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.
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Priority
No foreign priority is claimed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS's) submitted on 1/2/2026 and 2/11/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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.
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) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) 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.
As to claims 11-20, claim limitations that claim modules, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses generic placeholders “simulation module” and “control module”, coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 11 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the claimed modules are software components as described in the specifications (para 0037 - “Any method, application or module herein described may be implemented using computer readable/executable instructions that may be stored or otherwise held by such computer readable media and executed by the one or more processors”; para 0049 – modules are executed), for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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).
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 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
For claims 5 and 15, the limitation - “…determining whether the cyberattack payload is projected to force the cyber-physical system to exit the safety set comprises determining whether the cyberattack payload can force the cyber-physical system to exit the safety set a predetermined amount of time into the future” is not clear in specification. The description is ambiguous or does not clearly convey as to what forcing the system to exit the safety set a predetermined amount of time in future means, in that, it is not clear as to what exit in future really is. It may be construed as exiting at a certain time in future, or exiting for a predetermined time in future. At best, as disclosed in para 0061, exiting at some time t into the future, is being relied upon to interpret the limitation as “force the cyber-physical system to exit the safety set at a predetermined amount of time into the future”. As such, the claims are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claims 5 and 15, the limitation - “… determining whether the cyberattack payload can force the cyber-physical system to exit the safety set a predetermined amount of time into the future” is not clear in specification. The description is ambiguous or does not clearly convey as to what forcing the system to exit the safety set a predetermined amount of time in future means, in that, it is not clear as to what exit in future really is. It may be construed as exiting at a certain time in future, or exiting for a predetermined time in future. The claims are thus rejected based on written description as failing to be supported by the original disclosure. See: MPEP §2163.01
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 obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over various claims of application# 18/795,878, now patent# 12,335,308 B1 (referred to as ‘308 hereinafter). Claims 1-3, 5-7, 8-10, 12-14 of ‘308 patent claim all the limitations set forth in the instant claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16 and 18-19.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are anticipated and covered by similar subject matter as that of generally narrower claims 1-3, 5-7, 8-10, 12-14 of ‘308 as also shown below.
Claim Comparison Table
Patent#
12,335,308
Instant Application
19/206,479
1. A method for modelling a cyber-physical system to act as a honeypot for cyberattacks, the method executed on one or more processing units in communication with a data storage, the method comprising:
building a virtual instance of the cyber-physical system comprising a physical layer and a cyber layer that controls the physical layer, the cyber layer comprising devices that comprise one or more of network devices, control units, sensors, and intelligent electronic devices, wherein the physical layer comprising a system model of the cyber-physical system, inputs to the system model comprising effects of the devices of the cyber layer on physical dynamics of the physical layer, and outputs of the system model comprising measurements of the physical dynamics received by the devices of the cyber layer;
generating a safety set defined by control barrier functions, the safety set delineates the bounds within which the cyber-physical system can operate safely;
receiving a cyberattack payload from an attacking device;
simulating the physical dynamics of the physical layer and operation of the cyber layer;
projecting whether the cyberattack payload can force the cyber-physical system to exit the safety set based on the simulated physical dynamics; and
performing a safety action on the cyber-physical system when the physical system is projected to exit the safety set due to the cyberattack payload
1. A method for modelling a cyber-physical system to act as a honeypot for cyberattacks, the method executed on one or more processing units in communication with a data storage, the modelling of the cyber-physical system comprises
a virtual instance that simulates the cyber-physical system, the method comprising:
receiving a cyberattack payload from an attacking device;
simulating physical dynamics within the cyber-physical system in response to the cyberattack payload using the virtual instance of the cyber-physical system;
projecting, based on the simulated physical dynamics, whether the cyberattack payload will force the cyber-physical system to exit a safety set that establishes safety thresholds;
performing a safety action when the cyber-physical system is projected to exit the safety set due to the cyberattack payload, the safety action comprising modifying the cyberattack payload such that the cyber-physical system is projected to remain within the safety set, and further simulating the physical dynamics within the cyber-physical system in response to the modified cyberattack payload using the virtual instance of the cyber-physical system; and outputting the simulated response of the cyber-physical system.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the virtual instance of the cyber-physical system comprises virtual instances of real devices, the real devices comprising one or more of network devices, network switches, network links, network controllers, virtual hosts, intelligent electronic devices, programmable logic controllers, or remote terminal units.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the attack payload is permitted to affect the cyber layer and alter the physical dynamics of the cyber-physical system while the cyber-physical system is projected to remain within the safety set.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the attack payload is permitted to alter the physical dynamics of the cyber-physical system while the cyber-physical system is projected to remain within the safety set.
Likewise, instant claim 11 is also anticipated by limitations of claim 8 of ‘308; instant claims 2-6 and 8 are covered by combinations of claims or individually by claims 1-3, 5-7 of ‘308; and instant claims 12-16 and 18 are covered by combinations of claims or individually by claims 8-10, 12-14 of ‘308. Further, a system claim may carry out method steps in a computing environment of the system with elements such as processor and memory. Therefore, it would be obvious to be able to carry out steps of a method, using a device or a system and executed by a processor of the system.
This is a non-provisional obviousness type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have been patented.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schenk et al. (US 2024/0241494 A1, hereinafter Schenk), in view of Edgar et al. (US 2020/0076850 A1, Edgar hereinafter).
For claim 1, Schenk teaches a method for modelling a cyber-physical system for cyberattacks, the method executed on one or more processing units in communication with a data storage (para 0075-0076), the modelling of the cyber-physical system comprises a virtual instance that simulates the cyber-physical system (Fig.1; para 0027, 0031, 0039-0041 – virtual commissioning of cyber-physical system with controller), the method comprising receiving a cyberattack payload from an attacking device (para 0039-0040 – detection of attack after receiving of data or payload); simulating physical dynamics within the cyber-physical system in response to the cyberattack payload using the virtual instance of the cyber-physical system (Abstract; para 0014, 0019, 0023, 0039, 0043 – simulating physical behavior of the physical layer and operations of the cyber-physical system as a digital-twin);
projecting, based on the simulated physical dynamics, whether the cyberattack payload will force the cyber-physical system to exit a safety set that establishes safety thresholds (Abstract; para 0018, 0038, 0048-0049, 0053, 0079 – deviation caused by anomaly of the incoming attack data wherein what-if scenario are projections based on provided input data based on configuration manipulations, wherein the deviations associated with safety net have thresholds associated therewith; also para 0100-0101; para 0018, 0021, 0026-0027, 0045 – data values that imply safety range or thresholds associated with proper functioning of the cyber-physical system);
performing a safety action when the cyber-physical system is projected to exit the safety set due to the cyberattack payload (para 0034, 0038-0040, 0057, 0097 – countermeasures as safety actions for deviations of the system from safe operation), the safety action comprising modifying the cyberattack payload such that the cyber-physical system is projected to remain within the safety set para 0037-0040, 0057, 0101 – payload manipulations via projected or what-if scenarios to put the system back into safe state, implying minimal/optimal manipulations), and further simulating the physical dynamics within the cyber-physical system in response to the modified cyberattack payload using the virtual instance of the cyber-physical system (para 0019, 0023, 0027, 0031, 0038-0040, 0043 - manipulations associated with data and system configurations to further simulate physical behavior of the physical layer and operations of the cyber-physical system as a digital-twin, with virtual commissioning of cyber-physical system with controller); and
outputting the simulated response of the cyber-physical system (para 0037-0040, 0100 - simulations and results).
Although preamble recites “a method for modelling a cyber-physical system to act as a honeypot for cyberattacks…” which is an intended application of the claimed invention as a honeypot for cyberattacks that can be implemented in any simulated physical and/or virtual environment receiving input attack data via network payload as widely known in the art, Schenk does not explicitly teach, whereas Edgar teaches honeypots or decoy systems that are for attack projections and attack determination in the received network data or attack payloads (para 0017, 0029-0030, 0033, 0040, 0066, 0084). Based on Schenk in view of Edgar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize teachings of Edgar in the system of Schenk, in order to incorporate attack prevention, detection and remediation to keep the system safe by utilizing widely known techniques of deploying honeypot or decoy systems to divert attackers.
For claim 2, Schenk in view of Edgar teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Schenk further teaches wherein the attack payload is permitted to alter the physical dynamics of the cyber-physical system while the cyber-physical system is projected to remain within the safety set (para 0016-0018, 0033-0039, 0057, 0095, 0102 – manipulations or alterations that affect in an acceptable manner (safe state) or in violation).
For claim 3, Schenk in view of Edgar teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Schenk further teaches wherein modifying the cyberattack payload comprises minimally modifying the cyberattack payload to have the cyber-physical system projected to remain within the safety set (para 0038-0040, 0057, 0101 – optimized manipulations via projected or what-if scenarios to put the system back into safe state, implying minimal or optimal manipulations).
For claim 4, Schenk in view of Edgar teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Schenk further teaches wherein projecting whether the cyberattack payload will force the cyber-physical system to exit the safety set comprises determining whether deviations in the measurements of the physical dynamics would trigger protective devices of the cyber-physical system (para 0033-0040, 0097 – protective devices in form of countermeasure generator are kicked-in when required based on the attack data and the corresponding projection of system deviation).
For claim 5, Schenk in view of Edgar teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Schenk further teaches wherein determining whether the cyberattack payload is projected to force the cyber-physical system to exit the safety set comprises determining whether the cyberattack payload can force the cyber-physical system to exit the safety set a predetermined amount of time into the future (para 0007, 0038, 0040-0041, 0050, 0055, 0080-0081 – predict future conditions over time or at a given time pertaining to input of data and system behavior of compliance or violation or exiting the safe state).
For claim 6, Schenk in view of Edgar teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Schenk further teaches wherein the safety set is defined by control barrier functions that establish the safety thresholds (para 0018, 0021, 0026-0027, 0045, 0079 – data values that imply safety range associated with proper functioning of the cyber-physical system).
For claim 8, Schenk in view of Edgar teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Schenk further teaches wherein the virtual instance of the cyber-physical system comprises virtual instances of real devices, the real devices comprising one or more of network devices, network switches, network links, network controllers, virtual hosts, intelligent electronic devices, programmable logic controllers, or remote terminal units (Fig. 1; para 0012-0014, 0021, 0030-0031, 0044 – physical and cyber simulations corresponding to sensors, controllers, devices, PLCs etc.).
For claim 9, Schenk in view of Edgar teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Schenk further teaches wherein the modelling of the cyber-physical system comprises connection to real physical devices in addition to the virtual instances of devices of the cyber-physical system (Fig. 1; para 0012-0014, 0021, 0027, 0030-0031, 0044 – physical and cyber simulations corresponding to sensors, controllers, devices etc.).
As to claim 11, the claim limitations are similar to those of claim 1, except claim 11 is claimed to a system comprising one or more processors in communication with a data storage, the data storage comprising instructions for the one or more processors (Schenk – Fig. 1-2; para 0075-0076) that execute the simulation module and the control module that perform the method of claim 1. Therefore claim 11 is rejected according to claim 1 above.
As to claims 12-16, and 18-19, the claim limitations are similar to those of claims 2-6 and 8-9 respectively. Therefore claims 12-16 and 18-19 are rejected according to claims 2-6 and 8-9 respectively as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, 17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon their rejected base claims, but would be allowable if incorporated in their respective base claims 1 and 11 including all of the limitations of the base claims 1 and 11 and any intervening claims, in addition to overcoming the above rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (1) Thepie - WO 2023084279 A1 (Modeling of adversarial AI for security)); (2) Crabtree - WO 2025024615 A2 (System for cyber exploitation path analysis) - are cited to show methods, computer program products and systems pertinent to cyber-physical system modelling for cyberattack simulation and prevention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH JHAVERI whose telephone number is (571)270-7584. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM to 5 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 Pwu can be reached on (571)272-6798. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAYESH M JHAVERI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
