DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in reply to papers filed on 2025-12-04. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 15 is/are independent.
The objections to informalities in the claims are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
With respect to claim(s) 1 (see page(s) 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks), Applicant argues that the prior art of record (in particular, U.S. Publication 20160337863 to Robinson et al. (hereinafter "Robinson '863")) does not disclose sending the access token from the server to the unlocking device / key device and then from the unlocking device / key device to the displaying device to allow the displaying device to access the resource. Examiner agrees that while Robinson '863 discloses the server sending [Robinson '863 ¶ 0070] and the displaying device receiving [Robinson '863 ¶ 0070, 0221-0223, 0188, 0263] the access token, Robinson '863 does not explicitly disclose an embodiment in which the access token passes through the unlocking device / key device in between. However, U.S. Publication 20150296074 to Shah et al. (hereinafter "Shah '074") uses just such a distribution scheme [Shah '074 Fig. 1(II), ¶ 0042-0043], as detailed in the new grounds of rejection below. Accordingly, Applicant's arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the remaining claim(s) is/are based on Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and have been considered as detailed above.
Summary of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following table summarizes the rejections set forth in detail below of the claims over the prior art.
Claim No.
Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 in view of Thomas '363
Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 in view of Thomas '363 in view of Linga '835
1
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
4
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
5
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
6
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
8
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
11
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
12
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
13
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
15
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
17
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
18
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
19
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (pre-AIA ) 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
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 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 AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 that 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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.
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, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 20150296074 to Shah et al. (hereinafter "Shah '074") in view of U.S. Publication 20160337863 to Robinson et al. (hereinafter "Robinson '863") in view of U.S. Publication 20140189363 to Thomas et al. (hereinafter "Thomas '363"). Robinson '863 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Shah '074 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Thomas '363 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 1 (independent):
Shah '074 discloses a system comprising a primary computing device and machine-readable instructions that, when executed, cause the primary computing device to at least perform operations (processor(s), memory, computer readable media, storage, executable instructions [Shah '074 ¶ 0073-0079])
Shah '074 discloses establish a peer-to-peer (P2P) communication session between the primary computing device and a secondary computing device (unlocking device 202 sends account token to primary1 computing device 101 via Bluetooth [Shah '074 ¶ 0042-0043]; locks or unlocks selected resources of primary device 101 based on proximity of unlocking device 202 being less than a predetermined distance [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056, 0066])
Shah '074 discloses determine proximity data associated with a proximity of the primary computing device to the secondary computing device (locks or unlocks selected resources of primary device 101 based on proximity of unlocking device 202 being less than a predetermined distance [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056, 0066])
Shah '074 does not disclose transmit the proximity data to a management service remotely located with respect to the primary computing device and the secondary computing device
However, Shah '074 discloses transmit access control protocol data to a management service remotely located with respect to the primary computing device and the secondary computing device (server sends keys and pairing information 120 to unlocking device 202 [Shah '074 ¶ Fig. 1(II)]; unlocking device 202 sends account token to primary computing device 101 via Bluetooth [Shah '074 ¶ 0042-0043]; locks or unlocks selected resources of primary device 101 based on proximity of unlocking device 202 being less than a predetermined distance [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056, 0066])
Shah '074 does not disclose receive, at the primary computing device from the management service, an indication that the primary computing device is within a predefined proximity threshold of the secondary computing device and an access token used to decrypt metadata associated with an enterprise resource received by the secondary computing device from the management service
However, Shah '074 discloses receive, at the primary computing device from another device, an indication that the primary computing device is within a predefined proximity threshold of the secondary computing device and an access token used to decrypt data associated with an protected resource received by the secondary computing device from the management service (server sends keys and pairing information 120 to unlocking device 202 [Shah '074 ¶ Fig. 1(II)]; unlocking device 202 sends account token to primary computing device 101 via Bluetooth [Shah '074 ¶ 0042-0043]; locks or unlocks selected resources of primary device 101 based on proximity of unlocking device 202 being less than a predetermined distance [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056, 0066])
Shah '074 does not disclose in response to the indication, enter the primary computing device into a secure viewing mode of the P2P communication session and transmit the access token to the secondary computing device via the P2P communication session while in the secure viewing mode, wherein the access token is used by the secondary computing device to decrypt the metadata and to render the enterprise resource in a display accessible to the secondary computing device in response to receiving the access token
However, Shah '074 discloses in response to the indication, enter the primary computing device into a secure viewing mode of the P2P communication session and transmit the access token to the secondary computing device via the P2P communication session while in the secure viewing mode, wherein the access token is used by the secondary computing device to decrypt the data and to render the enterprise resource in a display accessible to the secondary computing device in response to receiving the access token (unlocking device 202 sends account token to primary computing device 101 via Bluetooth [Shah '074 ¶ 0042-0043]; locks or unlocks selected resources of primary device 101 based on proximity of unlocking device 202 being less than a predetermined distance [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056, 0066]; unlocks display of primary computing device [Shah '074 ¶ 0017, 0035] for access to resources determined according to sensitivity flags [Shah '074 ¶ 0057-0063])
Shah '074 does not disclose continually re-transmit to the management service, updated proximity data associated with the proximity of the primary computing device to the secondary computing device while the primary computing device remains in the secure viewing mode of the P2P communication session
Shah '074 does not disclose receive a notification from the management service indicating that the primary computing device is not within the predefined proximity threshold of the secondary computing device
However, Shah '074 discloses receive a notification from another device indicating that the primary computing device is not within the predefined proximity threshold of the secondary computing device (locks or unlocks selected resources of primary device 101 based on proximity of unlocking device 202 being less than a predetermined distance [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056])
Shah '074 discloses in response to the notification, terminate the secure viewing mode of the P2P communication session, wherein the secondary computing device obscures at least one sensitive portion of the enterprise resource in the display based at least in part on the metadata and in response to termination the secure viewing mode of the P2P communication session (locking the primary device may including placing a security screen on the display of the primary device [Shah '074 ¶ 0017] "which prevents use or viewing of programs" [Shah '074 ¶ 0035]; access to resources determined according to sensitivity flags on a per resource basis [Shah '074 ¶ 0057-0063])
Further:
Robinson '863 discloses "enterprise resource2" ("some or all of the executables and/or data reside on the server 250, and not on the target device 200" [Robinson '863 ¶ 0258])
Robinson '863 discloses transmit the proximity data to a management service remotely located with respect to the primary computing device and the secondary computing device (server module 252, rather than devices, evaluates proximity threshold for data security [Robinson '863 ¶ 0251-0252, 0256-0258, Fig. 6C])
Robinson '863 discloses receive, at the primary computing device from the management service, an indication that the primary computing device is within a predefined proximity threshold of the secondary computing device and an access token used to decrypt data associated with an enterprise resource received by the secondary computing device from the management service (server 250/250a determines whether target device 200b is within proximity [Robinson '863 Fig. 6C, ¶ 0257, 0263-0264]; server transmits key [Robinson '863 ¶ 0070] for opening protected data or application container [Robinson '863 ¶ 0182]; "Any of the three types of containerization can be employed on the server side in conjunction with any of alternative architectural models described above." [Robinson '863 ¶ 0263-0264])
Robinson '863 discloses continually re-transmit to the management service, updated proximity data associated with the proximity of the primary computing device to the secondary computing device while the primary computing device remains in the secure viewing mode of the P2P communication session (periodic keep-alive messages [Robinson '863 ¶ 0042, 0049-0050]; server 250/250a determines whether target device 200b is within proximity [Robinson '863 Fig. 6C, ¶ 0257, 0263-0264])
Robinson '863 discloses receive a notification from the management service indicating that the primary computing device is not within the predefined proximity threshold of the secondary computing device (periodic keep-alive messages [Robinson '863 ¶ 0042, 0049-0050]; server 250/250a determines whether target device 200b is within proximity [Robinson '863 Fig. 6C, ¶ 0257, 0263-0264])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Shah '074 with the performing operations at a server and protecting enterprise resources of Robinson '863 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
enterprise resource
transmit the proximity data to a management service remotely located with respect to the primary computing device and the secondary computing device
receive, at the primary computing device from the management service, an indication that the primary computing device is within a predefined proximity threshold of the secondary computing device and an access token used to decrypt data associated with an enterprise resource received by the secondary computing device from the management service
continually re-transmit to the management service, updated proximity data associated with the proximity of the primary computing device to the secondary computing device while the primary computing device remains in the secure viewing mode of the P2P communication session
receive a notification from the management service indicating that the primary computing device is not within the predefined proximity threshold of the secondary computing device
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because modifying Shah '074 to apply its proximity controls to enterprise resources according to Robinson '863 would prevent enterprise resources from being vulnerable to observation or misuse when an authorized user had left the area. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because performing operations at the server as in Robinson '863 would provide a more trusted environment for making such determinations.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Robinson '863 teaches [Robinson '863 ¶ 0263-0264, 0257, 0070] modifying a proximity based data protection scheme [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056] such as that of Shah '074 to arrive at the claimed invention; because Shah '074 and Robinson '863 are in the same field of endeavor; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (server evaluates policies governing access to enterprise resources [Robinson '863 ¶ 0263-0264, 0257, 0070] ) to improve similar devices and/or methods (proximity based data protection scheme [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (server evaluates policies governing access to enterprise resources [Robinson '863 ¶ 0263-0264, 0257, 0070] )to known devices and/or methods (proximity based data protection scheme [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (proximity based scheme protects resources from misuse [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056] according to server evaluation of policies governing access to enterprise resources [Robinson '863 ¶ 0263-0264, 0257, 0070]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Further:
Thomas '363 discloses an access token used to decrypt metadata associated with an enterprise resource received by the secondary computing device from another device (metadata itself is encrypted and decrypted [Thomas '363 ¶ 0046, 0052-0056])
Thomas '363 discloses the access token is used by the secondary computing device to decrypt the metadata and to render the resource in a display accessible to the secondary computing device in response to receiving the access token (metadata itself is encrypted and decrypted [Thomas '363 ¶ 0046, 0052-0056])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 with the protected policy metadata of Thomas '363 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
receive, at the primary computing device from the management service, an indication that the primary computing device is within a predefined proximity threshold of the secondary computing device and an access token used to decrypt metadata associated with an enterprise resource received by the secondary computing device from the management service
in response to the indication, enter the primary computing device into a secure viewing mode of the P2P communication session and transmit the access token to the secondary computing device via the P2P communication session while in the secure viewing mode, wherein the access token is used by the secondary computing device to decrypt the metadata and to render the enterprise resource in a display accessible to the secondary computing device in response to receiving the access token
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because encrypting the metadata would protect its confidentiality and integrity. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Thomas '363 teaches [Thomas '363 ¶ 0046, 0052-0056] modifying a proximity based data protection scheme [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056] such as that of Shah '074 to arrive at the claimed invention; because Shah '074 and Thomas '363 are in the same field of endeavor; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (protected policy metadata [Thomas '363 ¶ 0046, 0052-0056] ) to improve similar devices and/or methods (proximity based data protection scheme [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (protected policy metadata [Thomas '363 ¶ 0046, 0052-0056] )to known devices and/or methods (proximity based data protection scheme [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (proximity based scheme protects resources from misuse [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056] conveys policy and other information in protected metadata [Thomas '363 ¶ 0046, 0052-0056]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Per claim 4 (dependent on claim 1):
Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 in view of Thomas '363 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Shah '074 discloses cause the at least one sensitive portion of the enterprise resource to be rendered visible in the display by transmitting a notification to the secondary computing device that the proximity of the primary computing device is within the predefined proximity threshold of the secondary computing device (locking the primary device may including placing a security screen on the display of the primary device [Shah '074 ¶ 0017] "which prevents use or viewing of programs" [Shah '074 ¶ 0035]; locks or unlocks selected resources of primary device 101 based on proximity of unlocking device 202 being less than a predetermined distance [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056, 0066])
Per claim 5 (dependent on claim 4):
Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 in view of Thomas '363 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 4 above, incorporated herein by reference
Shah '074 discloses the proximity of the primary computing device to the secondary computing device is determined based at least in part on at least one of: at least one nearby Wi-Fi network, Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy, near-field communication, or sound detection (Bluetooth, Bluetooth LE, infra red [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0065, 0019, 0039, 0042])
Per claim 8 (independent):
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 11 (dependent on claim 8):
Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 in view of Thomas '363 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 4 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 12 (dependent on claim 8):
Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 in view of Thomas '363 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 5 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 15 (independent):
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 17 (dependent on claim 15):
Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 in view of Thomas '363 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 4 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 18 (dependent on claim 15):
Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 in view of Thomas '363 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 5 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 in view of Thomas '363 in view of U.S. Publication 20160285835 to Linga et al. (hereinafter "Linga '835"). Linga '835 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 6 (dependent on claim 1):
Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 in view of Thomas '363 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Shah '074 does not disclose the metadata specifies the at least one sensitive portion of the enterprise resource to be obscured
Further:
Linga '835 discloses the metadata specifies the at least one sensitive portion of the enterprise resource to be obscured (sends to requestor policy tagging specific portions of content as displayable only by particular users [Linga '835 ¶ 0067-0069]; available policies include "watermark access (obstructed view), x-ray access (limited view), one-time view, time bomb duration (limited access window with self-destruct)" [Linga '835 ¶ 0053])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 with the policies governing access to enterprise resources of Linga '835 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the metadata specifies the at least one sensitive portion of the enterprise resource to be obscured
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because modifying Shah '074 to apply its proximity/visibility controls to enterprise resources according to the per resource policies of Linga '835 would prevent enterprise resources from being vulnerable to observation or misuse when an authorized user had left the area. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because the policies of Linga '835 would permit more targeted permissions to be applied to the resources and users of Shah '074.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Linga '835 teaches [Linga '835 ¶ 0047, 0067-0069] modifying a proximity based data protection scheme [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056] such as that of Shah '074 to arrive at the claimed invention; because Shah '074 and Linga '835 are in the same field of endeavor; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (policies governing access to enterprise resources [Linga '835 ¶ 0047, 0067-0069] ) to improve similar devices and/or methods (proximity based data protection scheme [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (policies governing access to enterprise resources [Linga '835 ¶ 0047, 0067-0069]) to known devices and/or methods (proximity based data protection scheme [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (proximity based scheme protects resources from misuse [Shah '074 ¶ 0016-0017, 0056] according to policies governing access to enterprise resources [Linga '835 ¶ 0047, 0067-0069]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Per claim 13 (dependent on claim 8):
Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 in view of Thomas '363 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 6 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 19 (dependent on claim 15):
Shah '074 in view of Robinson '863 in view of Thomas '363 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 6 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C PARSONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1475. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWRF 7:30-4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. 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.
/THEODORE C PARSONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
1 Note that while the instant claims label the device that eventually accesses/displays the resource as "secondary", Shah '074 labels that device "primary".
2 Examiner states that every rejection herein relies on Robinson '863 for teaching that an "enterprise resource", rather some other resource, should be subject to these techniques for controlling user access. It should be understood that wherever "enterprise resource" appears in a claim limitation hereinafter, Robinson '863 forms part of the support for that claim limitation. For the sake of brevity, further repetitions of Robinson '863 for this purpose will be omitted hereinafter.