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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received on April 30, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Specification
For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Specification submitted on April 30, 2025 has been accepted.
Drawings
For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Drawings submitted on April 30, 2025 have been accepted.
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 1-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the set of other received file system element events”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons to claim 1. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as the parent claims without further remedying the indefinite language.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the mapping.” There are multiple previously recited mappings and it is unclear as to which particular mapping the limitation is referring. Claims 10 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons to claim 3.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,537. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of claims 1-20 are disclosed by 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,537.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,003,518. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of claims 1-20 are disclosed by 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,003,518.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “calculating a plurality of match scores based upon file system element characteristics corresponding to the first file system element event and respective file system element characteristics corresponding to each file system element event of the set of other received file system element events; and determining that none of the match scores exceed a threshold; determining that the first file system element event has expired when no match is found and a difference between a current time and a timestamp of a time the first file system element event was received exceeds a specified threshold; and responsive to determining that the first file system element event has expired when no match is found and the difference between the current time and the timestamp exceeds the specified threshold, transmitting an indication that the first file system element event is not matched”.
The closest prior arts made of record are:
Bhagi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0129353) which discloses monitoring file system operations to detect data loss (Abstract and paragraph [0292])
Sarin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,148,694) which discloses data loss prevention over a network including monitoring file system operations (Abstract, col. 3 lines 29-38 and Fig. 5)
Dodke (U.S. Patent No. 8,893,223) which discloses monitoring for file transfer and detecting data loss (Fig. 4)
While the prior art generally discloses monitoring file system events to detect data exfiltration, the prior art was not found to specifically disclose the claimed combination of limitations. Therefore, claim 1 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. Claims 8 and 15 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art for similar reasons to claim 1. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art based on their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lautenschlaeger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0110826) – cited for disclosing event correlation based on time windows - Abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J PLECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7506. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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.
/THADDEUS J PLECHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights