DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application # 19/236,118 filed on June 12, 2025. Claims 1-22 are pending and are directed toward METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FORENSIC DATA TRACKING.
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 . 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.
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Dupont et al. (US 2014/0096249, Apr. 3, 2014), hereinafter referred to as Dupont.
As per claim 1, Dupont teaches a computing system comprising one or more network devices, the one or more network devices comprising one or more microprocessors and one or more memories that store executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more microprocessors, facilitate performance of operations (The system described in the present disclosure processes and analyzes electronic data continuously collected from any number of data sources [ 401]. Those data sources can be of virtually any type: a particular embodiment of the present disclosure only needs to extract the data and metadata from types of data sources relevant to the scenario at hand. Dupont, [0190]), comprising:
receiving meta data (Items [122], such as electronic communications [123] collected from any kind of communication channel [156] or electronic documents [162] can; upon processing by this disclosure, be assigned a number of item tags [142] which are a form of metadata [140] computed by the system on the basis of categorization components [146] such as an ontology [148] composed of a set of ontology classifiers [150], or a topic detection [152] method. Dupont, [0157]), the meta data comprising:
an endpoint identifier that is indicative of an endpoint with which the meta data is associated (A unique identifier is synthesized for every event [100], calculated as described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,143,091. Dupont, [0323]), and one or more of an electronic file name, a user identifier, an IP address, a URL, a software identifier and a computing device identifier (Dupont, [0324]-[0333], see also [0219]-[0222];
determining, based on analyzing the meta data, a pattern of activity that constitutes a deviation from normal behavior, wherein the deviation from normal behavior is determined by detecting that a deviation of one or both of a composition and a volume of the meta data (The system is able to infer potentially damaging activities, whether of unintentional or malicious nature, without requiring the prior definition of the type and characteristics of these activities. It relies on the analysis of potentially massive volumes of heterogeneous electronic data (includes both text-bearing and non-text-bearing records) stored inside or outside any organization. That analysis can be performed either in discrete increments or in real-time. The present disclosure establishes structural and semantic patterns from the analyzed data and builds a predictive multi-dimensional model of both individual and collective behavior which allows detecting abnormal patterns in these behaviors as well. Dupont, [0025]), relative to historical behavior (The anomaly detection component [450] continuously monitors the incoming stream of events [100] (both observed [102] and derived [104], including the behavioral model [200]) with the main goal of spotting anomalous behavior and anomalous patterns in the data based on statistical, analytical, and other types of properties associated to both recent data and historical data. Dupont, [0185]), is associated with one or more of a user, a set of users, the endpoint, a set of endpoints, the IP address, the URL, the software identifier, and the computing device identifier (Dupont, [0191]-[0198]).
As per claim 2, Dupont teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the meta data composition is useable to determine a data classification associated with the one or more of the user, the set of users, the endpoint, the set of endpoints, the IP address, the URL, the software identifier, and the computing device identifier (Dupont, [0157]).
As per claim 3, Dupont teaches the computing system of claim 2, wherein the meta data is usable to determine whether the data classification associated with the one or more of the user, the set of users, the endpoint, the set of endpoints, the IP address, the URL, the software identifier, and the computing device identifier is unauthorized for the one or more of the user, the set of users, the endpoint, the set of endpoints, the IP address, the URL, the software identifier, and the computing device identifier (Dupont, [0205], [0903]).
As per claim 4, Dupont teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the detecting that the deviation of one or both of the composition and the volume of the meta data relative to historical behavior is determined by detecting that the volume of the meta data has exceeded a predetermined threshold relative to the historical behavior of the one or more of the user, the set of users, the endpoint, the set of endpoints, the IP address, the URL, the software identifier, and the computing device identifier (Dupont, [0507]- [0509]).
As per claim 5, Dupont teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the detecting that the deviation of one or both of the composition and the volume of the meta data relative to historical behavior is determined by detecting that the volume of the meta data has exceeded a percentage change of meta data relative to the historical behavior of the one or more of the user, the set of users, the endpoint, the set of endpoints, the IP address, the URL, the software identifier, and the computing device identifier (Dupont, [0507]- [0509]).
As per claim 11, Dupont teaches the computing system of claim 3, wherein the determining that the data classification associated with the one or more of the user, the set of users, the endpoint, the set of endpoints, the IP address, the URL, the software identifier, and the computing device identifier is unauthorized for one or more actions (Dupont, [0205], [0903]) comprising downloading, sharing, and accessing (Dupont, [0785]).
As per claim 13, Dupont teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the deviation from normal behavior is related to a deviation in actions associated with one or more of the user, the set of users, the endpoint, the set of endpoints, the IP address, the URL, the software identifier, and the computing device identifier (Dupont, [0016]).
As per claim 14, Dupont teaches the computing system of claim 13, wherein the actions associated with one or more of the user, the set of users, the endpoint, the set of endpoints, the IP address, the URL, the software identifier, and the computing device comprise one or more of downloading, sharing, and accessing (Dupont, [0785]).
As per claim 17, Dupont teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise performing one or more responsive actions related to the determining the deviation from normal behavior associated with one or more of the user, the set of users, the endpoint, the set of endpoints, the IP address, the URL, the software identifier, and the computing device identifier (Dupont, [0167]).
As per claim 18, Dupont teaches the computing system of claim 17, wherein the one or more responsive actions comprises one or more of redacting, deleting, encrypting, predicting, and alerting regarding the deviation from normal behavior (Dupont, [0167]).
As per claim 19, Dupont teaches the computing system of claim 18, wherein the responsive action of predicting is operable to predict breaches of data associated with or more of the user, the set of users, the endpoint, the set of endpoints, the IP address, the URL, the software identifier, and the computing device (Dupont, [0167]).
As per claim 21, Dupont teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the deviation from normal behavior is determined at least in part based on one or more of a policy and a setting associated with the one or more of the user, the set of users, the endpoint, the set of endpoints, the IP address, the URL, the software identifier, and the computing device identifier (Dupont, [0202]-[0206]).
Claims 6-10, 12, 15, 16, 20, and 22 have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection, and are met by the references as discussed above, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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 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 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 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of US patent No. 10,999,300, over claims 1-16 of US patent No. 10,498,745, over claims 1-27 of US patent No. 11,637,840, over claims 1-30 of US patent No. 11,895,125, and over claims 1-32 of US patent No. 12,363,134. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-22 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-25 of US patent No. 10,999,300, over claims 1-16 of US patent No. 10,498,745, over claims 1-27 of US patent No. 11,637,840, over claims 1-30 of US patent No. 11,895,125, and over claims 1-32 of US patent No. 12,363,134. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-25 of US patent No. 10,999,300, over claims 1-16 of US patent No. 10,498,745, over claims 1-27 of US patent No. 11,637,840, over claims 1-30 of US patent No. 11,895,125, and over claims 1-32 of US patent No. 12,363,134 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims 1-25 of US patent No. 10,999,300, over claims 1-16 of US patent No. 10,498,745, over claims 1-27 of US patent No. 11,637,840, over claims 1-30 of US patent No. 11,895,125, and over claims 1-32 of US patent No. 12,363,134. And as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG KORSAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1938. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:00 AM- 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saleh Najjar can be reached on (571) 272-4006. 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.
/OLEG KORSAK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
