Ex Parte Dietrich et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2019

14871695 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/871,695 09/30/2015
92720 7590
HONEYWELL/MUN CK
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
02/01/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenneth W. Dietrich
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0048932-0l 15 4386
EXAMINER
ABRISHAMKAR, KA VEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
patents@munckwilson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH W. DIETRICH, GANESH P. GADHE,
ERIC T. BOICE, and SETH G. CARPENTER1
Appeal 2018-005813
Application 14/871,695
Technology Center 3600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the applicant and real party in interest, Honeywell
International Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-005813
Application 14/871,695
Invention
The Specification discloses analyzing characteristics of and events
associated with multiple devices to generate a cyber-security risk assessment
for display. Abstract.
Representative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method comprising:
receiving information identifying characteristics of
multiple devices in a computing system and multiple events
associated with the multiple devices;
analyzing the information using multiple sets of rules;
aggregating risk items defined by the information;
generating at least one risk assessment value based on the
analyzing, the at least one risk assessment value identifying at
least one cyber-security risk of the multiple devices; and
displaying, in a user interface, the at least one risk
assessment value and a zone aggregate record that identifies a
highest risk item among the aggregated risk items for devices
within a zone.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kumar et al. (US
2013/0298244 Al; published Nov. 7, 2013) ("Kumar") and Singla et al. (US
2016/0212165 Al; published July 21, 2016) ("Singla"). Final Act. 8-52.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Singla's presentation of a
threat score of an entity representing a group, zone, location, or category
teaches or suggests the steps of "aggregating risk items defined by the
information" and "displaying a zone aggregate record that identifies a
2
Appeal 2018-005813
Application 14/871,695
highest risk item among the aggregated risk items for devices within a zone."
Final Act. 33-34 (ifif 21, 24, 40, 42, Fig. 6).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "Singla merely
describes that its threat scores are calculated based on executing queries on
security event and model information" and that there "is no disclosure or
suggestion of any zone aggregate record that identifies a highest risk item
among aggregated risk items for devices within a zone as claimed." Appeal
Br. 10 ( citing Singla ,r,r 11, 19). Appellant argues "[ n ]othing in Singla
supports the Examiner's assertion that[:] (i) an entity represents an
aggregation of devices within a group or zone and (ii) a threat score for the
entity identifies a highest risk item among aggregated risk items for devices
within the group or zone." Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because Singla specifically
discloses a hierarchy of threat entities; thus, higher-level entities represent
an aggregation of lower-level entities (e.g., devices) organized as a group or
zone. See, e.g., Singla ,r 21; Final Act. 33. Singla not only teaches using
formulas to calculate a final threat score of an entity, Singla discloses that
"the threat score may be the ... maximum of another one of the threat
scores." Singla ,r 35 (emphasis added). That is, Singla suggests calculating
a higher-level entity's threat score as a function of the maximum threat score
of lower-level entities. Singla further discloses that "[t]he user will be able
to drill down the dashboard to reach the scoring mechanism for each threat
score." Id. ,r 55 (emphasis added). Thus, Singla suggests not only
displaying a threat score of a higher-level entity, but also displaying the
lower-level entity that, by having the highest threat score among the lower-
3
Appeal 2018-005813
Application 14/871,695
level entities, served as the scoring mechanism for the higher-level entity's
threat score. See Ans. 3--4.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Kumar and Singla
teach or suggest "aggregating risk items defined by the information" and
"displaying ... a zone aggregate record that identifies a highest risk item
among the aggregated risk items for devices within a zone," as recited in
claim 1. See Final Act. 33-34.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-20, which Appellant does not argue
separately.
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7 and
14 based on the teachings of Kumar. Appeal Br. 10-12. Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief do not, however, address the Examiner's
findings showing that Singla teaches or suggests those disputed recitations.
See Final Act. 51 ( citing Singla ,r,r 11, 18-24, 31, 32, 34--36, 40--42, 44, 45,
53, and 55); Ans. 4. Appellant's arguments in the Reply with respect to
Singla are untimely and are not considered. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2017).
Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of
claims 7 and 14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
4