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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the physical elements of the security platform and the detector must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. The current drawings show now structural elements, rather, they exclusively show process flows. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8, 10, 13, 14, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of these claims uses the numeric character “1” rather than the word “one”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of these claims contains at least one, if not multiple words that are improperly capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
Please replace the ampersand character (“&”) with the word “and” in claims 5, 10, 15 and 20.
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 limitations are:
the security platform detects all events and creates a log of anomalous events (Claim 1 (no corresponding structure))
a detector detects malware based on the anomalous events (Claim 1 (no corresponding structure))
the security platform analyzes the malware by creating a risk analysis based on each detected malware (Claim 1 (no corresponding structure))
the security platform engages in adversarial threat mapping (Claim 1 (no corresponding structure))
the security platform also tracks the malware utilizing a variety of tracking services (Claim 1 (no corresponding structure))
the security platform informs a user of the system that the user has been hacked (Claim 1 (no corresponding structure))
the security platform attempts to identify where the malware came from (Claim 2 (no corresponding structure))
the security platform visualizes data that accompanied the malware (Claim 4 (no corresponding structure))
the security platform identifies errors made in allowing in data that accompanied the malware (Claim 4 (no corresponding structure))
the security platform identifies errors made in allowing in data that accompanied the malware (Claim 4 (no corresponding structure))
the detector detects different types of anomalous events… (Claim 5 (no corresponding structure))
the security platform forwards information about the malware to a security information and event management ("SIEM") system (Claim 6 (no corresponding structure))
the artificial intelligence system accepts prompts from a user (Claim 7 (no corresponding structure))
the security platform performs prompt analytics on the prompts entered by the user (Claim 7 (no corresponding structure))
the Detector connects and reads all threat intelligence and configuration from a database (Claim 9 (no corresponding structure))
a Connector connects and reads topic data and meta data from detections (Claim 9 (no corresponding structure))
the Connector creates a session table (Claim 9 (no corresponding structure))
the Connector breaks parts of the session table into sessions and aggregates observations based on time, including minutes, hours and days (Claim 9 (no corresponding structure))
the Connector correlates detections to discovery, tracking via tracking services, lineage, risks and rejected inputs (Claim 9 (no corresponding structure))
the Connector then converts threat information to features, and converts features to a Threat Model (Claim 9 (no corresponding structure))
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 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.
The claim limitations of claims 1, 2, 4 7 and 9 described above invoke 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 as described above. Therefore, the claims 1, 2, 4 7 and 9 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-9 are rejected as depending from one of claims 1 or 2 and inheriting the deficiencies thereof and failing to correct the same.
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 1 recites “A system for a security platform and services for protecting an artificial intelligence system”. It is unclear if what is claimed is a system comprising a security platform and services or if what is claims is a system for a security platform and additionally “services for protecting an artificial intelligence system“ not included in the system. Claim 1 is rejected on this basis, as the scope of the claim is not clear. Claims 2-9 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 recite “wherein the security platform detects all events and creates a log of anomalous events”. The scope of this claim element is unclear, as the phrase “all events” has no meaningful context – is this all events relative to an artificial intelligence system, all events at the security platform or all events anywhere in the world, and are the events limited to computer based activities or are real world happenings included? Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected on this basis. Claims 2-9 and 12-20 are rejected as depending from claims 1 or 11 and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 1 recites “a detector detects malware…”. It is unclear if this detector is a part of the system, the services or some other entity. Claim 1 is rejected on this basis, as the scope of the claim is not clear. Claims 2-9 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 recite “wherein the security platform also tracks the malware utilizing a variety of tracking services”. It is unclear as to the scope of this claim element – does the claim require that each instance of malware be tracked by a variety of services and if so, what or how many services constitutes a “variety”, or that the security platform has a “variety” of tracking services from which to choose to track the malware, or some other meaning entirely. Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected on this basis, as the scope of the claim is not clear. Claims 2-9 and 12-20 are rejected as depending from claims 1 or 11 and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 recite the limitation “wherein, if malware is detected, then the security platform informs a user of the system that the user has been hacked”. Examiner is unsure as to the scope of this element as every preceding element is predicated off of the detection of malware. Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected on this basis, as the scope of the claim is not clear. Claims 2-9 and 12-20 are rejected as depending from claims 1 or 11 and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the detector that detects malware and the security platform that analyzes the malware, as no relationship is disclosed in claims 1, 10 and 11 Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected on this basis. Claims 2-9 and 12-20 are rejected as inheriting the deficiencies of claims 1 or 11 and falling to correct.
Claims 2, 10 and 14 recite the limitation “wherein if and when the malware is contained, the security platform attempts to identify where the malware came from.” It is unclear if this limitation is required or optional, as it relies on a condition not previously recited in the claims. It is also unclear what entity is responsible for containing the malware or what “containing” the malware means. Claims 2, 10 and 14 are rejected on this basis. Claims 3-4 are rejected as inheriting the deficiencies of claim 2 and falling to correct.
Claims 2, 10, 14 and 20 recite the limitations wherein if and when the malware is contained, the security platform attempts to identify where the malware came from; wherein 1 form of finding an origin of the malware is engaging in incident correlation, wherein an incident is compared to past incidents to see if there is a similarity; and wherein another form of finding an origin of the malware is analyzing lineage of the malware.” It is unclear if “where the malware came from” is the same or different that either recitation of “an origin”. Claims 2, 10, 14 and 20 are rejected on this basis. Claims 3-4 are rejected as inheriting the deficiencies of claim 2 and falling to correct.
Claim 3 recites a list of actions under “Wherein analyzing lineage of the malware includes”. It is unclear if claim 3 requires all elements or if this is a list of options, as there is no “and” or “or” indicator in the list. Additionally, claim 3 is not a proper claim as it is not a sentence that is terminated with a “.” (period) character. Claim 3 is rejected on this basis. Claim 4 is rejected as inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1 and falling to correct.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the security platform visualizes data that accompanied the malware”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis and is rejected as no language prior in the claims requires that there be data along with the malware. Claim 4 is rejected on this basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “the Artificial Intelligence system” (A and I capitalized). It is unclear if this is the same or different than the “artificial intelligence system” (a and I in lower case) recited in claim 1. Claim 4 is rejected on this basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 16 recite the limitation “wherein the security platform forwards information about the malware to a security information and event management ("SIEM") system”. It is unclear as to what information the security platform forwards as no information about the malware is previously recited. Additionally, it is unclear as to the structural; relationship between the security platform and the SEIM system. Claims 6 and 16 are rejected on this basis.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the artificial intelligence system accepts prompts from a user”. It is unclear if the user of claim 7 is the same user or a different user to the user recited in claim 1. Claim 7 is rejected on this basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 and 19 recite ” wherein the Detector connects and reads all threat intelligence and configuration from a database”. It is unclear if the Detector of claim 9 is the same entity or a different entity from the detector of claim 1 and 11, as the names are in fact different based on capitalization. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected on this basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the entity that produces the “predictions and thresholds” of the finial limitation of claim 9, as neither predictions nor thresholds are discussed previously in claim 9, 19 or claims 1 or 11. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected on this basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the Detector” in Line 41. It is unclear if this is the same entity as the “detector” previously claimed as the names are different. Claim 10 is rejected on this basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0119459 by Aguiar et al.
As to claims 1 and 11, Aguiar discloses a system/method for a security platform and services for protecting an artificial intelligence system, comprising:
wherein the security platform detects all events and creates a log of anomalous events (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33);
wherein a detector detects malware based on the anomalous events (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33);
wherein the security platform analyzes the malware by creating a risk analysis based on each detected malware (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33);
wherein based on the risk analysis, the security platform engages in adversarial threat mapping (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33);
wherein adversarial threat mapping includes input filtering, output filtering and masking (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33);
wherein the security platform also tracks the malware utilizing a variety of tracking services (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33); and
wherein, if malware is detected, then the security platform informs a user of the system that the user has been hacked (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
As to claims 2 and 14, Aguiar further discloses further comprising: wherein if and when the malware is contained, the security platform attempts to identify where the malware came from; wherein 1 form of finding an origin of the malware is engaging in incident correlation, wherein an incident is compared to past incidents to see if there is a similarity; and wherein another form of finding an origin of the malware is analyzing lineage of the malware (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
As to claim 3, Aguiar further discloses further comprising: Wherein analyzing lineage of the malware includes: identifying a data source; recording a data source; sinking extract; identifying any transformation of the malware ;identifying any loading of pipelines; creating a map or topology of an origin of the malware; (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
As to claim 4, Aguiar further discloses further comprising: wherein the security platform visualizes data that accompanied the malware; whereas the security platform identifies errors made in allowing in data that accompanied the malware; and wherein the security platform corrects those errors such that future malware will not enter the Artificial Intelligence system in the same way (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
As to claims 5 and 15, Aguiar further discloses further comprising: Wherein the detector detects different types of anomalous events, including: anomalous log messages; data pipeline lineage; Al resource tracking; Artifacts change; Al risk forecasting; Copyright & legal exposure; Sensitive information disclosure; Data privacy violation; Social engineering attack; Tagging attack; and Labelling attack (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
As to claims 6 and 16, Aguiar further discloses further comprising: wherein the security platform forwards information about the malware to a security information and event management ("SIEM") system (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
As to claims 7 and 17, Aguiar further discloses further comprising: wherein the artificial intelligence system accepts prompts from a user; wherein the security platform performs prompt analytics on the prompts entered by the user; wherein the prompt analytics include prompt interaction analysis, prompt risk analysis, prompt injections detector and a prompt web application filter (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
As to claims 8 and 18, Aguiar further discloses further comprising: wherein anomalous events are detected utilizing 1 or more of the following: application intelligence, security signals, fine tuning, customization, data collection and analytics, and featurization (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
As to claims 9 and 19, Aguiar further discloses further comprising: wherein the Detector connects and reads all threat intelligence and configuration from a database; wherein a Connector connects and reads topic data and meta data from detections; wherein the Connector creates a session table; wherein the Connector breaks parts of the session table into sessions and aggregates observations based on time, including minutes, hours and days; wherein the Connector correlates detections to discovery, tracking via tracking services, lineage, risks and rejected inputs; wherein the Connector then converts threat information to features, and converts features to a Threat Model; and wherein the Threat Model is analyzed in light of predictions and thresholds to identify actual threats (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
As to claim 10, Aguiar further discloses a method for a security platform and services for protecting an artificial intelligence system, comprising: wherein the security platform detects all events and creates a log of anomalous events; wherein a detector detects malware based on the anomalous events; wherein the security platform analyzes the malware by creating a risk analysis based on each detected malware; wherein based on the risk analysis, the security platform engages in adversarial threat mapping; wherein adversarial threat mapping includes input filtering, output filtering and masking; wherein the security platform also tracks the malware utilizing a variety of tracking services; wherein, if malware is detected, then the security platform informs a user of the system that the user has been hacked; wherein if and when the malware is contained, the security platform attempts to identify where the malware came from; wherein 1 form of finding an origin of the malware is engaging in incident correlation, wherein an incident is compared to past incidents to see if there is a similarity; wherein another form of finding an origin of the malware is analyzing lineage of the malware; wherein the detector detects different types of anomalous events, including: anomalous log messages; data pipeline lineage; AI resource tracking; Artifacts change; AI risk forecasting; Copyright & legal exposure; Sensitive information disclosure; Data privacy violation; Social engineering attack; Tagging attack; and Labelling attack; wherein the artificial intelligence system accepts prompts from a user; wherein the security platform performs prompt analytics on the prompts entered by the user; wherein the prompt analytics include prompt interaction analysis, prompt risk analysis, prompt injections detector and a prompt web application filter; wherein anomalous events are detected utilizing 1 or more of the following: application intelligence, security signals, fine tuning, customization, data collection and analytics, and featurization; wherein the Detector connects and reads all threat intelligence and configuration from a database; wherein a Connector connects and reads topic data and meta data from detections; wherein the Connector creates a session table; wherein the Connector breaks parts of the session table into sessions and aggregates observations based on time, including minutes, hours and days; wherein the Connector correlates detections to discovery, tracking via tracking services, lineage, risks and rejected inputs; wherein the Connector then converts threat information to features, and converts features to a Threat Model; and wherein the Threat Model is analyzed in light of predictions and thresholds to identify actual threats (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
As to claim 12, Aguiar further discloses further comprising: wherein the detector utilizes different models, including a regression model; wherein the detector receives data for the regression model in different ways, including: time series log, metrics, traces and event data (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
As to claim 13, Aguiar further discloses further comprising: wherein the security platform utilizes artificial intelligence to forecast incoming malware; wherein 1 way the security platform makes these forecasts is to utilize time series forecasting (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
As to claim 20, Aguiar further discloses further comprising: wherein the detector utilizes different models, including a regression model; wherein the detector receives data for the regression model in different ways, including: time series log, metrics, traces and event data; wherein the security platform utilizes artificial intelligence to forecast incoming malware; wherein 1 way the security platform makes these forecasts is to utilize time series forecasting; wherein if and when the malware is contained, the security platform attempts to identify where the malware came from; wherein 1 form of finding an origin of the malware is engaging in incident correlation, wherein an incident is compared to past incidents to see if there is a similarity; wherein another form of finding an origin of the malware is analyzing lineage of the malware; wherein the detector detects different types of anomalous events, including: anomalous log messages; data pipeline lineage; AI resource tracking; Artifacts change; AI risk forecasting; Copyright & legal exposure; Sensitive information disclosure; Data privacy violation; Social engineering attack; Tagging attack; and Labelling attack; wherein the artificial intelligence system accepts prompts from a user; wherein the security platform performs prompt analytics on the prompts entered by the user; wherein the prompt analytics include prompt interaction analysis, prompt risk analysis, prompt injections detector and a prompt web application filter; wherein the artificial intelligence system accepts prompts from a user; wherein the security platform performs prompt analytics on the prompts entered by the user; and wherein the prompt analytics include prompt interaction analysis, prompt risk analysis, prompt injections detector and a prompt web application filter (Aguiar: Fig 1, Page 3, Sec 26 – Page 4, Sec 33).
Priority
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0247048 by Samosseiko et al. discloses malware detection
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0067906 by Florez et al. discloses AI system protection
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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.
MICHAEL S. MCNALLY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2432
/Michael S McNally/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
