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
This is in response to Application #19/320,917 filed on 09/05/2025 in which Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are pending, of which Claims 21-40 would be considered allowable over prior art if it were not for Double Patenting Rejections on Claims 21-32.
Applicant’s Most Recent Claim Set of 09/05/2025
Applicant’s most recent claim set of 09/05/2025 is considered to be the latest claim set under consideration 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 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.
Claim(s) 21-32 (is/are) of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,438,902. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application’s related U.S. Patent No. 12,438,902’s claim(s) 1 Plus 11 is/are anticipate claim(s) 21 of the instant application.
With respect to claim(s) 21 of the instant application, please refer to the table below, which illustrates the anticipatory relationship of the claim limitations at issue:
Instant application
U.S. Patent No. 12,438,902
Claim 21
Independent Claim 1 Plus Dependent Claim 11
The instant application’s dependent claims 22-32 are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting on the basis of being dependent on a nonstatutory double patenting rejected independent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 are considered allowable over prior art.
The instant invention is directed to a method, a system, and a medium for providing event driven harvesting and analysis of cloud computing resources in a cloud computing environment in order to determine possible security actions to be taken.
The closest prior art, as recited, Seetharamaiah et al US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0099478 and SHUA US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0345480, are also generally directed to various aspects of providing event driven harvesting and analysis of cloud computing resources in a cloud computing environment in order to determine possible security actions to be taken. However, Seetharamaiah et al or SHUA does not teach or suggest, either singularly or in combination, the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claim(s) 21, 33, 37. For example, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests the steps of:
Regarding Claim 21:
Although the combination of Seetharamaiah et al or SHUA teaches various aspects of providing event driven harvesting and analysis of cloud computing resources in a cloud computing environment in order to determine possible security actions to be taken, Seetharamaiah et al or SHUA fails to teach event driven harvesting of data in one or multiple cloud computing environments by securing, from a first cloud computing environment, first data related to a first event that occurred in the first cloud computing environment, the first event pertaining to a first resource in the first cloud computing environment, the first data including a first identifier for the first event, in response to obtaining the first data, requesting, from an application programming interface (API) of the first cloud computing environment and by using the first identifier, first supplemental data about the first event, the first supplemental data including supplemental information about the first event and/or information about impact of the first event on the first resource, in response to determining, based on an event type of the first event as indicated in the first data and/or the first supplemental data, that the first event is associated with allocation of storage to the first resource, taking a snapshot of storage attached to the first resource.
When combined with the additional limitations found in Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 33:
Although the combination of Seetharamaiah et al or SHUA teaches various aspects of providing event driven harvesting and analysis of cloud computing resources in a cloud computing environment in order to determine possible security actions to be taken, Seetharamaiah et al or SHUA fails to teach event driven harvesting of data in one or multiple cloud computing environments by securing, from a first cloud computing environment, first data related to a first event that occurred in the first cloud computing environment, the first event pertaining to a first resource in the first cloud computing environment, the first data including a first identifier for the first event, in response to obtaining the first data, requesting, from an application programming interface (API) of the first cloud computing environment and by using the first identifier, first supplemental data about the first event, the first supplemental data including supplemental information about the first event and/or information about impact of the first event on the first resource, in response to determining, based on an event type of the first event as indicated in the first data and/or the first supplemental data, that the first event is associated with allocation of storage to the first resource, taking a snapshot of storage attached to the first resource.
When combined with the additional limitations found in Claim 33.
Regarding Claim 37:
Although the combination of Seetharamaiah et al or SHUA teaches various aspects of providing event driven harvesting and analysis of cloud computing resources in a cloud computing environment in order to determine possible security actions to be taken, Seetharamaiah et al or SHUA fails to teach event driven harvesting of data in one or multiple cloud computing environments by securing, from a first cloud computing environment, first data related to a first event that occurred in the first cloud computing environment, the first event pertaining to a first resource in the first cloud computing environment, the first data including a first identifier for the first event, in response to obtaining the first data, requesting, from an application programming interface (API) of the first cloud computing environment and by using the first identifier, first supplemental data about the first event, the first supplemental data including supplemental information about the first event and/or information about impact of the first event on the first resource, in response to determining, based on an event type of the first event as indicated in the first data and/or the first supplemental data, that the first event is associated with allocation of storage to the first resource, taking a snapshot of storage attached to the first resource.
When combined with the additional limitations found in Claim 37.
Therefore Claims 21-40 of the instant application are allowable over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Donovan et al - US_20130067582: Donovan et al teaches mechanisms and judgment to determine the ongoing veracity of spoofing devices interfering with a cloud system.
Seetharamaiah et al - US_20220279012: Seetharamaiah et al teaches the identification and reporting of cloud-based security vulnerabilities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY HOLDER whose telephone number is 571-270-3789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards, can be reached on (571) 270-5440. 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.
/BRADLEY W HOLDER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
