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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 10, 15, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“URL” in claims 4, 15, and 20 should be written in expanded form in its first instance of appearance.
“artifacts.,” in line 5 of claim 10 should read “artifacts,”.
“the one or more processor” in line 2 of claim 17 and “the processor” in line 2 of claims 18 and 19 should read “the one or more processors”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first object type” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant can overcome this rejection by reciting “the type of the first object”. Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 and thus also have this issue. Similar issue also exists in line 11 of independent claim 12 and line 10 of independent claim 17. Claims 13-16 and 18-20 respectively depend from independent claims 12 and 17 and thus also have this issue.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the plurality of risk scores” in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 12-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12417286. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations recited in the instant claims are included in and obvious over the patent claims.
Instant application 19299950
Patent No. 12417286
1
1
2-9, 11
2-9
12
12
13-16
13-16
17
17
18-20
18-20
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Petersen (US 20170357813) discloses a nested file having a primary file and at least one secondary file embedded therein is parsed using at least one parser of a cell. The cell assigns a maliciousness score to each of the parsed primary file and each of the parsed at least one secondary file. Thereafter, the cell generates an overall maliciousness score for the nested file that indicates a level of confidence that the nested file contains malicious content. The overall maliciousness score is then provided (e.g., displayed, transmitted to a remote computer system, loaded into memory, stored in physical persistence, etc.).
Hursey (US 7376842) discloses Step 22 determines from the file type information contained within the record header whether or not the data payload associated with that data record should be malware scanned. As an example, if the data type indicates that the data payload is text data, or image data, then these may not need malware scanning as they may be deemed not to be capable of containing malware. The particular configuration and decision as to whether or not individual file types should be malware scanned will vary depending upon the situation. As an example, if a malware scanner is trying to identify banned words, such as obscene or offensive words within e-mail messages, then text data may be malware scanned to identify whether or not it contains any such banned words even if it cannot carry a virus. Other data types, such as executable files or computer files that may contain macros are known to represent a significant risk of malware infection and will be scanned as appropriate. Those computer files (payload data) identified at step 22 as having a file type that should be scanned are passed to step 24 where the malware scanning for computer viruses, worms, Trojans, banned words, banned files, banned images etc. is performed in accordance with the user configuration and what is appropriate for the file type concerned.
Liu (US 20220038424) discloses the system first generates patterns from URLs known to be benign or malicious (“known URLs”) to build a pattern repository of patterns which can facilitate detection of malicious URLs…Patterns generated from known malicious URLs and/or known benign URLs which satisfy certain criteria (e.g., based on associated URL counts) are published to a pattern repository which can be accessed during subsequent detection operations. During detection, upon determining that a request has been issued which indicates an unknown URL, the system parses, tokenizes, and tags the unknown URL to generate a pattern and queries the repository of URL patterns to determine if at least a partial match with a malicious URL pattern can be identified. If a matching malicious URL pattern is identified, the URL is detected as malicious and access can subsequently be blocked.
Thomas (US 20230114821) discloses the method 2500 may include any additional processing usefully associated with the second event stream from the cloud service provider. For example, this may include displaying one or more of a plurality of threat scores, such as any of the individual or composite threat scores described herein, in a user interface such as an administrative console of a threat management facility for an enterprise network. The threat scores may usefully be presented in an order ranked according to threat severity, and may also or instead be color coded or otherwise presented in a manner that highlights more severe risks. In another aspect, the additional processing may include remediating an associated threat (or initiating a remediation of the threat), e.g., using any of the remediation techniques described herein, such as by initiating a remediation of the one of the compute instances in the enterprise network when one of the threat scores meets a predetermined criterion or quantitative threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GELAGAY SHEWAYE can be reached on (571)272-4219. 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.
/TRONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights