THREAT MITIGATION SYSTEM AND METHOD

DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the application filed on 07/07/2025. Claims 91-120 are pending and are examined. 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 . Priority Applicant’s benefit claim is hereby acknowledged of the U.S patent application No. 18/635,680 filed on 04/15/2024, which is a continuation of U.S patent application No.17/729,221 filed on 04/26/2022, which is a continuation of U.S patent application No.17/105,125, filed on 11/25/2020, which claims benefit to the provisional application No. 62/940,733, filed on 11/26/2019, which papers have been placed on record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2025, 11/21/2025, 02/10/2026 and 07/31/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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 91-120 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 61-90 of any patents granted on application No. 18/635,680, claims 31-60 of any patents granted on application No. 17/729,221, claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 23-30 of any patents granted on application No.17/105,093 and claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-26 and 28-30 of any patents granted on application No. 17/105,125. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both claiming a common subject matter; “defining a unified query on a unified platform concerning a plurality of security relevant subsystems then de-normalizing the unified query to define a subsystem specific query for each of the plurality of security relevant subsystems.”. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 91-120 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection and claim objections, set forth in this office action. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for identifying allowable subject matter. The closest prior arts made of records are, Murphy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0006058 A1, referred to as Murphy), Purathepparambil et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0021620 A1, referred to as Purathepparambil) and Bartal et al. (Firmato: A Novel Firewall Management Toolkit, ACM, pages 381-420, November 2004, referred to as Bartal). Murphy discloses a method and a system for importing threat data from a plurality of threat data sources, thus generating a plurality of raw threat data definitions. The plurality of raw threat data definitions are processed, thus generating a plurality of processed threat data definitions. The plurality of processed threat data definitions are processed to form a master threat data definition. The master threat data definition is provided to one or more client electronic devices. Purathepparambil discloses a method and a system for contextually managing and executing a change in security behavior of a target user are provided. The system extracts multiple context attributes including activity telemetry, skill, etc., from multiple external applications. The system dynamically generates one or more security behavioral models for each user based on behavior modeling criteria. Bartal discloses techniques for configuring and managing firewalls to improve the protection of an entity’s intranet, based on appropriate security policy for the particular needs of the entity. However, regarding claims 91, 101 and 111, the prior art of Murphy, Purathepparambil and Bartal when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “defining a unified query on a unified platform concerning the plurality of security-relevant subsystems; and denormalizing the unified query to define a subsystem-specific query for each of the plurality of security-relevant subsystems, thus defining a plurality of subsystem-specific queries.”. Claims 92-100 depend on claim 91, claims 102-110 depend on claim 101 and claims 112-120 depend on claim 111, and are of consequence identified as allowable. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN SAADOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00. 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, Mehrmanesh Amir can be reached at 571-2703351. 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. /HASSAN SAADOUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2435 /AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435