DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 05/01/2025. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are pending and are examined.
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(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 112(b) for being indefinite. The claims recite “when a first apparatus is replaced with a second apparatus, the processing circuitry is further configured to stop an operation of the second apparatus until acquiring the change element of the second apparatus and causes the first apparatus to operate.” which permits more than one interpretation. It is unclear if Applicant intended for the change element to cause the first apparatus to operate or if the first apparatus is supposed to continue after the second apparatus receives the change element. The Examiner interprets the claim to mean the first apparatus is supposed to continue after the second apparatus receives the change element. Thus, Examiner is unable to ascertain the scope of the claim, and a rejection under 112(b) is proper.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. The following is Examiner’s analysis of the claimed invention.
Step 1 Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-4) recites a system (machine), Claim 5 recites a method (process), and claim 6 recites a non-transitory computer medium (manufacture).
Step 2A Prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the steps of, “receive an input of at least one of a…determine the level of the information disclosure for each of the constituent elements…. notify of the level of the information disclosure of the predetermined apparatus calculated” Which fall with the “Mental Processes” grouping as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). Each of these steps of receiving an input, determining a level of information, and notifying the result is a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind; therefore, the claimed limitations fall within the mental processes grouping, and the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claimed preamble, “An information processing apparatus comprising: a memory; and processing circuitry configured to” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, therefore the claim as a whole is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Claim 2 and 3 “observe an operation of the predetermined apparatus and acquire operation information indicating a feature of the operation” and “observe an operation of the predetermined apparatus and acquire operation information indicating a feature of the operation”, is so broad as to cover insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The elements recited in claims 2-4 recite further observations and adjustments to the information disclosure, which amounts to no more than mental processes. Claim 6 using a non-transitory computer readable medium which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See Two-Way Media Ltd. V. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21706 at 14 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017) finding “simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one.” Accenture Global Service v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) at 1345; see also the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment; Classen an example case identifying a mental process. Specifically, “[c]oncepts relating to data comparisons that can be performed mentally or are analogous to human mental work.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), sections III and III A. Therefore, additionally recited limitations individually or in combination as a whole in Claims 1-20 fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parla (US 2024/0031394 A1), hereinafter Parla in view of Councill (US 2023/0367782 A1), hereinafter Councill.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 Parla teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory; and
processing circuitry configured to: (Parla Fig. 24 and ¶ 33 teaches, A first method described herein includes determining an observation phase for observing execution of processes on the computing system and determining telemetry, during the observation phase, representing execution of the processes. Other embodiments of this aspect include corresponding computer systems, apparatus, and computer programs recorded on one or more computer storage devices, each configured to perform the actions of the methods.)
receive an input of at least one of a procurement requirement, an operation requirement, and a security requirement necessary for a predetermined apparatus (Parla ¶ 90 teaches, Determining the SBOM may include receiving the SBOM from a cloud-based resource of a provider of the process.) and
acquire partial configuration information indicating partial constituent elements of the predetermined apparatus; (Parla ¶ 90 teaches, Determining the code portion of the process may include mapping SBOM metadata associated with the code portion to a binary image of the process. Excluding the tainted control flow directed graph may include generating a revised SBOM excluding the code portion. Determining the learned control flow directed graph is based on observed transitions of the process during an observation phase and SBOM interpolation. ¶ 213 teaches, the process 1900 includes determining a software bill of materials (SBOM) for the process. Determining the SBOM may include receiving the SBOM from a cloud-based resource of a provider of the process.)
Parla does not appear to explicitly teach but in related art:
set an index for evaluating a level of information disclosure for each constituent element included in the predetermined apparatus; (Councill ¶ 137 teaches, the degree of usefulness for an element of the source databases may be determined utilizing an algorithm and inputs including the completeness of data associated with a variable(s) in the element and/or the degree of overlap with the data of other elements of the source databases.)
determine the level of the information disclosure for each of the constituent elements included in the predetermined apparatus based on the partial configuration information and the index and calculate the level of the information disclosure of the predetermined apparatus based on a determination result; and (Councill ¶ 137 teaches, the degree of usefulness for an element of the source databases may be determined utilizing an algorithm and inputs including the completeness of data associated with a variable(s) in the element and/or the degree of overlap with the data of other elements of the source databases.)
notify of the level of the information disclosure of the predetermined apparatus calculated. (Councill ¶ 10 teaches, the graphical user interface may be configured to generate a representation of the usefulness of the data within each element in the plurality of databases.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Parla with Councill, to modify the method for control flow prevention using software bill of material analysis of Parla with the degrees of usefulness of an element of Councill. The motivation to do so, Councill ¶ 136, to indicate the usefulness of data.
Regarding Claim(s) 2 Parla in view of Councill teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, (Parla in view of Councill teaches the parent claim above.)
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to observe an operation of the predetermined apparatus and acquire operation information indicating a feature of the operation, (Parla ¶ 33 teaches, determining an observation phase for observing execution of processes on the computing system and determining telemetry, during the observation phase, representing execution of the processes.) wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the level of the information disclosure for each of the constituent elements based on the partial configuration information, the operation information, and the index set (Councill ¶ 137 teaches, the degree of usefulness for an element of the source databases may be determined utilizing an algorithm and inputs including the completeness of data associated with a variable(s) in the element and/or the degree of overlap with the data of other elements of the source databases.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parla in view of Councill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garrett (US 2021/0194929 A1), hereinafter Garrett.
Regarding Claim(s) 3 Parla in view of Councill teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Wherein (Parla in view of Councill teaches the parent claim above.)
Parla in view of Councill does not appear to explicitly teach but in related art:
the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate a change element for setting the level of the information disclosure of the predetermined apparatus to a predetermined level based on the partial configuration information, the index set, and the determination result of the level of the information disclosure of each of the constituent elements by, (Garrett ¶ 13 teaches, the STIG compliance service provides automated management tools to generate configuration compliance packages used to maintain compliance with the STIG standards implemented on the computer systems. (i.e., will send what information is needed to meet requirement, a change element)) wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to notify of the change element calculated (Garrett ¶ 13 teaches, these automated management tools may be accessible to users via a user interface, such as a command line interface, a graphical user interface, and/or a web services interface.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Parla in view of Councill with Garrett, to modify the method for control flow prevention using software bill of material analysis of Parla with the degrees of usefulness of an element of Councill with the standards and compliance package of Garrett. The motivation to do so, Garrett ¶ 12, to determine whether the STIG standards are implemented on the computer system.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parla-Councill-Garrett as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Madala (US 2024/0135002 A1), hereinafter Madala.
Regarding Claim(s) 4 Parla-Councill-Garrett teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 3,
wherein, (Parla-Councill-Garrett teaches the parent claim above.)
when a first apparatus is replaced with a second apparatus, the processing circuitry is further configured to stop an operation of the second apparatus until acquiring the change element of the second apparatus and causes the first apparatus to operate. (Madala ¶ 7 teaches, halt the workload using the first hardware component and the second hardware component until the proposed configurations for the second hardware component are changed to include no configurations with vulnerabilities identified in the third catalog.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Parla-Councill-Garrett with Madala, to modify the method for control flow prevention using software bill of material analysis of Parla with the degrees of usefulness of an element of Councill with the standards and compliance package of Garrett with the stopping of a function until changes are made. The motivation to do so, Madala ¶ 55, preventing a hardware component from being configured with known vulnerabilities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0208880 A1 - AUTOMATING TRUST IN SOFTWARE UPGRADES, analyzing software packages to identify the degree of differences between compared software packages and to apply security policies. A first software bill of materials for a software package is processed to extract a plurality of components of the software package, wherein the first software bill of materials indicates a first hierarchy of components based on relationships between components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENEDICT KNACKSTEDT whose telephone number is (703)756-5608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached on (571) 270-5440. 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.
/J.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/LINGLAN EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights