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 in response to an application filed June 10, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory obviousness 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 claims at issue 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); 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of patent document no. 12,367,289 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter of controlling access of an object to system resources based on an overall risk score exceeding a threshold. A side-by-side analysis of the first independent claim(s) of the instant application and the copending application(s) has been included below. The bolded portions are portions which are almost identical to one another. The non-bolded portions are related to subject matter which are obvious, and do not further define over the subject matter of one another. Therefore, the subject matter of both claim sets are not distinct from one another and yields an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. This is NOT a provisional double patenting rejection since patent document (US 12,367,289 B2) has been issued while the instant application is pending.
Here is the following side-by-side analysis of the first independent claim in each application:
Instant Application ‘388
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating an aggregate risk score for an object deployed within a networked environment, the aggregate risk score based on a number of threat events and a corresponding set of severity scores for the object, wherein the aggregate risk score is based on an aggregation of a product of a severity score of each type of threat event and a number of each type of threat event;
determining an overall risk score for the object based on a modification of the aggregate risk score; and
controlling access of the object to system resources based on whether the overall risk score exceeds a predetermined risk threshold value.
Patent No. ‘289
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining, based on network activity related to an object deployed within a networked environment, a number of threat events for the object and a corresponding set of severity scores;
generating an aggregate risk score for the object based on the number of threat events and the corresponding set of severity scores, wherein the aggregate risk score is generated using the following equation: AggregrateRiskScore=.Math.iseverityi*events_counti wherein severity.sub.i represents a severity score of i.sup.th type of threat event, and events_count.sub.i represents a number of threat events of the i.sup.th type;
refining the aggregate risk score based on at least one weighting parameter to obtain an intermediate score;
scaling, using a scaling function, the intermediate score to obtain an overall risk score that represents a value within a predefined numerical range; and
controlling access of the object to system resources based on whether the overall risk score exceeds a predetermined risk threshold value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-11, 14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pilkington et al. (US 2019/0044969 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Pilkington discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating an aggregate risk score for an object deployed within a networked environment, the aggregate risk score based on a number of threat events and a corresponding set of severity scores for the object, wherein the aggregate risk score is based on an aggregation of a product of a severity score of each type of threat event and a number of each type of threat event (Abstract, [0005], [0020], and [0035], aggregating individual entity risk scores);
determining an overall risk score for the object based on a modification of the aggregate risk score ([0005], calculate a risk score using averaging or normalizing); and
controlling access of the object to system resources based on whether the overall risk score exceeds a predetermined risk threshold value ([0056], sending an alert advising risk threshold has been exceeded based on a determined risk score for the entire population).
With respect to claim 2, Pilkington discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining the overall risk score for the object comprises:
refining the aggregate risk score for each object based on at least one weighting parameter to obtain an intermediate score for each object ([0061], weighting aggregate statistics to adjust a relative importance of one or more aggregated statistics, and using averaging techniques to normalize the weighted aggregated risk scores); and
scaling, using a scaling function, the intermediate score to obtain an overall risk score for each object that represents a value within a predefined numerical range ([0005], if population goes down, the overall aggregate risk will go down, and using averaging or normalizing to further calculate a risk score).
With respect to claim 5, Pilkington discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the at least one weighting parameter comprises one or more of: a number of distinct use cases triggered during the number of threat events, a number of MITRE attacks tactics used during the number of threat events, and a category of the object (Abstract, allowing for sensitivity to different entity types or different threat types).
With respect to claim 7, Pilkington discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of objects is deployed within the networked environment, each object of the plurality of objects corresponding to a category of object and the method further comprises:
assigning a predetermined risk threshold value to each object, the predetermined risk threshold value determined individually for each object, wherein each category of object is assigned a different predetermined risk threshold value ([0056], perform loss prevention when risk threshold is exceeded by locking access to software to population defined by ad-hoc entity); and
comparing the overall risk score for each object to a respective predetermined risk threshold value for each object ([0050]).
With respect to claim 8, Pilkington discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein each category of object is one of a system account, a service account, a user account, and unknown ([0045]).
With respect to claim 9, Pilkington discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the predetermined risk threshold value for each object is dynamically assigned ([0069]).
With respect to claim(s) 10-11, 14, and 16-20, the system and non-transitory medium of claim(s) 10-11, 14, and 16-20 does/do not limit or further define over the method of claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 7-9. The limitations of claim(s) 10-11, 14, and 16-20 is/are essentially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 7-9. Therefore, claim(s) 10-11, 14, and 16-20 is/are rejected for the same reasons as claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 7-9. Please see rejection above.
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) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pilkington et al. (US 2019/0044969 A1), in view of Coppins et al. (US 2023/0153443 A1).
With respect to claims 3 and 12, Pilkington discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2 and system of claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the scaling function is a logarithmic sigmoid function;
However, Coppins discloses the scaling function is a logarithmic sigmoid function ([0026]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine the teachings of Pilkington with the teachings of Coppins and use a logarithmic sigmoid function as a scaling function, in order to scale and adjust the risk scores in a more refined manner (Coppins, [0026]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 6, 13, and 15 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Examiner has not found any reasonable prior art(s) nor combination of prior art(s) which teach the feature of ‘the logarithmic sigmoid function is represented by the following function:
In (1+) 1+ln(1+) wherein X represents the intermediate score and W represents a tunable weight parameter’ and ‘the intermediate score is determined using the following equation:
Intermediate score = Aggregate Risk Score * Category * use * 2 tacticcount
wherein Category represents the category of the object, use represents the number of distinct use cases triggered during the number of threat events, and tactic count represents the number of MITRE attacks tactics used during the number of threat events’.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER B. HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6a-2p ET.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/ESTHER B. HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458 September 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights