DETAILED ACTION
A response under 37 CFR 1.116 was received on 25 June 2026. The amendment has been entered because the amendment is limited to canceling claims and presenting rejected claims in better form for consideration on appeal. By this response, Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are currently pending in the present application. Prosecution has been reopened and finality is withdrawn in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Response to Amendment
The page numbering of the present response is not clear. The first three pages do not include numbers, and then the first numbered page is the fourth page, which is numbered as page 2. Applicant’s numbering will be used where possible to attempt to avoid confusion. See also MPEP § 714 II.A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see numbered pages 8-11 of the present response, in particular with respect to the type or identity of network connection used relating to the disclosures of Johnson and with respect to the location relating to the disclosures of Herbach, in reference to canceled dependent Claims 4, 12, and 19, the subject matter of which has been incorporated into independent Claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ellis et al, US Patent 8326873.
Specification
The objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s arguments providing more detailed explanation of where support is to be found for the claimed subject matter (see numbered pages 4-7 of the present response).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 9, the substeps following “wherein determining the context associated with the request comprises” starting in line 14 should be further indented to more clearly delineate which substeps relate to this “wherein” clause.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s arguments providing more detailed explanation of where support is to be found for the claimed subject matter (see numbered pages 4-7 of the present response). The rejection of Claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejections of Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) are moot in light of the cancellation of the claims. The rejection of Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn because the claim includes other issues of indefiniteness as detailed below.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites steps of submitting, compiling, determining relationships, determining whether the first entity is allowed to access the first resource, accessing routing information, and selectively providing access. However, there is no conjunction (e.g. “and” or “or”) between these steps, which makes it unclear whether they are all required or whether any are alternatives or optional. For purposes of interpreting the prior art, it has been assumed that all steps are required and that an “and” should be inserted as a coordinating conjunction before the last step in the list. However, the above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al, US Patent Application Publication 2020/0051127, in view of Bernat et al, US Patent Application Publication 2019/0391855, Herbach et al, US Patent Application Publication 2013/0239230, and Ellis et al, US Patent 8326873.
In reference to Claim 1, Johnson discloses a method that includes managing receipt of a request from a first requesting entity to request a first resource (paragraph 0048); generating and submitting a query for a graph-based database to determine one or more relationships between the first requesting entity and other entities covered by a security policy (paragraphs 0048-0049, determining path through graph); and determining based on the determined relationships and policy whether the first entity is allowed to access the first resource based on an identity of the first entity and a resource type (paragraphs 0013, 0048, and 0050, name/identity of first entity, and paragraph 0050, type of resource requested), and allowing access or not allowing access based on whether it is determined that access is allowed (paragraph 0049, access granted based on path). However, Johnson does not explicitly disclose that the first resource is from or is included in an IoT environment to which the first requesting entity is coupled nor does Johnson explicitly disclose accessing routing information for accessing the first resource. Johnson also does not explicitly disclose that determining whether the first entity is allowed to access the first resource based on a type or identity of a network connection, time, or location.
Bernat discloses a method that includes a first application requesting access to data collected by an IoT device (see paragraphs 0017, 0019, application; paragraph 0022, IoT device), as well as accessing routing information for accessing the first resource and allowing access based on the routing information (see paragraphs 0037-0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson to include the IoT environment and routing information of Bernat, in order to gain the benefit of the efficiencies of edge computing (see Bernat, paragraph 0022).
Further, Herbach discloses a method in which determining whether an entity is allowed to access a resource is based on a time at which the request to access was received (see paragraphs 0073 and 0088, time-dependent permission). Ellis discloses a method in which determining whether an entity is allowed to access a resource is based on a type or identity of a network connection used by the entity and a location of the entity (see column 23, line 61-column 24, line 27, context can include user name or identification, device connection type, type of user access network, user access terminal or device location). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Johnson and Bernat to include the time restrictions of Herbach, in order to provide persistent security (see Herbach, paragraph 0039), and to also include the location and network type/identity restrictions of Ellis, in order to provide context-based access control (see Ellis, column 24, lines 17-27).
Claim 9 is directed to a software implementation of the method of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 17 is directed to a system having functionality corresponding to the method of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al, US Patent 8990233, discloses a method that includes context access control including determining communication protocol (i.e. type).
Lang et al, US Patent 9563771 (previously cited in the Office action mailed 01 October 2024), discloses access control using context such as time and location.
Fu et al, US Patent 11057824, discloses access control mechanisms including determining access control based on communication type.
Athsani et al, US Patent Application Publication 2009/0327501, discloses systems for controlling communication access including what type of communication access to use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights