DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 06/30/25. Claims 1-20 are still pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the computing device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Truskovsky et al. (2013/0326614).
Claim 16: Truskovsky et al. discloses a method comprising, at a security agent executing on a computing platform comprising a set of resources and a first application:
authenticating the security agent with a security device based on first identity information associated with the security agent(when multiple security modules are employed, some may verify tickets issued by other modules, such as by determining validity of the ticket and/or verifying digital signature) [page 11, paragraph 0129];
accessing a configuration profile defining a subset of network communication channels, in a set of network communication channels, to which the first application is permitted access(manifest identifies computer resources that an application will access…the computer resources including hardware components such as the various radios and/or software modules that provide access to the aforementioned communication buses) [page 6, paragraphs 0073-0075 | page 2, paragraphs 0027-0029];
monitoring the set of resources responsive to execution of the first application on the computing platform(requesting access to resources) [page 6, paragraph 0079]; and
executing a first action in response to detection of an access by the first application to a first network communication channel in the set of network communication channels, the first communication channel excluded from the subset of network communication channels(when request for secure resource is received, security module determines if the request includes a valid ticket, and if not, initiates procedure for generating a ticket) [page 7, paragraphs 0088-0089].
Claim 17: Truskovsky et al. discloses the method of Claim 16, wherein executing the first action comprises generating a command that causes the computing device to transition from a first operating mode to a second operating mode comprising a safe state(when ticket is valid the security module grants the requested access automatically, but when the ticket is not valid, the security module initiates a procedure for generating a ticket which may comprise prompting the user for manual authorization, hence transitioning to a safer mode of operation and/or safe state, so to speak) [page 7, paragraph 0089].
Claim 20: Truskovsky et al. discloses a method comprising, at a security agent executing on a computing platform comprising a set of resources and a first application:
authenticating the security agent with a security device based on first identity information associated with the security agent [page 11, paragraph 0129];
authenticating the first application based on second identity information associated with the first application(ticket contains application ID and is validated before permitting access to secured resources) [page 7, paragraph 0086 | page 10, paragraphs 0120-0121];
monitoring the set of resources responsive to execution of the first application on the computing platform [page 6, paragraph 0079]; and
in response to access by the first application to a first resource excluded from a subset of resources, in the set of resources, to which the first application is permitted access [page 7, paragraphs 0088-0089], generating a command that causes the computing platform to enter a safe state(when the ticket is not valid, the security module initiates a procedure for generating a ticket which may comprise prompting the user for manual authorization, hence entering a safer mode of operation and/or safe state, so to speak) [page 7, paragraph 0089].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 18 and 19 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.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,099 in view of Truskovsky et al. (2013/0326614).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed to a substantially similar technique for detecting and responding to security policy violations on a computing platform; and only differing in that the instant claims go on to specify minor nuances not found in the patented claims, such as that the configuration profile defines a network communication channels.
However, Truskovsky et al. discloses a similar invention and goes on to disclose each of the various deficiencies not found in the patented claims [page 6, paragraphs 0073-0074], as already discussed above in the prior art rejection(s).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the patented claims with the additional features of Truskovsky et al., in order to facilitate controlled access to secure resources by various applications, as suggested by Truskovsky et al. [page 1, paragraphs 0002 & 0016]; thus, arriving at patented claims which are not patently distinct from the instant claims and properly rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,543 in view of Truskovsky et al. (2013/0326614).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed to a substantially similar technique for detecting and responding to security policy violations on a computing platform; and only differing in that the patented claims go on to specify minor nuances not found in the instant claims, such as accessing the configuration profile defining various restrictions.
However, Truskovsky et al. discloses a similar invention and goes on to disclose each of the various deficiencies not found in the instant claims [page 6, paragraphs 0073-0074], as already discussed above in the prior art rejection(s).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the instant claims with the additional features of Truskovsky et al., in order to facilitate controlled access to secure resources by various applications, as suggested by Truskovsky et al. [page 1, paragraphs 0002 & 0016]; thus, arriving at instant claims which are not patently distinct from the patented claims and properly rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith et al. (2020/0021618).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights