DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, -- a – should be inserted before “server”.
In claim 1, line 6, “scope” should be – scopes --.
In claim 3, line 6, -- the – should be inserted before “node”.
In claim 13, lines 1 and 2, “resource node” (both instances) should be – node resources --.
In claim 13, line 6, -- a – should be inserted before “server”.
In claim 13, line 9, “scope” should be – scopes --.
In claim 15, line 6, -- the – should be inserted before “node”.
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 1-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 8, “the action” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 13, line 11, “the action” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Chan et al. (US 20200186359 A1 hereinafter “Chan”) for the reasons set forth in the Office action dated January 10, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 4, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Aziz et al. (US 20210141930 A1 hereinafter “Aziz”) for the reasons set forth in the Office action dated January 10, 2025.
Claims 5-8, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Aziz and further in view of Mathew et al. (US 20060168186 A1 hereinafter “Mathew”) for the reasons set forth in the Office action dated January 10, 2025.
Claims 9, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Aziz and further in view of Noe et al. (US 10380369 B1 hereinafter “Noe”) for the reasons set forth in the Office action dated January 10, 2025.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Cahill et al. (US 10715458 B1 hereinafter “Cahill”) for the reasons set forth in the Office action dated January 10, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts:
“The applicant has amended each of claims 1 and 13 to recite the limitation of “receiving a second login request in the secure server from the client device, the second login request comprising . . . client authorization credentials previously created and provided by the identity provider to the client device in response to the redirected login request. This limitation is not disclosed by Chan, which instead merely redirects login credentials to a backend server, which in turn retrieves permissions and returns them to the frontend server. The front end server then handles requests from the client device in accordance with those permissions. Therefore, each of claims 1 and 13 patentably distinguishes over the cited prior art, as do dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19.”
It is the Examiner’s position that Chan does teach this limitation as presently claimed. Specifically, Chan teaches “receiving a second login request in the secure server from the client device (After being validated, the user uploads an input/request file (request) that contains the user permissions to the server frontend, paragraphs 38 and 39), the second login request comprising . . . client authorization credentials (authorized configurations) previously created and provided by the identity provider (backend server) to the client device in response to the redirected login request (the previously created allowed configurations are presented to the client device after the user is validated).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R KORZUCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7589.
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491