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 .
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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No.12,445,484. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1, 9, and 17 of US 12,445,484 closely map to Claims 1, 17, 18 of the current application.
Dependent claims of US 12,445,484 closely align with dependent claims of the current application.
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, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulusu US 2022/0329442 in view of Andrabi US 2023/0007023.
As per claim 1. Bulusu teaches A system, comprising: a processor configured to: receive, at a firewall appliance interposed between a client and a server, a network communication between the client and the server; [0109][0110][0113] (interception proxy)
Bulusu teaches determine, at the firewall appliance, and using the received network communication, that a ransomware attack is being attempted against the server; [0036][0109][0110][0113] (interception proxy, detection of ransomware and command and control connections)
Bulusu teaches and in response to detecting the attempted ransomware attack, perform a remedial action; and a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions. [0069] [0120] (remedial actions, blocking threats)
Andrabi more specifically teaches using the received network communication, that a ransomware attack is being attempted against the server; [0040][0055] [0113]-[0115] (teaches anomaly detection system that specifically can be installed client side, server side, or administrator/middle device to detect ransomware actions, and provide remediation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to use the teaching of Andrabi with Bulusu because it provides more effective ransomware protection.
As per claim 2. The system of claim 1, Andrabi teaches wherein the network communication comprises server message block (SMB) traffic. [0115]-[0117] (blocks client smb traffic)
As per claim 14. The system of claim 1, Andrabi teaches wherein the determining includes forwarding, by the firewall appliance, at least a portion of the network communication to a remote device. [0053][0120] (sending anomalies to remote admin device)
As per claim 15. Bulusu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein performing the remedial action includes blocking the client from accessing the server. [0069] [0120] (remedial actions, blocking threats)
As per claim 16. Bulusu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein performing the remedial action includes generating an alert. [0069] [0120] (remedial actions, alerts, blocking threats)
As per claim 17. Bulusu teaches A method, comprising: receiving, at a firewall appliance interposed between a client and a server, a network communication between a client and a server; [0109][0110][0113] (interception proxy)
Bulusu teaches determining, at the firewall appliance, and using the received network communication, that a ransomware attack is being attempted against the server; [0036][0109][0110][0113] (interception proxy, detection of ransomware and command and control connections)
Bulusu teaches and in response to detecting the attempted ransomware attack, performing a remedial action. [0069] [0120] (remedial actions, blocking threats)
Andrabi more specifically teaches using the received network communication, that a ransomware attack is being attempted against the server; [0040][0055] [0113]-[0115] (teaches anomaly detection system that specifically can be installed client side, server side, or administrator/middle device to detect ransomware actions, and provide remediation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to use the teaching of Andrabi with Bulusu because it provides more effective ransomware protection.
As per claim 18. Bulusu teaches A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for: receiving, at a firewall appliance interposed between a client and a server, a network communication between a client and a server; [0109][0110][0113] (interception proxy)
Bulusu teaches determining, at the firewall appliance, and using the received network communication, that a ransomware attack is being attempted against the server; [0036][0109][0110][0113] (interception proxy, detection of ransomware and command and control connections)
Bulusu teaches and in response to detecting the attempted ransomware attack, performing a remedial action. [0069] [0120] (remedial actions, blocking threats)
Andrabi more specifically teaches using the received network communication, that a ransomware attack is being attempted against the server; [0040][0055] [0113]-[0115] (teaches anomaly detection system that specifically can be installed client side, server side, or administrator/middle device to detect ransomware actions, and provide remediation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to use the teaching of Andrabi with Bulusu because it provides more effective ransomware protection.
Claim(s) 3-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulusu US 2022/0329442 in view of Andrabi US 2023/0007023 in view of Constantinescu US 2021/0319103.
As per claim 3. The system of claim 1, Constantinescu teaches wherein the firewall appliance is configured to determine a is file type in response to the client transmitting a read request to the server and wherein the firewall appliance is configured to save the filetype in a session state. [0036][0037] [0047] [0052][0053] [0063][0066] (detect read write operations, save collected data, teaches the detection mechanism is a daemon that may be installed on client, server, off client, or on a server detecting client actions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to use the teaching of Constantinescu with the prior art because it provides more effective ransomware protection.
As per claim 4. The system of claim 1, Constantinescu teaches wherein the determining is based at least in part on the firewall appliance detecting a file encryption operation initiated by the client. [0036][0047][0050][0052][0053] [0063][0066] (teaches detection of ransomware-based encryption)
As per claim 5. The system of claim 4, Constantinescu teaches wherein detecting the file encryption includes detecting a filetype change initiated by the client during a write operation.
[0036][0047][0050][0052][0053][0066] (teaches filetype change with write)
Andrabi teaches filetype anomaly. [0077]
As per claim 6. The system of claim 4, Constantinescu teaches wherein detecting the file encryption includes detecting a file rename operation initiated by the client during a write operation. [0036][0047][0050][0052][0053] [0063][0066] (teaches detection of ransomware based on write length pattern)
As per claim 7. The system of claim 4, Constantinescu teaches wherein detecting the file encryption includes detecting a file entropy change during a write operation initiated by the client. [0036][0047][0050][0052][0053] [0063][0066] (entropy detection)
As per claim 8. The system of claim 4, Constantinescu teaches wherein detecting the file encryption includes determining whether file contents match what is expected for an associated extension during a write operation initiated by the client. [0036][0047][0050][0052][0053] (detecting file replacing and what is expected)
As per claim 9. The system of claim 4, Constantinescu teaches wherein the file encryption is a partial encryption initiated by the client. [0052] (partial encryption)
As per claim 10. The system of claim 9, Constantinescu teaches wherein the partial encryption is detected at least in part based on a subset of blocks having entropy that significantly differs between a read operation and write operation initiated by the client. [0047][0052] (read and write entropy calculations) (overwriting file with high entropy)
As per claim 11. The system of claim 9, Constantinescu teaches wherein the partial encryption is detected at least in part based on a write offset associated with a write operation initiated by the client. [0036][0047][0050][0052][0053] (teaches detection of ransomware based on write offset operation)
As per claim 12. The system of claim 9, Constantinescu wherein the partial encryption is detected at least in part based on a write length pattern associated with a write operation initiated by the client. [0036][0047][0050][0052][0053] (teaches detection of ransomware based on write length pattern)
As per claim 13. The system of claim 4, Constantinescu wherein the detecting is performed prior to a complete file write io operation initiated by the client. [0036][0047][0050] (teaches detection in real-time prior to completion)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at (571) 270-5002. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights