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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the communication filed on August 06, 2026. Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 06, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argument regarding art rejection has been addressed in the new rejection. The double patent rejection has been withdrawn in view of claims amendment.
Regarding 101 applicant argues the claims integrating any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application that provides a technological solution to a problem that arises in technology and improves computer systems.
In response examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recited the limitation of detecting, generating a record of the change, processing the record to determine and generating, and generating a filesystem event as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Further these limitation with combination of additional limitations (providing and outputting) can be performed using well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions such as claimed recited providing a computer communication interface between the monitoring application and a forensic file service system. Note that the courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 1-5, 7-15, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites providing a computer communication interface between the monitoring application and a forensic file service system; automatically detecting at least one change to a filesystem element of a computing resource involving at least one of creation, reading, modification, or deletion of the filesystem element; generating a record of the at least one change to the filesystem element; processing the record to determine a type of operation or sequence of operations that caused the at least one change to the filesystem element, including deriving from the at least one change that the filesystem element was copied or transferred to another computing resource; generating a filesystem event based on the type of operation or sequence of operations, the filesystem event indicating that the filesystem element was copied or transferred; and outputting the filesystem event to the forensic file service system via the computer communication interface.
The claim recited the limitation of detecting, generating a record of the change, processing the record to determine and generating, and generating a filesystem event as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally detect and generate change record by reading information, wherein the processing can be done in human mind to identify (determine) change record. Therefore, these limitations are mental process.
The claim recited two additional element: providing a computer communication interface between the monitoring application and a forensic file service system and outputting the filesystem event to a forensic file service system. The outputing step as recited amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362(utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). The limitation providing a computer communication interface between the monitoring application and a forensic file service system is nothing but well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. The limitation is recited as merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of outputting step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of monitoring filesystem usages. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the record includes an identifier of the filesystem element, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of monitoring filesystem usages. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the record includes an identifier of the filesystem element, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of monitoring filesystem usages. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the metadata associated with the filesystem element comprises at least one of: a filename, a filepath, a timestamp, a file size, a checksum, or a file type, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of monitoring filesystem usages. The claim recites the limitations of wherein outputting the filesystem event to the forensic file service system includes batching a plurality of filesystem events including the filesystem event and transmitting the plurality of filesystem events to the forensic file service system, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of monitoring filesystem usages. The claim recites the limitations of wherein generating the record of the change to the filesystem element includes generating the record in response to contents of the filesystem element or metadata associated with the filesystem element being changed, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of monitoring filesystem usages. The claim recites the limitations of wherein detecting the change to the filesystem element of the computing resource includes detecting the change based on a scan of the computing resource and a comparison of the filesystem element to a stored filesystem element identified in a previous scan, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of monitoring filesystem usages. The claim recites the limitations of wherein outputting the filesystem event includes generating a filesystem element signature corresponding to the filesystem element, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of monitoring filesystem usages. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the filesystem element signature comprises a hash of content of the filesystem element, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 11-15, 17-21, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-5, 7-10 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-5, 7-10 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-15, 17, and 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newstadt et al. (Patent No. US 10466924 B1)
As to clam 1 Newstadt teaches at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium including instructions for executing a monitoring application, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising:
providing a computer communication interface between the monitoring application and a forensic file service system (Column 4 lines 7-10, 28-30: system 100 may include a monitoring module 104 that monitors a computing device to detect changes made to data stored within the computing device, wherein the systems provide clean, consistent, and accurate memory images of computing devices to security systems (e.g., security forensics systems) and other services);
automatically detecting at least one change to a filesystem element of a computing resource involving at least one of creation, reading, modification, or deletion of the filesystem element (column 3 lines 64-65, Column 6 lines 30-34: detecting and recording data changes within a computing device, wherein the monitoring module 104 may detect each instance that a user, program, application, or other entity directs the computing device to create a new portion of data, replace or over-write an existing portion of data, and/or delete a portion of data);
generating a record of the at least one change to the filesystem element (column 3 lines 64-65: detecting and recording data changes within a computing device);
processing the record to determine a type of operation or sequence of operations that caused the at least one change to the filesystem element, including deriving from the at least one change that the filesystem element was copied or transferred to another computing resource (Column 2 lines 53-56, column 8 lines 53-59, 63-66: detection module that detects an event that triggers generation of an image of the computing device that represents a state of the computing device at a particular point in time, wherein the terms “image” and “memory image,” as used herein, generally refer to any type or form of copy, replication, or reproduction of all or a portion of the data stored within a computing device);
generating a filesystem event based on the type of operation or sequence of operations, the filesystem event indicating that the filesystem element was copied or transferred (column 7 liens 14-16, column 9 lines 25-27, column 8 lines 53-59, 63-66: detection module 108 may detect an event that triggers generation of an image that represents the most current or up-to-date state of a computing device and the maintenance module 106 may record (i.e. generating) information about each data change detected by monitoring module 104); and
outputting the filesystem event to the forensic file service system via the computer communication interface (Column 10 lines 22-24, column 17 lines 3-6: security module 112 may provide an image to an application or process (e.g., a security forensics service) that requested the image of the computing device and data changes into an image of the computing device at a particular point in time, output a result of the transformation to a user or security service).
As to clam 2 Newstadt teaches wherein the record includes an identifier of the filesystem element (Column 15 lines 46-53).
As to clam 3 Newstadt teaches wherein the record includes metadata associated with the filesystem element (Column 7 lines 13-19).
As to clam 4 Newstadt teaches wherein the metadata associated with the filesystem element comprises at least one of: a filename, a filepath, a timestamp, a file size, a checksum, or a file type (Column 7 lines 41-45).
As to clam 5 Newstadt teaches wherein outputting the filesystem event to the forensic file service system includes batching a plurality of filesystem events including the filesystem event and transmitting the plurality of filesystem events to the forensic file service system (Column 10 lines 20-25).
As to clam 7 Newstadt teaches wherein generating the record of the change to the filesystem element includes generating the record in response to contents of the filesystem element or metadata associated with the filesystem element being changed (Column 9 lines 47-65).
As to clam 9 Newstadt teaches wherein outputting the filesystem event includes generating a filesystem element signature corresponding to the filesystem element (Column 7 lines 13-29).
As to claims 11-15, 17, 19, and 21, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-5, 7, 9 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-5, 7, 9 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newstadt et al. (Patent No. US 10466924 B1) in the view of McDonald (Pub. No. : US 20110225142 A1)
As to claim 8 all of the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Newstadt does not explicitly disclose but McDonald teaches detecting the change to the filesystem element of the computing resource includes detecting the change based on a scan of the computing resource and a comparison of the filesystem element to a stored filesystem element identified in a previous scan (paragraph [0068]: The change detection process 228 is adapted to identify any changes that have occurred in the web site since the last security scan. The change detection process 228 accesses the data stored for the previous web site scan 316 and compares the previous scan data with the data downloaded for the current scan 317. Changes are identified 318 using any suitable change detection method 318). It whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newstadt by adding above limitation as taught by McDonald to detect a plurality of different potential problems (McDonald, paragraph [0036]).
As to claim 18 it has similar limitations as of claim 8 above. Hence, claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as of claim 8 above.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newstadt et al. (Patent No. US 10466924 B1) in the view of Malone et al. (Pub. No. : US 20190163502 A1)
As to claim 10 all of the limitations of claim 9 have been addressed above. Newstadt does explicitly disclose but Malone teaches the filesystem element signature comprises a hash of content of the filesystem element (paragraph [0019]: The algorithm 100 continues to block 104, where it verifies the bundle image 30 by comparing a signed hash of the image with a hash generated by the initial file system and checking the hash signature against a public certificate included in the initial filesystem). It whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newstadt by adding above limitation as taught by Malone to verify by comparing a signed hash (Malone, paragraph [0006]).
As to claim 20 it has similar limitations as of claim 10 above. Hence, claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as of claim 10 above.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
