DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (19/105,287) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 19/105,287, all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Preliminary Amendment and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment received February 20, 2025.
Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Provisional Application
The instant application claims benefit to provisional application No. 63/400,012 filed on August 22, 2022 under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDSs filed February 20, 2025 and August 1, 2025 each comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDSs have been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Specification
The use of trade names or marks used in commerce (e.g., “Bluetooth” and “WiMax” at Spec. ¶ 10) has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as TM, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trade marks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
This is not an objection to the Specification.
Means-plus-Function Language
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(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 claims in the instant 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) 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):
(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 for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in the instant application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The instant 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) 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 limitations1 are:
“devices” (claim 1, line 2; claim 11, line 5; claim 18, line 6); and
“isolation analysis unit” (claim 18, line 7).
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), claims 1–20 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the Specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With respect to the claimed function corresponding to the “devices” (claim 1, line 2; claim 11, line 5; claim 18, line 6), the Specification discloses “I/O devices” that achieves the claimed function. Spec. ¶ 11.
With respect to the claimed function corresponding to the “isolation analysis unit” (claim 18, line 7), the Specification discloses step item 420 for achieving the claim function. See Spec. ¶ 40 (reciting “at operation 420, the behavioral accuracy score and the deviation score are utilized to determine whether to isolate a user device of the plurality of user devices”). According to the Specification, “FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating a method 400 for performing device isolation in accordance with some embodiments. . . . Note that each process step or stage depicted may be implemented as an apparatus that includes a processor executing a set of instructions.” Id. ¶ 38. Thus, with respect to the claimed function corresponding to the “isolation analysis unit” (claim 18, line 7), the Specification discloses an apparatus that includes a processor executing a set of instructions (i.e., a computer) that achieves the claimed function.
If Applicants do not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicants may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011) (available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “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 MPEP recites “[d]uring examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected.” MPEP § 2173.02(I) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” Id. See also id. § 2173.05(e)(discussing indefiniteness arising for terms lacking proper antecedent basis).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 (emphasis added) introduces the terms “high behavioral accuracy score category,” “medium behavioral accuracy score category,” “low behavioral accuracy score category,” “low deviation score category,” “medium deviation score category,” and “high deviation score category.” The terms add ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to when (a) a behavioral accuracy score category is “high,” “medium,” and “low” and (b) a deviation score category is “high,” “medium,” and “low.” The Examiner is unable to find an objective standard from the Specification. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(reciting
When a subjective term is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification supplies some objective standard for measuring the scope of the term. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite.
).
Claim 20 by analogy.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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)(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.
(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.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Bargury et al. (US 2021/0218763 A1; filed Jan. 9, 2020).
Regarding claim 18, Bargury discloses an apparatus (fig. 1, item 100), comprising:
an isolation analysis unit (“computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data.” at ¶ 14);
a behavior monitoring unit (“computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data.” at ¶ 14) coupled to the isolation analysis unit; and
a deviation analysis unit (“computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data.” at ¶ 14) coupled to the isolation analysis unit and the isolation analysis unit,
wherein, based upon an isolation assessment (fig. 3, item 300) of a behavioral accuracy score (fig. 4, items 404, 406; fig. 3, item 302) and a deviation score (fig. 5, item 504; fig. 3, item 304) associated with each device of a plurality of devices (fig. 2, item 202a–n) in an authentication network (fig. 2, item 204), the isolation analysis unit determines whether to isolate a device (“a deviant device at 504” at ¶¶ 37, 39; identifying a device as being a deviant device isolates the device from the rest of the devices 202a–n) from the plurality of devices of the authentication network.
Regarding claim 19, Bargury discloses wherein: the isolation analysis unit compares the behavioral accuracy score to a behavioral accuracy score category (“identify correlations between telemetry from the plurality of network devices.” at ¶ 34; “Telemetry can relate to various information tracked in the network device, including as parameters being measured or tracked by the device” at ¶ 34) and compares the deviation score to a deviation score category (“if the telemetry received from the another device of the set of the mapped devices does not correlate to the telemetry received from the mapped device” at ¶ 39) to determine whether to isolate the device.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 1–12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Bargury in view of Rao et al. (US 2009/0183242 A1 filed Jan. 15, 2008).
Regarding claim 1, while Bargury teaches a computer-implemented method (fig. 3, item 300; “FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating an example method, such as . . . a feature of the method of FIG. 3” at ¶ 9; “FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating an example method, such as . . . a feature of the method of FIG. 3” at ¶ 10), comprising:
monitoring behavior patterns (fig. 4, item 402; “collects telemetry from the network devices at 402” at ¶ 32; ¶ 23) of a plurality of devices (fig. 2, item 202a–n) in an authentication network (fig. 2, item 204);
generating a behavioral accuracy score (fig. 4, items 404, 406; fig. 3, item 302) for each device of the plurality of devices in the authentication network based on the behavior patterns of each device of the plurality of devices;
generating a deviation score (fig. 5, item 504; fig. 3, item 304) for each device of the plurality of devices based on a deviation in behavior of each device of the plurality of devices from conventional device behavior (“determine if a network device deviates from its expected behavior” at ¶¶ 37, 39); and
using the behavioral accuracy score and the deviation score to determine whether to isolate a device (“a deviant device at 504” at ¶¶ 37, 39; identifying a device as being a deviant device isolates the device from the rest of the devices 202a–n; “a deviant device that is assigned a security alert can be provided with a prioritized alert on the system. This allows a security administrator to know that something malicious has been discovered and that the device is not operating as expected.” at ¶ 42) of the plurality of devices from the authentication network,
Bargury does not teach the devices being associated with a user.
Rao teaches devices associated with a user (“both the first electronic device and the second electronic device may be under the control of a single user” at ¶ 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Bargury’s devices to be associated with a user as taught by Rao for “providing device independence allowing user sessions that may span multiple devices at the same time or in sequence.” Rao ¶ 83.
Regarding claim 2, Bargury teaches further comprising: determining whether the behavioral accuracy score of a first device (“a deviant device at 504” at ¶¶ 37, 39) of the plurality of devices is within a first behavioral accuracy score category (“identify correlations between telemetry from the plurality of network devices.” at ¶ 34; “Telemetry can relate to various information tracked in the network device, including as parameters being measured or tracked by the device” at ¶ 34), a second behavioral accuracy score category (“Telemetry can relate to various information tracked in the network device, including . . . memory usage” at ¶ 34), or a third behavioral accuracy score category (“Telemetry can relate to various information tracked in the network device, including . . . power usage” at ¶ 34).
Regarding claim 3, Bargury teaches further comprising: determining whether the deviation score is within a first deviation score category (“if the telemetry received from the another device of the set of the mapped devices does not correlate to the telemetry received from the mapped device” at ¶ 39), a second deviation score category (“if more than two devices are correlated, and the telemetry received from one device of the set of the mapped devices does not correlate to the telemetry received from the other mapped devices” at ¶ 39), or a third deviation score category (“The devices behavior is deemed to deviate from normal behavior if one of the correlations is not observed in the telemetry” at ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 4, Bargury teaches wherein: when2 the behavioral accuracy score is within the second behavioral accuracy score category and the deviation score is within the first deviation score category, the first device is temporally logged out from the authentication network and biometric authentication is requested from a user of the first device to login to the authentication network.
Regarding claim 5, Bargury teaches wherein: when3 the behavioral accuracy score is within the second behavioral accuracy score category and the deviation score is within the second deviation score category, the first device is temporally logged out from the authentication network and biometric authentication and two-factor authentication is requested from a user of the first device to login to the authentication network.
Regarding claim 6, Bargury teaches wherein: when4 the behavioral accuracy score is within the second behavioral accuracy score category and the deviation score is within the third deviation score category, the first device is temporally logged out from the authentication network for a fixed amount of time and a determination is made based on the deviation score as to whether to proceed with actions corresponding to the first deviation score category or the second deviation score category.
Regarding claim 7, Bargury teaches wherein: when5 the behavioral accuracy score is within the third behavioral accuracy score category and the deviation score is within the first deviation score category, the first device is temporally logged out from the authentication network for a fixed amount of time and based upon a similarity assessment of deviation scores of the plurality of devices that are not the first device, the behavioral accuracy score of the first device is adjusted such that the behavioral accuracy score is in the second behavioral accuracy score category and the deviation score of the first device is in the third deviation score category.
Regarding claim 8, Bargury teaches wherein: when6 the behavioral accuracy score is within the third behavioral accuracy score category and the deviation score is within the second deviation score category, the first device is temporally logged out from the authentication network for a fixed amount of time and based upon a similarity assessment of deviation scores of the plurality of devices that are not the first device, the deviation score of the first device is adjusted such that the deviation score is in the first deviation score category.
Regarding claim 9, Bargury teaches wherein: when7 the behavioral accuracy score is within the third behavioral accuracy score category and the deviation score is within the third deviation score category, the first device is isolated from the authentication network until a user of the first device reinitiates a registration of the first device.
Regarding claim 10, Bargury teaches wherein: the first behavioral accuracy score category is a high behavioral accuracy score category (“identify correlations between telemetry from the plurality of network devices.” at ¶ 34), the second behavioral accuracy score category is a medium behavioral accuracy score category (“Telemetry can relate to various information tracked in the network device, including . . . memory usage” at ¶ 34), the third behavioral accuracy score category is a low behavioral accuracy score category (“Telemetry can relate to various information tracked in the network device, including . . . power usage” at ¶ 34), the first deviation score category is a low deviation score category (“if the telemetry received from the another device of the set of the mapped devices does not correlate to the telemetry received from the mapped device” at ¶ 39), the second deviation score category is a medium deviation score category (“if more than two devices are correlated, and the telemetry received from one device of the set of the mapped devices does not correlate to the telemetry received from the other mapped devices” at ¶ 39), the third deviation score category is a high deviation score category (“The devices behavior is deemed to deviate from normal behavior if one of the correlations is not observed in the telemetry” at ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 11, Bargury teaches a system (fig. 1, item 100) comprising: a processor (fig. 1, item 102); and a non-transitory computer readable medium (fig. 1,item 104) coupled to the processor, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code that performs operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 42.
Regarding claim 12, claims 2 and 3 recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 2 and 3 are equally applicable to claim 12.
Regarding claim 20, while Bargury teaches wherein: when the behavioral accuracy score is in a low behavioral accuracy score category (“identify correlations between telemetry from the plurality of network devices.” at ¶ 34; “Telemetry can relate to various information tracked in the network device, including as parameters being measured or tracked by the device” at ¶ 34) and the deviation score is in a high deviation score category (“if the telemetry received from the another device of the set of the mapped devices does not correlate to the telemetry received from the mapped device” at ¶ 39), the device is isolated from the authentication network (“a deviant device that is assigned a security alert can be provided with a prioritized alert on the system. This allows a security administrator to know that something malicious has been discovered and that the device is not operating as expected.” at ¶ 42) until a user (“security administrator” at ¶ 42) of the device removes the security breach (¶¶ 41–42 at least suggests the deviant device is removed from activity until the security administrator removes the security breach),
Bargury does not teach the security breach removal being reinitiating a registration of the device.
Rao teaches (“an updated registration . . . may be sent 402 to the first device 390” at ¶ 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Bargury’s security breach removal to be reinitiating a registration of the device as taught by Rao for “providing device independence allowing user sessions that may span multiple devices at the same time or in sequence.” Rao ¶ 83.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13–17 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-20190236249-A1; US-20210058395-A1; US-9396435-B2; US-7673340-B1; US-10097572-B1; US-20210288985-A1; US-20160239649-A1; US-9160546-B2; and US-20230007024-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner notes “Applicants are free to invoke § 112 ¶ 6 for a claim term nested in a method claim. We have never held otherwise.” Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2021). See also Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the term “compliance mechanism” in a method claim was a means-plus-function term); see also MPEP § 2181.
2 The temporally logged-out limitation is conditional and, therefore, need not be satisfied to meet claim 4. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3–5 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that in a method claim, a step reciting a condition precedent does not need to be performed if the condition precedent is not met) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ex%20parte%20Schulhauser%202016_04_28.pdf; last visited May 29, 2026); see also MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser).
3 See n. 2 supra.
4 See n. 2 supra.
5 See n. 2 supra.
6 See n. 2 supra.
7 See n. 2 supra.
Prosecution Insights