encompassed by the following claims, and are not to be limited to specific forms or arrangements of parts so described”.
In addition, in cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the apparatus" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under a similar rationale. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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 21-25 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 BRI of computer-accessible medium can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of products that do not have a physical or tangible form such as a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") or non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. See MPEP 2106.03(I). The Examiner suggests reciting “non-transitory computer-accessible medium”, etc.
Claims 11-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims recite generate an output signal based on a derived trustworthiness score, comprising: “receive at least one input signal…”, “process the at least one input signal…”, “generate at least one output signal”, “identifying at least one security metric…”, “determining a …determination…”, “deriving at least one trustworthiness score…”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The Examiner finds that claims 11-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
The Examiner finds that claims 21-25 are not directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of generate an output signal based on a derived trustworthiness score, comprising: “receive at least one input signal…”, “process the at least one input signal…”, “generate at least one output signal”, “identifying at least one security metric…”, “determining a …determination…”, “deriving at least one trustworthiness score…”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In addition, the step of communicating the at least one output signal so as to facilitate at least one of a visual perception or an audible perception constitutes extra solution activity because (1) these techniques are well known, (2) this is insignificant extra solution activity and (3) is mere data gathering or outputting. This is a post-solution step that is not integrated into the claim as a whole.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Examiner notes that claim features of: “receive at least one input signal…”, “process the at least one input signal…”, “generate at least one output signal”, “identifying at least one security metric…”, “determining a …determination…”, “deriving at least one trustworthiness score…” does not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead, the claim features of generate an output signal based on a derived trustworthiness score merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g., automotive software system, computer-accessible medium) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g., receiving, processing, identifying, determining, deriving) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed signal, user requirement, security objective, security metric, security requirement, determinization, trustworthiness score are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings:
“Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has also explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Rather, the claims are merely directed towards the abstract idea of generating an output signal based on a derived trustworthiness score, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra, and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process does no more than require a generic computer to perform a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at a high level of generality.
For example, receiving an input signal, process the input signal, generate an output signal, identify a security metric, determining a determination, deriving a score, process a signal by identifying a plurality of metrics, deriving a plurality of scores based on a plurality of metrics, aggregate a plurality of scores, communicate the output signal which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Further note that the abstract idea of generate an output signal based on a derived trustworthiness score to which the claimed invention is directed has a prior art basis outside of a computing/technological environment, e.g., a risk analyst receives user objectives, translates the user objectives into security requirements, evaluates the security requirements with respect to the system and produces a risk rating.
The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grass et al. (US Pat No 11,954,208; hereinafter Grass).
Regarding claim 11, An apparatus for facilitating a trustworthiness assessment (Grass: claim 14, “A method for a system for security evaluation providing a quantitative methodology for calculating a relative risk of a system security architecture”) in an association with an automotive software system (Grass: col 8, lines 7-10, “environments for system security evaluation 100. Environments include ships for … automotive 110”), the apparatus comprising:
a first module (202) (Grass: col 8, lines 22-23, “FIG. 2 depicts the relationship of information within the system security framework 200”) configured to receive at least one input signal (Grass: col 7, lines 34-35, “Use cases cover the product life cycle and can be compiled from multiple Subject Matter Experts”) associated with at least one of:
- at least one user requirement, or
- at least one security objective (Grass: col 7, lines 28-31, “context information about possible attack vectors are documented in Security Use Cases which portray the activities of an attacker trying to do harm to the system”; col 7, lines 54-57, “The security risk analysis enables the identification of security weak points in the system and provides a means to objectively determine if the architecture is insufficient to meet the security design objective”); and
a second module communicating with the first module (Grass: FIG. 3, System Security Model 340), the second module being configured to process the at least one input signal (Grass: col 7, lines 34-35, “Use cases cover the product life cycle and can be compiled from multiple Subject Matter Experts”) so as so generate at least one output signal (Grass: FIG. 3, Security Score 355 is output from System Security Model 340), wherein the second module is configured to process the at least one input signal by:
- identifying at least one security metric (Grass: col 11, lines 36-38, “Attack/countermeasure analysis is conducted by evaluating each primitive in the system model for possible vulnerabilities across each of the applicable system states”; col 13, lines 7-14, “The attacks are measured against the following attributes: … Probability of success 745 (likelihood the effort will produce the desired outcome)”) associated with at least one security requirement (Grass: col 19, lines 25-26, “Requirements 1010 provide input to System Model 1020”), the at least one security requirement being based on at least one of the at least one user requirement or the at least one security objective (Grass: col 19, lines 23-24, “Requirements 1010, fed by Use Cases 100),
- determining one of a positive determination (Grass: col 13, line 41, “will ultimately be successful (Psuccess nearly 1 745)”), a negative determination or an indeterminate determination concerning a fulfillment of the at least one security metric (Grass: col 13, lines 39-41, “The CCA has multiple memory devices and the attacker may initially pick the wrong one, but will ultimately be successful (Psuccess nearly 1 745)”) with respect to at least one of the at least one security objective or the at least one user requirement (Grass: col 13, lines 30-33, “Attack Model 330 contains a use case describing how an attacker can copy information from non-volatile memory on a chip using common equipment like a PC (low Investment 735)”; col 19, lines 23-24, “Requirements 1010, fed by Use Cases 1005”),
- deriving at least one trustworthiness score (Grass: col 15, line 24, “Security Score”) based on one of the positive determination (Grass: col 15, lines 33-35, “For a Vulnerability Matrix which contains the attribute measurements for attacks A1 . . . An, the Security Score for any attack n is calculated using the equation: S(An)=Sn” i.e., Sn is based on probability of success Ps; col 15, lines 41-43, “An attack, A, has the corresponding array of parameters from the attribute measurements the Vulnerability Matrix: A = {… Psuccess …} = {… Ps …}}”), the negative determination or the indeterminate determination,
wherein the at least one output signal is based on the at least one trustworthiness score (Grass: col 17, lines 61-65, “For a system defined as consisting of m sub-systems the minimum Security Score from a sub-system is SElement The Security Score at the highest hierarchical level analyzed can be scaled by taking the base 10 log. Security Score=Min({SElement1, SElement2, …, SElement m })”), and wherein the at least one output signal is indicative of the trustworthiness assessment (Grass: col 17, lines 45-47, “This value is the Security Score for the system under analysis and represents the most vulnerable aspect based on the analysis performed”).
Regarding claim 12, Grass teaches the apparatus according to claim 11,
wherein the at least one security metric (Grass: col 13, lines 7-14, “The attacks are measured against the following attributes: … Probability of success 745 (likelihood the effort will produce the desired outcome), Probability of destruction 750 (likelihood the device is rendered unusable by the attack, this is applicable for invasive and semi-invasive methods)”) includes a plurality of security metrics (Grass: FIG. 8, P(Success) for ID#1 = 0.99 and P(Destruct) for ID#3 = 0.001),
wherein the second module (Grass: FIG. 3, System Security Model 340) is configured to process the at least one input signal by identifying the plurality of security metrics (Grass: col 11, lines 36-38, “Attack/countermeasure analysis is conducted by evaluating each primitive in the system model for possible vulnerabilities across each of the applicable system states”), and
wherein the trustworthiness score (Grass: col 15, line 24, “Security Score”) is derivable in association with each of the plurality of security metrics based on one of a positive determination (Grass: col 15, lines 33-35, “For a Vulnerability Matrix which contains the attribute measurements for attacks A1 . . . An, the Security Score for any attack n is calculated using the equation: S(An)=Sn” i.e., Sn is based on probability of success Ps and Pd; col 15, lines 41-43, “An attack, A, has the corresponding array of parameters from the attribute measurements the Vulnerability Matrix: A = {… Psuccess, Pdestruct …} = {… Ps, Pd …}}”), a negative determination or an indeterminate determination concerning a fulfillment of a respective metric of the plurality of security metrics (Grass: FIG. 8, P(Success) for ID#1 = 0.99 and P(Destruct) for ID#3 = 0.001 i.e., both are a positive determination) with respect to at least one of a security objective or a user requirement (Grass: col 19, lines 25-26, “Requirements 1010 provide input to System Model 1020”; col 19, lines 23-24, “Requirements 1010, fed by Use Cases 1005”).
Regarding claim 13, Grass teaches the apparatus according to claim 11,
wherein the at least one trustworthiness score (Grass: col 15, line 24, “Security Score”) includes a plurality of trustworthiness scores (Grass: col 15, lines 33-35, “For a Vulnerability Matrix which contains the attribute measurements for attacks A1 . . . An, the Security Score for any attack n is calculated using the equation: S(An)=Sn”; FIG. 8, Security Score 870 for ID#1 = 10111121.22 and for ID#2 = 1.01),
wherein the at least one security metric (Grass: col 13, lines 7-14, “The attacks are measured against the following attributes: … Probability of success 745 (likelihood the effort will produce the desired outcome)”) includes a plurality of security metrics (Grass: FIG. 8, P(Success) for ID#1 = 0.99 and for ID#3 = 0.9), and
wherein the second module is further configured to derive the plurality of trustworthiness scores based on the plurality of security metrics (Grass: col 15, lines 33-35, “For a Vulnerability Matrix which contains the attribute measurements for attacks A1 . . . An, the Security Score for any attack n is calculated using the equation: S(An)=Sn” i.e., Sn is based on probability of success Ps).
Regarding claim 14, Grass teaches the apparatus according to claim 11,
wherein the at least one trustworthiness score (Grass: col 15, line 24, “Security Score”) includes a plurality of trustworthiness scores (Grass: col 15, lines 33-35, “For a Vulnerability Matrix which contains the attribute measurements for attacks A1 . . . An, the Security Score for any attack n is calculated using the equation: S(An)=Sn”; FIG. 8, Security Score 870 for ID#1 = 10111121.22 and for ID#2 = 1.01),
wherein the second module is further configured to aggregate the plurality of trustworthiness scores to generate an overall score (Grass: col 17, lines 61-65, “For a system defined as consisting of m sub-systems the minimum Security Score from a sub-system is SElement The Security Score at the highest hierarchical level analyzed can be scaled by taking the base 10 log. Security Score=Min({SElement1, SElement2, …, SElement m })”), and
wherein the trustworthiness assessment is based on the overall score (Grass: col 17, lines 45-47, “This value is the Security Score for the system under analysis and represents the most vulnerable aspect based on the analysis performed”).
Regarding claim 15, Grass teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, further comprising
a third module configured to communicate the at least one output signal so as to facilitate at least one of a visual perception (Grass: claim 14, “outputting a System Security View for said system architecture”) or an audible perception of at least one of:
- the at least one trustworthiness score (Grass: col 19, lines 37-41, “The System Security View provides a security focused representation of the system under analysis through the incorporation of … Vulnerability Matrix 1055”; FIG. 8, Vulnerability matrix includes Security Score 870 for ID#1 = 10111121.22 and for ID#2 = 1.01), or
- the overall score (Grass: col 20, lines 19-21, “FIG. 13 is a First Scenario visualization diagram 1300 depicting changes in the Security Score over the product life cycle”).
Re. claims 16-20, they recite analogous limitations as claims 11-15, respectively, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
Re. claims 21-25, they recite analogous limitations as claims 11-15, respectively, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SRIRAM whose telephone number is (703)756-1715. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM MST or PST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights