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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed 1 October 2025. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 14 has/have been amended. Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 10-13, 18-19, 23 has/have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 depended from Claim 2 in the claims filed 16 January 2025. Claim 2 has been canceled in the instant claims. Applicant deleted “2” from “claim 2” in Claim 3, but Applicant did not insert “1” so that Claim 3 now depends from Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Does Claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories of invention? Claim 1 is directed to a computing system comprising one or more processor and one or more memories, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 5 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 14 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, which is a statutory category of invention.
Do the claims include a judicial exception? Claim(s) 1, 5 and 14 is/are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed in part to generating a first recommendation related to an allocation of a first permission to an identity, indicating the first recommendation, determining a first condition, and attributing the condition to the identity at a future time period.
Does the judicial exception fall within one of the abstract idea groupings? The abstract idea is not meaningful different from determining a future recommended permission for an entity based on a condition. The claims amount to no more than the abstract idea of comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options and organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (based on speculative execution of a machine learning model). This concept is not meaningfully different from those concepts found by the courts to be abstract (see: Smartgene, Digitech).
Are there additional elements beyond the judicial exception? Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the additional elements of a computing system comprising processors and memories. Claim(s) 5 recite(s) a computer-implemented method. Claim(s) 14 recite(s) one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon computing instructions that, upon execution by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations.
Do the additional elements individually or in combination with the claim as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The courts have recognized various implementations as integrating abstract ideas into a practical application. For example, if the overall claim limitations including the judicial exception improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, or if implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture is integral to the claim, or if the overall claim limitations including the judicial exception effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, then the courts have recognized that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. However, the judicial exception in the claims merely making a recommendation for a user based on speculation of a condition in a future time period, but does not improve a computer, another technology or other technical field, is not implemented with or in conjunction with a machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, or does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e. does the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The additional elements in the claims include a machine learning model in addition to a computing system comprising one or more processors and memories, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The additional elements added by the amendments of an identity management system simply identify the system on which the method executes and does not add significantly more to render the claims to more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation of using input that reflects at least one hypothetical future condition among the at least one hypothetical future conditions is nothing more that data that can be input by a user. The limitation, the machine learning model is tested based on one or more speculative executions to confirm that the machine learning model satisfies a selected consistency benchmark, simply identifies a step in the method but provides no description for how the speculative executions are carried out. Therefore, the additional elements do not add significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 14 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-12, 15-20 do not appear to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ip et al. (US 2022/0271938 A1) in view of Vishnyakov et al. (US 2020/0134217 A1) and further in view of Ko (US 2011/0082766 A1).
Claim 1. Ip discloses a computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories having stored therein instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
generating, by a machine learning model, a permission controller uses machine learning analysis to determine if a permission should be suspended or maintained (P 0068),
a first recommendation relating to allocation of a first permission to an identity in an identity management system that manages access right permissions to computing resources, a user associated with a permission and/or application, etc. may be a registered user (P 0016) permissions for an application may be assigned/edited/revoked by the administrator (e.g., during deployment of an application and/or after an application is deployed), a credential (e.g., a username/password, an API key, an authentication key, a certificate, etc.) may be assigned/associated with one or more permissions that authorize a user of the credential to take an action (e.g., to retrieve data using an interface) (P 0061),
wherein the first recommendation is for the identity to retain the first permission, an initial permission is assigned to a user (P 0013, 0017) a user registers with an application (P 0016) a user is identified with an entity (P 0022), or
for the first permission to be deallocated from the identity, a permission monitor determines if a user’s permission should be maintained or suspended (P 0031);
providing, to one or more users, a first indication of the first recommendation, a notification is provided to a user (P 0017) or an administrator that a permission has been selected for deactivation (P 0073) a user may be presented with a notification to approve or reject a suspension (P 0105) and a decision may be made prior to suspension of a permission (P 0107);
determining, based on a speculative execution of the machine learning model …, a first condition … that, when attributed to the identity, causes changing of the first recommendation to a second recommendation relating to the allocation of the first permission to the identity, wherein the second recommendation differs from the first recommendation, the threshold period of time may be determined based on historical statistical and/or patterns of access (P 0016) a criteria is evaluated to determine if the permission is maintained or suspended (P 0088), Applicant’s specification discloses that speculative execution refers to an evaluation made based on a condition that has not actually occurred (i.e. is merely theoretical) at the time the evaluation is made; the threshold period in Ip is determined based on historical statistical and/or patterns of access to determine if a permission is maintained or suspended, that is, the evaluation for maintaining or suspending a permission is not based on currently evaluated data, but on historical data,
wherein the speculative execution comprises an evaluation that is made based on the first condition, wherein the first condition is attributed to the identity as occurring in a future time period after the evaluation is made, if an application is expected to access an API within 24 hours of a new order transaction, but the site is not busy and may not see an order transaction for 90 days, the event-based threshold ensures that the application's permission is not suspended after, for example, more than 30 days passes between accesses (even though the application would access the API within 24 hours of each new order transaction) (P 0070) an application that facilitates preparation of annual tax information may be expected to access an interface only once a year and may be associated with a 13 month threshold whereas an application that analyzes customer details to detect fraud may be expected to access data every day and/or access data within a period of time from a last transaction and will be associated with a threshold of one day or a threshold that is equal the time since a last transaction plus one day (P 0102). An application is registered to a user, and it is clear that an expected (future) behavior of an application is determined and a condition is set based on the expected behavior.
Ip does not disclose determining, based on a speculative execution of the machine learning model using input data that reflects at least one hypothetical future conditions, a first condition among the at least one hypothetical future conditions, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Vishnyakov discloses a data analyst may be interested in testing a hypothesis that may be addressed by combining data in each of a plurality of data sets by identifying by a data analyst the availability of the data deemed of interest to the hypothesis by obtaining “public projection” information for data sets (P 0032) the data analyst may determine an interesting result which may provide a new insight, or may confirm a hypothesis that has not previously been tested, may further confirm a hypothesis that has been proven via other modes of testing or using other data sources for training and/or testing machine learning models (P 0042). Therefore, considering the teachings of Ip and Vishnyakov, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine determining, based on a speculative execution of the machine learning model using input data that reflects at least one hypothetical future conditions, a first condition among the at least one hypothetical future conditions with the teachings of Ip with the motivation to ensure that the data is consistent with the intended use of the data (Vishnyakov: P 0032).
Ip does not explicitly disclose providing, to the one or more users, a second indication that attribution of the first condition to the identity causes the changing of the first recommendation to the second recommendation, as disclosed in the claims. However, Ip discloses update events may be implemented in a subscription model, such customer creation, product changes, or order cancelation (P 0049) an access monitor may register for event notifications that a permission is accessed (P 0085) a user may be presented with a notification to approve or reject a suspension (P 0105) and a decision may be made prior to suspension of a permission (P 0107). In the same field of invention, Ko discloses if a user’s terminal satisfies requirements for account access, a notification of permission of access is issued (P 0040). Therefore, considering the teachings of Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine providing, to the one or more users, a second indication that attribution of the first condition to the identity causes the changing of the first recommendation to the second recommendation with the teachings of Ip and Vishnyakov with the motivation to make Ip more flexible by providing a well-known method for notification messages for not only when permissions are suspended, but also for permission access and for when permissions are granted and the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. identified applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results as a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham.
Ip does not disclose wherein the machine learning model is tested based on one or more speculative executions to confirm that the machine learning model satisfies a selected consistency benchmark, as disclosed in the claims. However, Ip discloses the application permission monitor monitors permissions to identify opportunities to suspend permissions that are inconsistent with a type of the application, etc. (P 0061). Vishnyakov discloses a requested permission may be granted (P 0037) machine learning models and/or algorithms are trained and tested (P 0042). Therefore, considering the teachings of Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the machine learning model is tested based on one or more speculative executions to confirm that the machine learning model satisfies a selected consistency benchmark with the teachings of Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko with the motivation to ensure the accuracy of the statistical data or patterns of Ip (Ip: P 0016).
Claim 2. Claim.
Claim 3. Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko disclose the computing system of claim, and the combination Ip in view of Vishnyakov further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: detecting occurrence of the at least one hypothetical future conditions; and reevaluating, by the machine learning model, based at least in part on the detecting, the first recommendation, a threshold period of time is set for a permission to be suspended if the permission has not been utilized (P 0031) or has an expired password (P 0071) the permission controller determines that it is time to analyze permissions based on a timer expiring or any other event trigger (P 0086) The expiration of a password is a future event. Vishnyakov has been combined to reject hypothetical future conditions as in Claim 1
Claim 4. canceled.
Claim 5. Ip discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, by a machine learning model, a permission controller uses machine learning analysis to determine if a permission should be suspended or maintained (P 0068),
a first recommendation relating to allocation of a first permission to an identity in an identity management system that manages access right permissions to computing resources, a user associated with a permission and/or application, etc. may be a registered user (P 0016) permissions for an application may be assigned/edited/revoked by the administrator (e.g., during deployment of an application and/or after an application is deployed), a credential (e.g., a username/password, an API key, an authentication key, a certificate, etc.) may be assigned/associated with one or more permissions that authorize a user of the credential to take an action (e.g., to retrieve data using an interface) (P 0061),
wherein the first recommendation is for the identity to retain the first permission, an initial permission is assigned to a user (P 0013, 0017) a user registers with an application (P 0016) a user is identified with an entity (P 0022), or
for the first permission to be deallocated from the identity, a permission monitor determines if a user’s permission should be maintained or suspended (P 0031);
providing, to one or more users, a first indication of the first recommendation, a notification is provided to a user (P 0017) or an administrator that a permission has been selected for deactivation (P 0073) a user may be presented with a notification to approve or reject a suspension (P 0105) and a decision may be made prior to suspension of a permission (P 0107);
determining, based on a speculative execution of the machine learning model, a first condition that, when attributed to the identity, causes changing of the first recommendation to a second recommendation relating to the allocation of the first permission to the identity, wherein the second recommendation differs from the first recommendation, the threshold period of time may be determined based on historical statistical and/or patterns of access (P 0016) a criteria is evaluated to determine if the permission is maintained or suspended (P 0088),
wherein the speculative execution comprises an evaluation that is made based on the first condition, wherein the first condition is attributed to the identity as occurring in a future time period after the evaluation is made, if an application is expected to access an API within 24 hours of a new order transaction, but the site is not busy and may not see an order transaction for 90 days, the event-based threshold ensures that the application's permission is not suspended after, for example, more than 30 days passes between accesses (even though the application would access the API within 24 hours of each new order transaction) (P 0070) an application that facilitates preparation of annual tax information may be expected to access an interface only once a year and may be associated with a 13 month threshold whereas an application that analyzes customer details to detect fraud may be expected to access data every day and/or access data within a period of time from a last transaction and will be associated with a threshold of one day or a threshold that is equal the time since a last transaction plus one day (P 0102). It is clear that an expected (future) behavior of an application is determined and a condition is set based on the expected behavior.
Ip does not disclose determining, based on a speculative execution of the machine learning model using input data that reflects at least one hypothetical future conditions among the at least one hypothetical future conditions, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Vishnyakov discloses a data analyst may be interested in testing a hypothesis that may be addressed by combining data in each of a plurality of data sets by identifying by a data analyst the availability of the data deemed of interest to the hypothesis by obtaining “public projection” information for data sets (P 0032) the data analyst may determine an interesting result which may provide a new insight, or may confirm a hypothesis that has not previously been tested, may further confirm a hypothesis that has been proven via other modes of testing or using other data sources (P 0042). Therefore, considering the teachings of Ip and Vishnyakov, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine determining, based on a speculative execution of the machine learning model using input data that reflects at least one hypothetical future conditions among the at least one hypothetical future conditions with the teachings of Ip with the motivation to ensure that the data is consistent with the intended use of the data (Vishnyakov: P 0032).
Ip does not explicitly disclose providing, to the one or more users, a second indication that attribution of the first condition to the identity causes the changing of the first recommendation to the second recommendation, as disclosed in the claims. However, Ip discloses update events may be implemented in a subscription model, such customer creation, product changes, or order cancelation (P 0049) an access monitor may register for event notifications that a permission is accessed (P 0085) a user may be presented with a notification to approve or reject a suspension (P 0105) and a decision may be made prior to suspension of a permission (P 0107). However, in the same field of invention, Ko discloses if a user’s terminal satisfies requirements for account access, a notification of permission of access is issued (P 0040). Therefore, considering the teachings of Ip and Ko, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine providing, to the one or more users, a second indication that attribution of the first condition to the identity causes the changing of the first recommendation to the second recommendation with the teachings of Ip with the motivation to make Ip more flexible by providing a well-known method for notification messages for not only when permissions are suspended, but also for permission access and for when permissions are granted and the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. identified applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results as a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham.
Ip does not disclose wherein the machine learning model is tested based on one or more speculative executions to confirm that the machine learning model satisfies a selected consistency benchmark, as disclosed in the claims. However, Ip discloses the application permission monitor monitors permissions to identify opportunities to suspend permissions that are inconsistent with a type of the application, etc. (P 0061). Vishnyakov discloses a requested permission may be granted (P 0037) machine learning models and/or algorithms are trained and tested (P 0042). Therefore, considering the teachings of Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the machine learning model is tested based on one or more speculative executions to confirm that the machine learning model satisfies a selected consistency benchmark with the teachings of Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko with the motivation to ensure the accuracy of the statistical data or patterns of Ip (Ip: P 0016).
Claim(s) 6 canceled.
Claim 7. Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 6, and Ip discloses wherein the first condition corresponds to accessing of a service, by the identity, within a future time period, a threshold period of time is set for a permission to be suspended if the permission has not been utilized (P 0031) if an application is expected to access an API within 24 hours of a new order transaction, but the site is not busy and may not see an order transaction for 90 days, the event-based threshold ensures that the application's permission is not suspended after, for example, more than 30 days passes between accesses (even though the application would access the API within 24 hours of each new order transaction) (P 0070) or has an expired password (P 0071) the permission controller determines that it is time to analyze permissions based on a timer expiring or any other event trigger (P 0086) an application that facilitates preparation of annual tax information may be expected to access an interface only once a year and may be associated with a 13 month threshold whereas an application that analyzes customer details to detect fraud may be expected to access data every day and/or access data within a period of time from a last transaction and will be associated with a threshold of one day or a threshold that is equal the time since a last transaction plus one day (P 0102).
Claim 8. Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 5, and Ip discloses wherein the first condition is included in a set of one or more future conditions that, when attributed to the identity, each cause changing of the first recommendation to the second recommendation, a threshold period of time is set for a permission to be suspended if the permission has not been utilized (P 0031) or has an expired password (P 0071) the permission controller determines that it is time to analyze permissions based on a timer expiring or any other event trigger (P 0086) The expiration of a password is a future event.
Claim 9. Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 8, and Ip discloses detecting occurrence of one of the set of one or more future conditions; and reevaluating, by the machine learning model, based at least in part on the detecting, the first recommendation, a threshold period of time is set for a permission to be suspended if the permission has not been utilized (P 0031) or has an expired password (P 0071) the permission controller determines that it is time to analyze permissions based on a timer expiring or any other event trigger (P 0086) determined by a machine learning algorithm (P 0107) The expiration of a password is a future event.
Claim 10-13. Canceled.
Claim(s) 14 is/are directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage media claim(s) similar to the computer system claim(s) of Claim(s) 1 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 15. Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 14, and Ip disclose wherein the first condition is a future condition, a threshold period of time is set for a permission to be suspended if the permission has not been utilized (P 0031) or has an expired password (P 0071) the permission controller determines that it is time to analyze permissions based on a timer expiring or any other event trigger (P 0086) The expiration of a password is a future event.
Claim 16. Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 15, and Ip discloses wherein the first condition is included in a set of one or more future conditions that result in the changing of the first decision to the second decision, a threshold period of time is set for a permission to be suspended if the permission has not been utilized (P 0031) or has an expired password (P 0071) the permission controller determines that it is time to analyze permissions based on a timer expiring or any other event trigger (P 0086) The expiration of a password is a future event.
Claim 17. Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 16, but Ip does not disclose wherein the operations further comprise: detecting occurrence of one of the set of one or more future conditions; and reevaluating, by the machine learning model, based at least in part on the detecting, the first decision, as disclosed in the claims. However, Vishnyakov discloses a requested permission may be granted (P 0037) machine learning models and/or algorithms are trained and tested (P 0042). Therefore, considering the teachings of Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the operations further comprise: detecting occurrence of one of the set of one or more future conditions; and reevaluating, by the machine learning model, based at least in part on the detecting, the first decision with the teachings of Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko with the motivation to ensure the accuracy of the statistical data or patterns of Ip (Ip: P 0016).
Claim 18-19. canceled.
Claim 20. Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 14, and Ip discloses wherein the entity is an identity, and wherein the first decision and the second decision are permissions recommendations relating to allocation of a first permission to the identity, a notification is provided to a user (P 0017) a permission controller uses machine learning analysis to determine if a permission should be suspended or maintained (P 0068) or an administrator that a permission has been selected for deactivation (P 0073) a user may be presented with a notification to approve or reject a suspension (P 0105) and a decision may be made prior to suspension of a permission (P 0107).
Claim 21. Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko disclose the computing system of claim 1, and Ip discloses wherein the first condition corresponds to accessing of a service, by the identity, within the future time period, if an application is expected to access an API within 24 hours of a new order transaction, but the site is not busy and may not see an order transaction for 90 days, the event-based threshold ensures that the application's permission is not suspended after, for example, more than 30 days passes between accesses (even though the application would access the API within 24 hours of each new order transaction) (P 0070) an application that facilitates preparation of annual tax information may be expected to access an interface only once a year and may be associated with a 13 month threshold whereas an application that analyzes customer details to detect fraud may be expected to access data every day and/or access data within a period of time from a last transaction and will be associated with a threshold of one day or a threshold that is equal the time since a last transaction plus one day (P 0102).
Claim 22. Ip, Vishnyakov and Ko disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 14, and Ip discloses wherein the first condition corresponds to accessing of a service, by the entity, within the future time period, if an application is expected to access an API within 24 hours of a new order transaction, but the site is not busy and may not see an order transaction for 90 days, the event-based threshold ensures that the application's permission is not suspended after, for example, more than 30 days passes between accesses (even though the application would access the API within 24 hours of each new order transaction) (P 0070) an application that facilitates preparation of annual tax information may be expected to access an interface only once a year and may be associated with a 13 month threshold whereas an application that analyzes customer details to detect fraud may be expected to access data every day and/or access data within a period of time from a last transaction and will be associated with a threshold of one day or a threshold that is equal the time since a last transaction plus one day (P 0102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
The Examiner alleges that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. In that regard, the Examiner asserts that the claims are specifically directed to “comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options and organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (based on speculative execution of a machine learning model).” Office Action at 3. The examiner further characterizes the claims as “not meaningfully different from those concepts found by the courts to be abstract (see: Smartgene, Digitech).” Id.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s characterization.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim(s) is/are directed in part to generating a first recommendation related to an allocation of a first permission to an identity, indicating the first recommendation, determining a first condition, and attributing the condition to the identity at a future time period, which is not meaningful different from determining a future recommended permission for an entity based on a condition, i.e. the abstract idea of comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options and organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (based on speculative execution of a machine learning model) (see: Smartgene, Digitech).
The claims simply state that a machine learning model generates a first and second recommendation. Furthermore, the claims state that the machine learning model determines a first condition based on a speculative execution of the machine learning model using input data that reflects at least one hypothetical future conditions. Inputting data into a machine learning model does not add significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The speculative execution of the machine learning model is not described in such a way to add significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Still, the limitation, changing the first recommendation to a second recommendation is not describe in such a way to add significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The evaluation step is not described in such a way to add significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The testing of the machine learning model step is not described in such a way to add significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. That is, to add significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, each of the above identified limitations must provide sufficient description as to how the machine learning model performs one or more of the limitations, not just that the machine learning model performs the limitations. Absent some description of execution by the machine learning model that cannot be performed by a human, the limitations do not add significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The applicant argues:
[The prior art of record] does not teach the claimed process.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ip discloses an identity management system that manages access right permissions to computing resources, a user associated with a permission and/or application, etc. may be a registered user (P 0016) permissions for an application may be assigned/edited/revoked by the administrator (e.g., during deployment of an application and/or after an application is deployed), a credential (e.g., a username/password, an API key, an authentication key, a certificate, etc.) may be assigned/associated with one or more permissions that authorize a user of the credential to take an action (e.g., to retrieve data using an interface) (P 0061). Since user identities and permissions are attached to applications, user may be authorize to take actions, then Ip uses an identity management system.
Vishnyakov discloses a data analyst may be interested in testing a hypothesis that may be addressed by combining data in each of a plurality of data sets by identifying by a data analyst the availability of the data deemed of interest to the hypothesis by obtaining “public projection” information for data sets (P 0032) the data analyst may determine an interesting result which may provide a new insight, or may confirm a hypothesis that has not previously been tested, may further confirm a hypothesis that has been proven via other modes of testing or using other data sources for training and/or testing machine learning models (P 0042), which is analogous to the claimed input data that reflects at least one hypothetical future conditions, a first condition among the at least one hypothetical future conditions. It is clear that Vishnyakov discloses an analyst tests a hypotheses on data for machine learning model training.
Finally, regarding the limitation wherein the machine learning model is tested based on one or more speculative executions to confirm that the machine learning model satisfies a selected consistency benchmark, Ip discloses the application permission monitor monitors permissions to identify opportunities to suspend permissions that are inconsistent with a type of the application, etc. (P 0061). Vishnyakov discloses a requested permission may be granted (P 0037) machine learning models and/or algorithms are trained and tested (P 0042). Applicant’s specification discloses that speculative execution refers to an evaluation made based on a condition that has not actually occurred (i.e. is merely theoretical) at the time the evaluation is made; the threshold period in Ip is determined based on historical statistical and/or patterns of access to determine if a permission is maintained or suspended, that is, the evaluation for maintaining or suspending a permission is not based on currently evaluated data, but on historical data.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON at telephone number (571)270-1696.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1696. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday though Friday from 9:30 am to 5:30 pm Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar B Paula, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4128. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2145
12/17/2025
/CESAR B PAULA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights