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
1. The following is a Final Office Action in response to applicant’s arguments filed on July 7, 2026
Claims 1-24 are pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but, is not persuasive. In the remarks, applicant argues:a) In regards to claim 1, Nevill does not teach "intercepting one or more intercepted IPCs from an Al agent of the plurality of generative Al agents to an external tool server" as recited by claims 1 and 16. The Examiner relies on Nevill paragraph [0080], which describes circuitry "configured to enable inter-process communications between independent software packages to enable the independent software packages to collaborate to achieve global goals." See Nevill, paragraph [0080]. Nothing in the cited Nevill passages describes a component that sits between two communicating entities and captures their communications in transit. To the contrary, Nevill describes creating or enabling the communication channel itself so that software packages can collaborate. The Examiner's mapping conflates enabling communications with intercepting them, which are fundamentally different operations.Applicant further submits that even if the Examiner were to argue that IPCs fall within the "environment" that the agent observes under Nevill paragraphs [0081]一[0082], such an argument would not cure this deficiency. Nevill paragraph [0082] explicitly enumerates the "environment" the agent observes as identifying characteristics of the software project's configuration: "a software project type, a programm ing language used, a project folder structure, names and versions of compilers, interpreters, runtime environments, dependencies, and an operating system." See Nevill, paragraph [0082] The agent collects identifying data, such as "names and versions of" compilers, interpreters, runtime environments, and the like, rather than monitoring or intercepting dynamic communications flowing through those environments.b) Nevill also does not teach or suggest "performing a security analysis on the one or more intercepted IPCs for security threats" as recited by claims 1 and 16. The Examiner cites Nevill paragraph [00496], which states that IPC "enables software to communicate information and/or knowledge about the computing environment, performance issues, security issues." See Nevill, paragraph [00496]. However, this passage describes software using IPC to share information about security issues with other software. It does not describe analyzing the IPC communications themselves for security threats.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. In regards to argument “a”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Figure 5, item 506, discloses a data analysis system that is configured to capture data between the client side[510] and object networks[508]. In paragraph 0093, Nevill additionally discloses that the data analysis system, in collaboration with generative artificial intelligence, causes an agent to observe and understand the environment of the agent by collecting data[i.e. intercept]. That is, the data analysis system intercepts the data flow between the client and the object networks. Moreover, since the agent is provided by the data analysis system [para. 0081], the environment of the agent necessarily includes all the monitored and collected data[i.e. intercepted] flowing between the client and the object networks. In response to argument “b”, paragraph 0091 discloses that the data analysis system enables inter-process communication (IPC). Therefore, the IPC is operable to have the data analysis system to perform security analysis on intercepted IPC flows.
Claim Interpretation 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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or preAIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a system for securing inter-processing communications... in claim 16…comprising: means for intercepting…; means for performing a security analysis…; means for performing a permission validation…; and means for approving or blocking…. Figure 74 of the drawings discloses an algorithm for performing the steps of intercepting, security analysis, validation, and approval. Therefore, there exists sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions of the cited claim limitations.Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or preAIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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.
1..) Claims 1, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024137770, Nevill in view of US 20130047264, Bjorkengren
In regards to claim 1, Nevill teaches a computer-implemented method for securing inter-process communications (IPCs) between a plurality of generative Al agents associated with Large Language Models (LLMs) and one or more external tool servers, comprising:intercepting one or more intercepted IPCs from an Al agent of the plurality of generative Al agents to an external tool server, each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs comprising a requested operation(WO 2024137770, Nevill, para. 0080, 0082 {00496 and 00497}: [0080]- In some embodiments, the circuitry is configured to enable inter-process communications between independent software packages to enable the independent software packages to collaborate to achieve global goals. [0082]- In yet another aspect of the present disclose, a data analysis system includes circuitry configured to provide an object social network based agent to coordinate with a generative artificial intelligence to generate software code.);performing a security analysis on the one or more intercepted IPCs for security threats(WO 2024137770, Nevill, para. 00496, REST may enable inter-process Communications (IPC) between software packages that did not have such a feature. The IPC enables software to communicate information and/or knowledge about the computing environment, performance issues, security issues,); Nevill does not teach performing a permission validation for one or more permissions for the requested operation of each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs; and one of approving or blocking the requested operation of each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs based on the security analysis and the permission validation However, Bjorkengren teaches performing a permission validation for one or more permissions for the requested operation of each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs(US 20130047264, Bjorkengren, para. 0088, the process proceeds at step S16 where the DRM agent validates the license using a suitable DRM license validation mechanism, e.g. including checking the permissions and constraints specified in the license, e.g. whether the content can be printed (in addition to being displayed on the screen), whether the content can be played a second time, whether the validity period has passed, etc., and/or the like); and one of approving or blocking the requested operation of each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs based on the security analysis and the permission validation(US 20130047264, Bjorkengren, para. 0088, If this validation fails, the process aborts the download operation.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Nevill with the teaching of Bjorkengren because a user would have been motivated to use a digital rights management system, taught by Bjorkengren, in order to secure communication between devices taught by Nevill(Bjorkengren, para. 0013) In regards to claim 13, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the method of claim 1 wherein the security analysis, permission validation, and approving or blocking requested operations are performed in real-time(WO 2024137770, Nevill, para. 0079, utilize statistical analysis and the knowledge base to determine data value distribution and meaning, during software execution, continually observe real-time data values and perform outlier analysis on the real-time data values to detect outlier data, and report outlier data as an anomaly.).
In regards to claim 16, Nevill teaches a system for securing inter-process communications (IPCs) between a plurality of generative Al agents associated with Large Language Models (LLMs) and one or more external tool servers, comprising:means for intercepting one or more intercepted IPCs from an Al agent of the plurality of generative Al agents to an external tool server, each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs comprising a requested operation(WO 2024137770, Nevill, para. 0080, 0082 {00496 and 00497}: [0080]- In some embodiments, the circuitry is configured to enable inter-process communications between independent software packages to enable the independent software packages to collaborate to achieve global goals. [0082]- In yet another aspect of the present disclose, a data analysis system includes circuitry configured to provide an object social network based agent to coordinate with a generative artificial intelligence to generate software code.);means for performing a security analysis on the one or more intercepted IPCs for security threats(WO 2024137770, Nevill, para. 00496, REST may enable inter-process Communications (IPC) between software packages that did not have such a feature. The IPC enables software to communicate information and/or knowledge about the computing environment, performance issues, security issues,); Nevill does not teach means for performing a permission validation for one or more permissions for the requested operation of each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs; and means for one of approving or blocking the requested operation of each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs based on the security analysis and the permission validation However, Bjorkengren teaches means for performing a permission validation for one or more permissions for the requested operation of each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs(US 20130047264, Bjorkengren, para. 0088, the process proceeds at step S16 where the DRM agent validates the license using a suitable DRM license validation mechanism, e.g. including checking the permissions and constraints specified in the license, e.g. whether the content can be printed (in addition to being displayed on the screen), whether the content can be played a second time, whether the validity period has passed, etc., and/or the like); and means for one of approving or blocking the requested operation of each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs based on the security analysis and the permission validation(US 20130047264, Bjorkengren, para. 0088, If this validation fails, the process aborts the download operation.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Nevill with the teaching of Bjorkengren because a user would have been motivated to use a digital rights management system, taught by Bjorkengren, in order to secure communication between devices taught by Nevill(Bjorkengren, para. 0013)
2.) Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024137770, Nevill in view of US 20130047264, Bjorkengren and further in view of US 20250310376, Strogov In regards to claim 2, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren do not teach wherein performing the security analysis on the one or more intercepted IPCs for security threats comprises at least one:identifying one or more tool poisoning attacks using machine learning algorithms trained on IPC-specific attack patterns;detecting one or more instances of malicious content; and performing a risk assessment based on one or more contextual factors associated with the intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs including at least one of historical behavior and threat intelligence However, Strogov teaches wherein performing the security analysis on the one or more intercepted IPCs for security threats comprises at least one:identifying one or more tool poisoning attacks using machine learning algorithms trained on IPC-specific attack patterns(US 20250310376, Strogov, para. 0009, An exemplary method automatically generates VFHs that protect a computing system from ransomware attacks using an artificial intelligence device (AI device). The method comprises pretraining a generative machine-learning device, monitoring and detecting ransomware activity, and updating and testing the device and the VFHs.);detecting one or more instances of malicious content(US 20250310376, Strogov, para. 0119, In another example, data related to User Mode Hooking can be detected and analyzed, including identifying instances where user-mode hooking or hooking of user-level functions is used to manipulate the behavior of processes, potentially indicating malicious intent); and performing a risk assessment based on one or more contextual factors associated with the intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs including at least one of historical behavior and threat intelligence(US 20250310376, Strogov, para. 0127, Behavior engine 203 is further configured to mitigate risk to the computer system of the injected thread. For example, behavior engine 203 can generate an alert to a user and provide the user with detection results including an indication of the injected thread as a malware injection.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Strogov because a user would have been motivated to use generative AI, taught by Strogov, to automate protection from attacks on the system, taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren, from suspect actors(Strogov, para. 0008)
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the system of claim 16. The combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren do not teach wherein the means for performing the security analysis on the one or more intercepted IPCs for security threats is further operable to: identify one or more tool poisoning attacks using machine learning algorithms trained on IPC-specific attack patterns; detect one or more instances of malicious content; and perform a risk assessment based on one or more contextual factors associated with the intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs including at least one of historical behavior and threat intelligence However, Strogov teaches wherein the means for performing the security analysis on the one or more intercepted IPCs for security threats is further operable to: identify one or more tool poisoning attacks using machine learning algorithms trained on IPC-specific attack patterns(US 20250310376, Strogov, para. 0009, An exemplary method automatically generates VFHs that protect a computing system from ransomware attacks using an artificial intelligence device (AI device). The method comprises pretraining a generative machine-learning device, monitoring and detecting ransomware activity, and updating and testing the device and the VFHs.); detect one or more instances of malicious content(US 20250310376, Strogov, para. 0119, In another example, data related to User Mode Hooking can be detected and analyzed, including identifying instances where user-mode hooking or hooking of user-level functions is used to manipulate the behavior of processes, potentially indicating malicious intent); and perform a risk assessment based on one or more contextual factors associated with the intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs including at least one of historical behavior and threat intelligence(US 20250310376, Strogov, para. 0127, Behavior engine 203 is further configured to mitigate risk to the computer system of the injected thread. For example, behavior engine 203 can generate an alert to a user and provide the user with detection results including an indication of the injected thread as a malware injection.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Strogov because a user would have been motivated to use generative AI, taught by Strogov, to automate protection from attacks on the system, taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren, from suspect actors(Strogov, para. 0008)
3.) Claims 3, 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024137770, Nevill in view of US 20130047264, Bjorkengren and further in view of US 20260099791, Kishan
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren do not teach wherein intercepting the one or more intercepted IPCs comprises deploying a security gateway configured to intercept IPCs without requiring modifications to the Al agent of the plurality of generative Al agents transmitting the intercepted IPC or an external tool server of the one or more external tool servers intended to receive the intercepted IPC However, Kishan teaches wherein intercepting the one or more intercepted IPCs comprises deploying a security gateway configured to intercept IPCs without requiring modifications to the Al agent of the plurality of generative Al agents transmitting the intercepted IPC or an external tool server of the one or more external tool servers intended to receive the intercepted IPC (US 20260099791, Kishan, para. 0021 and 0089: [0021]- The workflow assistant 130 can be a frontend application which can be used during design phase by a system administrator 104 to create autonomous agents (also referred to as “generative AI agents”) for specific workflows and deploy these autonomous agents on the ERP system 100. [0089]- Nodes represent the various elements in the process, such as events, activities, and gateways, while links (typically depicted as arrows) indicate the flow or sequence in which these elements occur. Different processes within the workflow can be linked to one another through message flows, which allow communication and data exchange between separate pools or participants, ensuring coordination and continuity across the interconnected processes. One example of inter-process communication is when a message flow triggers the start event of a subsequent process, initiating its execution based on the execution of a previous process.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Kishan because a user would have been motivated to use generative AI, taught by Kishan, in order to improve workflow automation in the system taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren(Kishan, para. 0017)
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Kishan teach the method of claim 3 wherein the security gateway is configured to be deployed without requiring any modifications to existing applications associated with the one or more generating Al agents or applications associated with the one or more external tool servers(US 20260099791, Kishan, para. 0112, Based on the response generated by the LLM 830, the autonomous agent can perform a condition check at a gateway node 840 to determine what action to take. In certain cases, the response generated by the LLM 830 does not indicate any API call (i.e., no action) is needed.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Kishan because a user would have been motivated to use generative AI, taught by Kishan, in order to improve workflow automation in the system taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren(Kishan, para. 0017)
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the system of claim 16. The combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren do not teach wherein the means for intercepting the one or more intercepted IPCs is further operable to deploying a security gateway configured to intercept IPCs without requiring modifications to the Al agent of the plurality of generative Al agents transmitting the intercepted IPC or an external tool server of the one or more external tool servers intended to receive the intercepted IPC However, Kishan teaches wherein the means for intercepting the one or more intercepted IPCs is further operable to deploying a security gateway configured to intercept IPCs without requiring modifications to the Al agent of the plurality of generative Al agents transmitting the intercepted IPC or an external tool server of the one or more external tool servers intended to receive the intercepted IPC(US 20260099791, Kishan, para. 0021 and 0089: [0021]- The workflow assistant 130 can be a frontend application which can be used during design phase by a system administrator 104 to create autonomous agents (also referred to as “generative AI agents”) for specific workflows and deploy these autonomous agents on the ERP system 100. [0089]- Nodes represent the various elements in the process, such as events, activities, and gateways, while links (typically depicted as arrows) indicate the flow or sequence in which these elements occur. Different processes within the workflow can be linked to one another through message flows, which allow communication and data exchange between separate pools or participants, ensuring coordination and continuity across the interconnected processes. One example of inter-process communication is when a message flow triggers the start event of a subsequent process, initiating its execution based on the execution of a previous process.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Kishan because a user would have been motivated to use generative AI, taught by Kishan, in order to improve workflow automation in the system taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren(Kishan, para. 0017)
4.) Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024137770, Nevill in view of US 20130047264, Bjorkengren and further in view of US 20170346824, Mahabir and further in view of US 20170118215, Varadarajan
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the method of claim 1 wherein one of approving or blocking requests comprises: automatically approving low-risk operations(WO2024137770, Nevill, para. 0076, In some embodiments, the circuitry may be further configured to infer corresponding actions from the object social network to reduce an observed security risk.); the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren do not teach transmitting a request for user approval for medium-risk operations; and automatically blocking high-risk operations However, Mahabir teaches transmitting a request for user approval for medium-risk operations (US 20170346824, Mahabir, para. 0090, high risk devices may be excluded from accessing the network, low-risk devices allowed to access the network, while medium risk devices are presented in the organizational risk assessment application for approval before accessing the network); and automatically blocking high-risk operations(US 20170346824, Mahabir, para. 0141, a user of the administrator computer 130 may configure the RAS 105 to automatically deny network access to devices that are considered high-risk.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Mahabir because a user would have been motivated to utilize a risk assessment server, taught by Mahabir, in order to enhance hardware security in the system taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren by determining a device risk(Mahabir, para. 0006) the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir do not teach evaluating each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs to determine if the requested operation comprised by the intercepted IPC is a low-risk operation, a medium-risk operation, or a high-risk operation However, Varadarajan teaches evaluating each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs to determine if the requested operation comprised by the intercepted IPC is a low-risk operation, a medium-risk operation, or a high-risk operation (US 20170118215, Varadarajan, para. 0048, he request contains the password in the clear from the renderer process to the IPC manager. Because since this is a one-time step in the save password flow, such operation may be considered low risk. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir with the teaching of Varadarajan because a user would have been motivated to use a secure enclave in a trusted environment, taught by Varadarajan, in order to provide enhanced data protection to sensitive data in the system used by the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir(Varadarajan, para. 0018)
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the system of claim 16 wherein the means for one of approving or blocking requests is further operable to: automatically approving low-risk operations(WO2024137770, Nevill, para. 0076, In some embodiments, the circuitry may be further configured to infer corresponding actions from the object social network to reduce an observed security risk.); the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren do not teach transmitting a request for user approval for medium-risk operations; and automatically blocking high-risk operations However, Mahabir teaches transmitting a request for user approval for medium-risk operations(US 20170346824, Mahabir, para. 0090, high risk devices may be excluded from accessing the network, low-risk devices allowed to access the network, while medium risk devices are presented in the organizational risk assessment application for approval before accessing the network); and automatically blocking high-risk operations(US 20170346824, Mahabir, para. 0141, a user of the administrator computer 130 may configure the RAS 105 to automatically deny network access to devices that are considered high-risk.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Mahabir because a user would have been motivated to utilize a risk assessment server, taught by Mahabir, in order to enhance hardware security in the system taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren by determining a device risk(Mahabir, para. 0006) the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir do not teach evaluating each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs to determine if the requested operation comprised by the intercepted IPC is a low-risk operation, a medium-risk operation, or a high-risk operation However, Varadarajan teaches evaluating each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs to determine if the requested operation comprised by the intercepted IPC is a low-risk operation, a medium-risk operation, or a high-risk operation (US 20170118215, Varadarajan, para. 0048, he request contains the password in the clear from the renderer process to the IPC manager. Because since this is a one-time step in the save password flow, such operation may be considered low risk. ); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir with the teaching of Varadarajan because a user would have been motivated to use a secure enclave in a trusted environment, taught by Varadarajan, in order to provide enhanced data protection to sensitive data in the system used by the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir(Varadarajan, para. 0018).
5.) Claims 6, 7, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024137770, Nevill in view of US 20130047264, Bjorkengren and further in view of US 20170346824, Mahabir
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the method of claim 1 wherein each approved intercepted IPC is comprised by one or more approved requests, the method further comprising: monitoring the execution of the one or more approved requests for anomalous behavior(WO2024137770, Nevill, para. 0090, continually observing, by the data analysis system, real-time data values, performing, by the data analysis system, outlier analysis on the real-time data values to detect outlier data, and reporting, by the data analysis system, outlier data as an anomaly.); and the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren do not teach executing the one or more approved requests within an isolated security environment However, Mahabir teaches executing the one or more approved requests within an isolated security environment (US 20170346824, Mahabir, para. 0090, medium risk devices are presented in the organizational risk assessment application for approval before accessing the network.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Mahabir because a user would have been motivated to utilize a risk assessment server, taught by Mahabir, in order to enhance hardware security in the system taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren by determining a device risk(Mahabir, para. 0006)
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the method of claim 1 further comprising: checking each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs for cryptographic message signing(US 20130047264, Bjorkengren, para. 0088, Additionally, in some embodiments, prior to this processing, the integrity of the license may be checked, i.e. that it has not been tampered with. Whether this is desirable may depend on how the license is stored (e.g. in secure storage or common storage). Such a check may involve an evaluation of a digital signature, which then typically would involve PKI credentials.); continuously verifying entity identities associated with each of the generative Al agent of the one or more generative Al agents and the external tool server of the one or more external tool servers associated with an intercepted IPC throughout a plurality of IPCs therebetween(WO2024137770, Nevill, para. 0082, The circuitry may additionally cause the agent to understand a goal of a user through a prompt from the user, and infer an action through a language model of the generative artificial intelligence. In some embodiments, the circuitry may be further configured to cause the agent to identify a code issue, recommend a solution, and generate code from a user requirement.); and the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren do not teach maintaining a plurality of dynamic trust scores for each generative Al agent of the one or more generative Al agents and each external tool server of the one or more external tool servers associated with the intercepted IPC based on one or more behavior patterns identifiable from the plurality of IPCs However, Mahabir teaches teach maintaining a plurality of dynamic trust scores for each generative Al agent of the one or more generative Al agents and each external tool server of the one or more external tool servers associated with the intercepted IPC based on one or more behavior patterns identifiable from the plurality of IPCs (US 20170346824, Mahabir, para. 0134, The inherent application risk factors may include, for example, the operating system level the app is interacting with, known app vulnerabilities, community trust scores,). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Mahabir because a user would have been motivated to utilize a risk assessment server, taught by Mahabir, in order to enhance hardware security in the system taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren by determining a device risk(Mahabir, para. 0006)
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the system of claim 16 wherein each approved intercepted IPC is comprised by one or more approved requests, the system further comprising: means for monitoring the execution of the one or more approved requests for anomalous behavior(WO2024137770, Nevill, para. 0090, continually observing, by the data analysis system, real-time data values, performing, by the data analysis system, outlier analysis on the real-time data values to detect outlier data, and reporting, by the data analysis system, outlier data as an anomaly.); and the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren do not teach means for executing the one or more approved requests within an isolated security environment However, Mahabir teaches means for executing the one or more approved requests within an isolated security environment (US 20170346824, Mahabir, para. 0090, medium risk devices are presented in the organizational risk assessment application for approval before accessing the network.);. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Mahabir because a user would have been motivated to utilize a risk assessment server, taught by Mahabir, in order to enhance hardware security in the system taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren by determining a device risk(Mahabir, para. 0006)
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the system of claim 16 further comprising: means for checking each intercepted IPC of the one or more intercepted IPCs for cryptographic message signing(US 20130047264, Bjorkengren, para. 0088, Additionally, in some embodiments, prior to this processing, the integrity of the license may be checked, i.e. that it has not been tampered with. Whether this is desirable may depend on how the license is stored (e.g. in secure storage or common storage). Such a check may involve an evaluation of a digital signature, which then typically would involve PKI credentials.); means for continuously verifying entity identities associated with each of the generative Al agent of the one or more generative Al agents and the external tool server of the one or more external tool servers associated with an intercepted IPC throughout a plurality of IPCs therebetween(WO2024137770, Nevill, para. 0082, The circuitry may additionally cause the agent to understand a goal of a user through a prompt from the user, and infer an action through a language model of the generative artificial intelligence. In some embodiments, the circuitry may be further configured to cause the agent to identify a code issue, recommend a solution, and generate code from a user requirement.); and the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren do not teach means for maintaining a plurality of dynamic trust scores for each generative Al agent of the one or more generative Al agents and each external tool server of the one or more external tool servers associated with the intercepted IPC based on one or more behavior patterns identifiable from the plurality of IPCs However, Mahabir teaches means for maintaining a plurality of dynamic trust scores for each generative Al agent of the one or more generative Al agents and each external tool server of the one or more external tool servers associated with the intercepted IPC based on one or more behavior patterns identifiable from the plurality of IPCs (US 20170346824, Mahabir, para. 0134, The inherent application risk factors may include, for example, the operating system level the app is interacting with, known app vulnerabilities, community trust scores,). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Mahabir because a user would have been motivated to utilize a risk assessment server, taught by Mahabir, in order to enhance hardware security in the system taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren by determining a device risk(Mahabir, para. 0006)
6.) Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024137770, Nevill in view of US 20130047264, Bjorkengren and further in view of US 20170346824, Mahabir and further in view of US 20200311734, Mardikar
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir teach the method of claim 7. the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir do not teach further comprising: storing a registry of the one or more external tool servers and the plurality of dynamic trust scores in an immutable blockchain registry; using one or more smart contracts to manage access control decisions; and maintaining one or more tamper-proof audit trails of all security events( However, Mardikar teaches further comprising: storing a registry of the one or more external tool servers and the plurality of dynamic trust scores in an immutable blockchain registry(US 20200311734, Mardikar, para. 0005, the system may encrypt the dynamic trust score with a private key. The system may store the dynamic trust score on a digital identity management blockchain.); using one or more smart contracts to manage access control decisions(US 20200311734, Mardikar, para. 0070, In various embodiments, the blockchain may implement smart contracts that enforce data workflows in a decentralized manner.); and maintaining one or more tamper-proof audit trails of all security events(US 20200311734, Mardikar, para. Para. 0018, a system 200 may be based on one or more digital ledger technologies (“DLT”), as described herein, and may simplify and automate identity management and related processes by using the DLTs as a distributed and tamper-proof data store.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir with the teaching of Mardikar because a user would have been motivated to utilize the dynamic trust score, taught by Mardikar, in order to establish a degree of trustworthiness of the transactions performed in the system taught by the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir(Mardikar, para. 0003)
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir teach the system of claim 21. The combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir do not teach further comprising: means for storing a registry of the one or more external tool servers and the plurality of dynamic trust scores in an immutable blockchain registry; means for using one or more smart contracts to manage access control decisions; and means for maintaining one or more tamper-proof audit trails of all security events However, Mardikar teaches further comprising: means for storing a registry of the one or more external tool servers and the plurality of dynamic trust scores in an immutable blockchain registry(US 20200311734, Mardikar, para. 0005, the system may encrypt the dynamic trust score with a private key. The system may store the dynamic trust score on a digital identity management blockchain.); means for using one or more smart contracts to manage access control decisions(US 20200311734, Mardikar, para. 0070, In various embodiments, the blockchain may implement smart contracts that enforce data workflows in a decentralized manner.); and means for maintaining one or more tamper-proof audit trails of all security events(US 20200311734, Mardikar, para. Para. 0018, a system 200 may be based on one or more digital ledger technologies (“DLT”), as described herein, and may simplify and automate identity management and related processes by using the DLTs as a distributed and tamper-proof data store.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir with the teaching of Mardikar because a user would have been motivated to utilize the dynamic trust score, taught by Mardikar, in order to establish a degree of trustworthiness of the transactions performed in the system taught by the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Mahabir(Mardikar, para. 0003)
7.) Claims 9-11, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024137770, Nevill in view of US 20130047264, Bjorkengren and further in view of US 20250061399, Fraccaro and further in view of US 11606245, Masjuan
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren do not teach wherein intercepting IPCs comprises: deploying at least one of a first security sidecar for a first security sidecar associated with a generative Al agent application; deploying at least one of a second security sidecar associated with an external tool server application; However, Fraccaro teaches wherein intercepting IPCs comprises: deploying at least one of a first security sidecar for a first security sidecar associated with a generative Al agent application(US 20250061399, Fraccaro, para. 0074, the observability module runs as a centralized multi-agent-AI based module to monitor and analyze ongoing workflow execution and intermediate outputs as well as predicted output metrics. This is implemented as a stateless component 602a, 602b in this example, for instance as a container, a process, etc., in a sidecar pattern to the main model task (workflow) (604a, 604b).); deploying at least one of a second security sidecar associated with an external tool server application(US 20250061399, Fraccaro, para. 0074, Sidecars can be added seamlessly and independently of workflows.); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Fraccaro because a user would have been motivated to use geospatial -temporal modeling workflow, taught by Fraccaro, to provide execution control rules in order to determine intervention actions to take on workflows not meeting a targeted metric in the system taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren(Fraccaro, para. 0003) and the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Fraccaro do not teach implementing bidirectional security validation through secure communication between the first and second security sidecars However, Masjuan teaches implementing bidirectional security validation through secure communication between the first and second security sidecars (US 11606245, Masjuan, col. 3, lines 16-20 and 25-28, FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example of a distributed computing environment 100 with an endpoint validator 104 for validating an endpoint 110 in a service mesh 102 according to some aspects of the present disclosure…the service mesh 102 may be the Istio™ service mesh and may employ Envoy™ sidecar proxies as endpoints.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Fraccoro with the teaching of Masjuan because a user would have been motivated to use an endpoint validator, taught by Masjuan, in order to identify discrepancies between configuration settings and configuration data in the system taught by the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Fraccoro(Masjuan, col. 2, lines 22-56)
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Nevil, Bjorkengren, Fraccaro and Masjuan teach the method of claim 9 wherein implementing bidirectional security validation comprises: intercepting outgoing requests comprised by the intercepted IPCs at the first security sidecar(WO 2024137770, Nevill, para. 0080, In some embodiments, the circuitry is configured to enable inter-process communications between independent software packages to enable the independent software packages to collaborate to achieve global goals.); generating validated outgoing requests by performing a first security validation on the outgoing requests(US 20250061399, Fraccaro, para. 0074, the observability module runs as a centralized multi-agent-AI based module to monitor and analyze ongoing workflow execution and intermediate outputs as well as predicted output metrics. This is implemented as a stateless component 602a, 602b in this example, for instance as a container, a process, etc., in a sidecar pattern to the main model task (workflow) (604a, 604b).); transmitting validated outgoing requests from the first security sidecar to the second security sidecar(US 11606245, Masjuan, col. 3, lines 16-20 and 25-28, FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example of a distributed computing environment 100 with an endpoint validator 104 for validating an endpoint 110 in a service mesh 102 according to some aspects of the present disclosure…the service mesh 102 may be the Istio™ service mesh and may employ Envoy™ sidecar proxies as endpoints.); generating supplementally validated outgoing requests by performing supplemental validation at the second security sidecar(US 11606245, Masjuan, col. 3, lines 50-59, The endpoint validator 104 may access the set of settings 128 from the platform API 126, for example by transmitting a request for the settings 128 to the platform API 126. The service mesh 102 includes a data plane 106 and a control plane 108. The data plane 106 includes an endpoint 110 for a corresponding service 132. Although FIG. 1 depicts a single endpoint 110 for a single service for simplicity, in some examples multiple endpoints may be included for multiple services.); forwarding the supplementally validated outgoing requests to an external tool server of the one or more external tool servers(US 11606245, Masjuan, col. 4, lines 20-24, The endpoint validator 104 may access the configuration settings 114 for the endpoint 110 by interacting with the administrative portal 112, for example by transmitting a request to the administrative portal 112.); intercepting tool responses comprised by the intercepted IPCs at the second security sidecar(US 11606245, Masjuan, col. 6, lines 1-3, In some examples, the endpoint validator 104 may validate an endpoint 110 in response to a trigger. For example, the trigger can include a command from a user.); and generating validated tool responses by validating a response integrity of the tool responses(US 20130047264, Bjorkengren, para. 0088, This evaluation may include the processing of a suitable Rights Expression Language (REL). Additionally, in some embodiments, prior to this processing, the integrity of the license may be checked, i.e. that it has not been tampered with. Whether this is desirable may depend on how the license is stored (e.g. in secure storage or common storage). Such a check may involve an evaluation of a digital signature,); and delivering the validated tool responses to a generative Al agent of the one or more generative Al agents(WO 2024137770, Nevill, para. 0082, In yet another aspect of the present disclose, a data analysis system includes circuitry configured to provide an object social network based agent to coordinate with a generative artificial intelligence to generate software code). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Fraccoro with the teaching of Masjuan because a user would have been motivated to use an endpoint validator, taught by Masjuan, in order to identify discrepancies between configuration settings and configuration data in the system taught by the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Fraccoro(Masjuan, col. 2, lines 22-56)
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Nevil, Bjorkengren, Fraccaro and Masjuan teach the method of claim 9 wherein at least one the first and second security sidecars is a proxy for a security sidecar(US 20250061399, Fraccaro, para. 0074, the sidecar component and model task execute as part of a single pod on a hybrid cloud platform, and the sidecar component is configured for automated injection of a user-specified workflow configuration into the observability module for use in workflow execution. Sidecars can be added seamlessly and independently of workflows.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Masjuan with the teaching of Fraccaro because a user would have been motivated to use geospatial -temporal modeling workflow, taught by Fraccaro, to provide execution control rules in order to determine intervention actions to take on workflows not meeting a targeted metric in the system taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren(Fraccaro, para. 0003)
In regards to claim 23, the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren teach the system of claim 16. The combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren do not teach wherein the means for intercepting IPCs is further operable to: deploy at least one of a first security sidecar for a first security sidecar associated with a generative Al agent application;deploy at least one of a second security sidecar associated with an external tool server application; However, Fraccaro teaches wherein the means for intercepting IPCs is further operable to: deploy at least one of a first security sidecar for a first security sidecar associated with a generative Al agent application(US 20250061399, Fraccaro, para. 0074, the observability module runs as a centralized multi-agent-AI based module to monitor and analyze ongoing workflow execution and intermediate outputs as well as predicted output metrics. This is implemented as a stateless component 602a, 602b in this example, for instance as a container, a process, etc., in a sidecar pattern to the main model task (workflow) (604a, 604b).);deploy at least one of a second security sidecar associated with an external tool server application(US 20250061399, Fraccaro, para. 0074, Sidecars can be added seamlessly and independently of workflows.); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Fraccaro because a user would have been motivated to use geospatial -temporal modeling workflow, taught by Fraccaro, to provide execution control rules in order to determine intervention actions to take on workflows not meeting a targeted metric in the system taught by the combination of Nevill and Bjorkengren(Fraccaro, para. 0003) and the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Fraccaro do not teach implement bidirectional security validation through secure communication between the first and second security sidecars However, Masjuan teaches implement bidirectional security validation through secure communication between the first and second security sidecars(US 11606245, Masjuan, col. 3, lines 16-20 and 25-28, FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example of a distributed computing environment 100 with an endpoint validator 104 for validating an endpoint 110 in a service mesh 102 according to some aspects of the present disclosure…the service mesh 102 may be the Istio™ service mesh and may employ Envoy™ sidecar proxies as endpoints.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Fraccoro with the teaching of Masjuan because a user would have been motivated to use an endpoint validator, taught by Masjuan, in order to identify discrepancies between configuration settings and configuration data in the system taught by the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Fraccoro(Masjuan, col. 2, lines 22-56)
In regards to claim 24, the combination of Nevil, Bjorkengren, Fraccaro and Masjuan teach The system of claim 23 wherein the means for implementing bidirectional security validation is further operable to: intercept outgoing requests comprised by the intercepted IPCs at the first security sidecar(WO 2024137770, Nevill, para. 0080, In some embodiments, the circuitry is configured to enable inter-process communications between independent software packages to enable the independent software packages to collaborate to achieve global goals.); generate validated outgoing requests by performing a first security validation on the outgoing requests(US 20250061399, Fraccaro, para. 0074, the observability module runs as a centralized multi-agent-AI based module to monitor and analyze ongoing workflow execution and intermediate outputs as well as predicted output metrics. This is implemented as a stateless component 602a, 602b in this example, for instance as a container, a process, etc., in a sidecar pattern to the main model task (workflow) (604a, 604b).); transmit validated outgoing requests from the first security sidecar to the second security sidecar(US 11606245, Masjuan, col. 3, lines 16-20 and 25-28, FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example of a distributed computing environment 100 with an endpoint validator 104 for validating an endpoint 110 in a service mesh 102 according to some aspects of the present disclosure…the service mesh 102 may be the Istio™ service mesh and may employ Envoy™ sidecar proxies as endpoints.); generate supplementally validated outgoing requests by performing supplemental validation at the second security sidecar(US 11606245, Masjuan, col. 3, lines 50-59, The endpoint validator 104 may access the set of settings 128 from the platform API 126, for example by transmitting a request for the settings 128 to the platform API 126.
The service mesh 102 includes a data plane 106 and a control plane 108. The data plane 106 includes an endpoint 110 for a corresponding service 132. Although FIG. 1 depicts a single endpoint 110 for a single service for simplicity, in some examples multiple endpoints may be included for multiple services.); forward the supplementally validated outgoing requests to an external tool server of the one or more external tool servers(US 11606245, Masjuan, col. 4, lines 20-24, The endpoint validator 104 may access the configuration settings 114 for the endpoint 110 by interacting with the administrative portal 112, for example by transmitting a request to the administrative portal 112.); intercept tool responses comprised by the intercepted IPCs at the second security sidecar(US 11606245, Masjuan, col. 6, lines 1-3, In some examples, the endpoint validator 104 may validate an endpoint 110 in response to a trigger. For example, the trigger can include a command from a user.); and generate validated tool responses by validating a response integrity of the tool responses(US 20130047264, Bjorkengren, para. 0088, This evaluation may include the processing of a suitable Rights Expression Language (REL). Additionally, in some embodiments, prior to this processing, the integrity of the license may be checked, i.e. that it has not been tampered with. Whether this is desirable may depend on how the license is stored (e.g. in secure storage or common storage). Such a check may involve an evaluation of a digital signature,); and deliver the validated tool responses to a generative Al agent of the one or more generative Al agents(WO 2024137770, Nevill, para. 0082, In yet another aspect of the present disclose, a data analysis system includes circuitry configured to provide an object social network based agent to coordinate with a generative artificial intelligence to generate software code). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Fraccoro with the teaching of Masjuan because a user would have been motivated to use an endpoint validator, taught by Masjuan, in order to identify discrepancies between configuration settings and configuration data in the system taught by the combination of Nevill, Bjorkengren and Fraccoro(Masjuan, col. 2, lines 22-56)
8.) Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024137770, Nevill in view of US 20130047264, Bjorkengren and further in view of US 20200304528, Ackerman
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Nevil and Bjorkengren teach the method of claim 1 further comprising: continuously monitoring all MCP communications for threat patterns(WO2024137770, Nevill, para. 0090, continually observing, by the data analysis system, real-time data values, performing, by the data analysis system, outlier analysis on the real-time data values to detect outlier data, and reporting, by the data analysis system, outlier data as an anomaly.); the combination of Nevil and Bjorkengren do not teach detecting security incidents using at least one of signature-based detection and behavioral analysis; and automatically implementing containment measures for high-severity threats However, Ackerman teaches detecting security incidents using at least one of signature-based detection and behavioral analysis(US 20200304528, Ackerman, para. 0036, The method may further include remediating a risk to a high business value computing object in response to a user input in the user interface. The integrative model may evaluate a potential threat by computer objects based on one or more of file behavior, file signature,); and automatically implementing containment measures for high-severity threats(US 20200304528, Ackerman, para. 0223, In another aspect, the method 1300 may include remediating a risk to a high business value computing object in response to a user input in the user interface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevil and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Ackerman because a user would have been motivated to enhance computer security, taught by Ackerman, by using machine learning techniques to filter and prioritize threats detected in the system taught by the combination of Nevil and Bjorkengren(Ackerman, para. 0004)
9.) Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024137770, Nevill in view of US 20130047264, Bjorkengren and further in view of US 20020016729, Breitenbach
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Nevil and Bjorkengren teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Nevil and Bjorkengren do not teach wherein the IPC is a standardized framework for inter-process communication However, Breitenbach teaches wherein the IPC is a standardized framework for inter-process communication (US 20020016729, Breitenbach, para. 0112, Preferably, the event-based scheduling system 1 includes business to business enabling technology having an open standards framework and provides gateways to various methods of inter-process communications.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Nevil and Bjorkengren with the teaching of Breitenbach because a user would have been motivated to use an event participant, taught by Breitenbach, to schedule and status of events performed in the system taught by the combination of Nevil and Bjorkengren using a remote computing platform in order to more efficiently and accurately schedule events(Breitenbach, para. 0015) In regards to claim 15, the combination of Nevil, Bjorkengren and Breitenbach the method of claim 14 wherein the IPC complies with at least one of Model Context Protocol, Unified Intent Mediator Protocol, and OpenAl Work with Apps Protocol(WO 2024137770, Nevill, para. 0496 and 0498: [0496]- REST may enable Inter-Process Communications (IPC) between software packages that did not have such a feature. The IPC enables software to Atty. Ref.54639-399896 communicate information and/or knowledge about the computing environment, performance issues, security issues, or user behaviors between each other… [0498]-An example implementation is an integrated development environment (IDE) plugin, such as a plugin for Microsoft Visual Studio, that uses a generative AI (e.g., OpenAI’s ChatGPT) to generate software source code.)
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-7469. The examiner can normally be reached on 571 270 7469 from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Taghi Arani, can be reached on 571 272 3787. 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).
/GREGORY A LANE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2438
/TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights