DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to amendments and a request for continuation received on 09/30/2025 and 10/28/2025. Claims 1, 5, 13, and 17 are amended. Claims 1-20 are examined and are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
08/05/2024 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5, 13 and 17 filed on 09/30/2025, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s Remarks regarding 103 have been considered, but have not been found persuasive.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument on page 9 on the Remarks that “The cited passages in Stickle merely describe examples of transferable resources, including block storage, and do not disclose that the administration of the storage is managed through a first service dedicated to controlling access permission”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stickle is about a computer-implemented storage that transfers ownership of cloud-based resources, including storage. Please see Col. 2, ll.29-31 where is said: “Examples of virtual computing resources may be computing instances, block storage, software machine images, load balancers, archive storage, database instances, ….”, and Col. 5, ll. 7-12, “the transfer account 140 may be created and configured to enable a transfer of virtual computing resources (e.g., the computing instances 160 and block transfer storage) between the customer A account 130 and the customer B account 150 within a service provider network hosted within the service provider environment 120”, therefore the system manages the ownership and transfers computer-implemented storage between accounts. Chen also discloses Obtaining the request to transfer digital assets (i.e., computer-implemented storage) from a first account to a second account. For further support please see Paras. [0061], [0069]. The claims do not recite obtaining a request specifically directed to storage alone or a storage-specific transfer request distinct from other resources.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument on page 9 on the Remarks that “the claimed first service specifically manages access permissions for storage, which is not taught or suggested by Stickle or Chen”. However, the amendments made to claim 1 add new features to the claims and change the scope of the claims and require further search and consideration. Therefore, the arguments are moot.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument on page 10 on the Remarks that “Stickle does not disclose a second service, functionally separate from the first service, that facilitates approval of a transfer request”. However, the amendments made to claim 1 add new features to the claims and change the scope of the claims and require further search and consideration. Therefore, the arguments are moot.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument on page 10 on the Remarks that “amended claim 1 recites "based on the request, sending a communication to the at least one manager, the communication requesting approval of the request to transfer the computer-implemented storage to the second account hosted by the online service provider, the communication including a notification to access the second service to respond to the request." The cited portions of Stickle describe acknowledgments between accounts during transfers (Stickle at col. 5, 11. 3-31), but do not disclose a communication including a notification to access a second service in order to respond. Stickle 's acknowledgment is in-band within the transfer service itself. Amended claim 1 recites a "notification" to access the second service, which is not taught by Stickle or Chen”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite that the second service is separate from the first service. Stickle discloses sending a request/communication/notification to a user of the customer account requesting approval of a transfer and the request could be approved or denied by a customer account to access a second account hosted by an online service provider. For further support please see Stickle, Col. 7, ll. 44-57, Col. 8, ll. 28-55, Col. 11, ll. 60-67, Col. 12, ll. 1-6, Col. 13, ll. 39-56.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument on page 10 on the Remarks that that Stickle and Chen are not properly combinable. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stickle and Chen are in the same field of endeavor of computing environments of secure transaction management ownership of digital assets/computer-implemented resources. And the motivation to combine the prior arts, is to prevent unauthorized access to digital assets/resources.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 13 is moot since the argument refers to amended claim 13, and further search and consideration is required.
Applicant’s first and second arguments regarding claim 5 is moot since the argument refers to amended claim 5, and further search and consideration is required.
With respect to Applicant’s third argument regarding claim 5 that “amended claim 5 recites "confirm the at least one administrator approved the request to associate the one or more computer-implemented resources with the second computer- implemented account; and associate the one or more computer-implemented resources with the second computer-implemented account." Stickle does not disclose these features”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stickle Col. 5, ll. 20-29, “the transfer account 140 may be configured to wait for transferring virtual computing resources until receiving some specified acknowledgment, authorizations, agreement, and/or performances (e.g., electronic signature or software platform previously installed) prior to transfer”, and “customer A account 130 may secure an acknowledgment from the customer B account 150 granting permission for transferring from the customer A account 130 to the customer B account 150”. Which requires approval from administrator before resources can be transferred (i.e., administrator approved the request).
Col. 5, ll. 17-31, “there may a condition precedent before releasing the one or more virtual computing resources or computing instances 160 for transfer. For example, the transfer account 140 may be configured to wait for transferring virtual computing resources until receiving some specified acknowledgment, authorizations, agreement, and/or performances (e.g., electronic signature or software platform previously installed) prior to transfer. In one example, a payment may be received before a transfer may take place. In another example, customer A account 130 may secure an acknowledgment from the customer B account 150 granting permission for transferring from the customer A account 130 to the customer B account 150. Failure to receive a condition precedent, such as permission, prohibits the transfer of the computing instances 160”. Further in Col. 2, ll. 49-57, “a list of tagged virtual computing resources may be maintained and updated. As part of the verification operation, a transfer service may compare the tagged virtual computing resources that have been transferred to the list of those virtual computing resources marked or tagged for transfer. If the number of tagged virtual computing resources that have been transferred matches the list of those virtual computing resources marked or tagged for transfer then the transfer can be verified and acknowledged as complete”. Which confirms administrator approval before associating transferring the resources since the tagged resources are eligible to be transferred (approved).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 7 without presenting additional arguments, a similar response applies.
The remaining arguments regarding the dependent claims with respect to independent claims without presenting additional arguments, a similar response applies.
The remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In addition, Applicant’s remaining arguments filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because newly added claim limitations requiring “determining a first account hosted by an online service provider is to close based on a determination that the first account was compromised by one or more malicious acts, administration of the first account managed at least in part through a first service accessible by one or more administrators associated with the first account, the first service managing access permissions for a computer-implemented storage associated with the first account;”, and “obtaining a request to transfer the computer-implemented storage to a second account hosted by the online service provider, the computer-implemented storage used to redundantly store data from one or more computer-implemented storages linked to the first account, administration of the computer-implemented storage at least in part managed through a second service accessible by at least one manager linked to the computer-implemented storage, the second service being functionally separate from the first service and facilitating approval of the request to transfer the computer-implemented storage”, require new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-11, 13-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Stickle (US 10,104,163) in view of Hammad (US 2008/0319889).
Regarding claim 1, Stickle teaches the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: determining a first account hosted by an online service provider is to close, (Stickle, Col. 2, ll. 15-37, Col. 4, ll. 28-34, Col. 17, ll. 60-67, Col. 18, ll. 1-9, and Figs. 1-3, a secure transfer of a virtual computing resource between at least two entities or customer accounts (i.e., first and second account) in a computing environment or virtualized service provider environment (i.e., an online service provider). Each of the virtual computing resources on the first party ownership account that are executing or in operation are terminated/suspended (i.e., close) prior to transferring ownership of the virtual computing resources where customer 310 (i.e., administration of the first account) of the first customer account sends a request to transfer through transfer service 370 (i.e., first service)).
obtaining a request to transfer a computer-implemented storage to a second account hosted by the online service provider, the computer-implemented storage used to redundantly store data from one or more computer-implemented storages linked to the first account, administration of the computer-implemented storage at least in part managed through a second service accessible by at least one manager linked to the computer-implemented storage, (Stickle, Col. 2, ll. 15-37, Col. 5, ll. 3-30, Col. 7, ll. 4-35, and Figs. 1-4, a secure transfer of a virtual computing resource customer A, customer B, and Transfer account 140/240. Control Plane 380 (i.e., at least one manager) provides an interface for managing the secure transfer of virtual computing resources which is linked to cloud resources and interacts with the security and authentication service 390 (i.e., second service). Transfer to transfer account 340 first (i.e., to redundantly store data), and then transfer to the second customer account. Col. 2, ll.29-31 where is said: “Examples of virtual computing resources may be computing instances, block storage, software machine images, load balancers, archive storage, database instances, ….”, and Col. 5, ll. 7-12, “the transfer account 140 may be created and configured to enable a transfer of virtual computing resources (e.g., the computing instances 160 and block transfer storage) between the customer A account 130 and the customer B account 150 within a service provider network hosted within the service provider environment 120”, therefore the system manages the ownership and transfers computer-implemented storage between accounts).
based on the request, sending a communication to the at least one manager, the communication requesting approval of the request to transfer the computer-implemented storage to the second account hosted by the online service provider, the communication including a notification to access the second service to respond to the request; (Stickle, Col. 4, ll. 15-45, Col. 5, ll. 1-35, and Figs. 1-3, sending a request or notification for permission to transfer and/or receive permissions to send the transfer of the virtual computing resources of customer A to customer B. the transfer account 140 is configured to wait for transferring virtual computing resources until receiving some specified acknowledgment, authorizations, agreement, and/or performances (e.g., electronic signature or software platform previously installed) prior to transfer ).
determining the at least one manager approved the request to transfer the computer- implemented storage to the second account hosted by the online service provider; (Stickle, Col. 9, ll. 9-33, and Figs. 1-3, the Control Plane 380 (i.e., at least one manager) determines whether (i.e., at least one manager approved the request) to transfer the computer resources 360 owned by the customer A account to the customer B account 350).
based on determining the at least one manager approved the request to transfer the computer-implemented storage to the second account, transferring the computer-implemented storage to the second account hosted by the online service provider. (Stickle, Col. 9, ll. 9-33, and Figs. 1-3, the Control Plane 380 (i.e., at least one manager) approves to transfer the computer resources 360 based on the three different conditions mentioned herein).
Stickle teaches multiple customer accounts within a computing system (online service provider), obtaining a request to transfer computing resources to the second account , transferring the ownership of computing resources is performed by the same service provider, but does not explicitly disclose that the transferring of the resources are based on the determination that the first account is compromised, and does not explicitly disclose that the first service and second service being functionally separate:
determining a first account hosted by an online service provider is to close based on a determination that the first account was compromised by one or more malicious acts,
administration of the first account managed at least in part through a first service accessible by one or more administrators associated with the first account,
the first service managing access permissions for [[a computer-implemented storage]] data associated with the first account;
the second service being functionally separate from the first service and facilitating approval of the request to transfer the computer-implemented storage;
However, Hammad in the same field of endeavor discloses:
determining a first account hosted by an online service provider is to close based on a determination that the first account was compromised by one or more malicious acts, (Hammad, Paras. [0008]-[0011], [0032]-[0033], [0051], [0065], [0076]-[0080], determining that a first account is compromised, and based on that determination close/cancel/freeze the account where the account is hosted/managed by a service provider (e.g., issuer/notification service operating system)). administration of the first account managed at least in part through a first service accessible by one or more administrators associated with the first account, the first service managing access permissions for [[a computer-implemented storage]] data associated with the first account; (Hammad, Paras. [0008]-[0011], [0032]-[0033], [0051], [0065], [0076]-[0080], a first account is administered/managed in part through a first service (the notification service), which is accessible by one or more administrators associated with the account (issuers)), (Hammad, Paras. [0008]-[0011], [0032]-[0033], [0051], [0065], [0076]-[0080], the notification service (i.e., the first service) is controlling whether access to account information and account usability is allowed. The access permissions are tied to account data/information. The first service manages the access permissions to data associated with the first account. A request/notification is generated by the first service. The first service detects a compromised account and generates a notification. The notification service communicates with issuers, which are the second service, to enable a response. Therefore, Hammad includes a notification that causes access to a second service to respond to a request).
the second service being functionally separate from the first service and facilitating approval of the request [[to transfer the computer-implemented storage]]; (Hammad, Paras. [0008]-[0011], [0032]-[0033], [0051], [0065], [0076]-[0080], a second service (issuing service) distinct from the first service (notification service), is handling approval of certain requests such as account restriction or freezing, routing, enforcement, and proceed the approved actions).
Hammad is combinable with Stickle, because both are from the same field of suspending/freezing an account. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine account-administration and approval services (notification and issuer services), as taught by Chen with Stickle’s method of transferring computer-implemented storage, in order to improve security, and ensure that a controlled access of ownership occurs.
Regarding claim 4, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 1. Stickle teaches claim 4 as follows:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the request to transfer comprises receiving the request to transfer from the second account hosted by the online service provider, the request at least comprising an identifier of the computer-implemented storage used to redundantly store the data from the one or more computer implemented storages linked to the first account. (Stickle, Col. 2, ll. 15-35, Col. 5, ll. 1-35, Col. 18, ll. 1-10, and Figs. 1-2, a secure transfer of a virtual computing resource customer A, customer B, and Transfer account 140/240).
Regarding claim 5, Stickle teaches the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
A system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory that stores computer-executable instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the system to: determine to modify a status of a first computer-implemented account, the first computer-implemented account at least in part managed through a first service; (Stickle, Col. 2, ll. 15-37, Col. 4, ll. 28-34, Col. 17, ll. 60-67, Col. 18, ll. 1-9, and Figs. 1-3, a secure transfer of a virtual computing resource between at least two entities or customer accounts (i.e., first and second account) in a computing environment or virtualized service provider environment (i.e., an online service provider). Each of the virtual computing resources on the first party ownership account that are executing or in operation are terminated/suspended (i.e., modify a status of a first computer-implemented account) prior to transferring ownership of the virtual computing resources where a user (i.e., administration of the first account) of the first customer account sends a request to transfer through transfer service 370 (i.e., a first service)).
identify a request to associate one or more computer-implemented resources associated with the first computer-implemented account with a second computer-implemented account, the one or more computer-implemented resources at least in part managed through a second service accessible by at least one administrator selected to consider the request; (Stickle, Col. 2, ll. 15-37, Col. 5, ll. 3-30, Col. 7, ll. 4-35, and Figs. 1-3, a secure transfer of a virtual computing resource customer A, customer B, and Transfer account 140/240. Control Plane 380 (i.e., at least one manager) provides an interface for managing the secure transfer of virtual computing resources which is linked to cloud resources and interacts with the security and authentication service 390 (i.e., a second service)).
based on the request, sending a communication to the at least one manager, the communication requesting approval of the request to transfer the computer-implemented storage to the second account hosted by the online service provider, the communication including a notification to access the second service to respond to the request; (Stickle, Col. 4, ll. 16-47, Col. 5, ll. 3-30, and Figs. 1-3, sending a request or notification for permission to transfer and/or receive permissions to send the transfer of the virtual computing resources of customer A account to customer B account. the transfer account 140/340 is configured to wait for transferring virtual computing resources until receiving some specified acknowledgment, authorizations, agreement, and/or performances (e.g., electronic signature or software platform previously installed) prior to transfer from control plane 380 (i.e., at least one manager)).
and associate the one or more computer-implemented resources with the second computer-implemented account. (Stickle, Col. 8, ll. 3-27, Col. 15, ll. 45-65, Col. 16, ll. 1-30, and Figs. 1-3, when a transfer of computing resources occurs, the ownership tables in the control plane changes. Therefore, the unique object identifier for a virtual computing resource is associated with second account).
confirm the at least one administrator approved the request to associate the one or more computer-implemented resources with the second computer-implemented account; (Stickle, Col. 7, ll. 25-57, and Figs. 1-3, customer 310 (i.e., at least one administrator) is requesting and/or using the secure transfer of cloud resources for providing secure transfer of virtual computing resources from one customer to another using the transfer account 340).
Stickle teaches multiple customer accounts within a computing system (online service provider), obtaining a request to transfer computing resources to the second account , transferring the ownership of computing resources is performed by the same service provider, but does not explicitly disclose that the transferring of the resources are based on the determination that the first account is compromised, and does not explicitly disclose that the first service and second service being functionally separate:
the first service managing access permissions for [[one or more computer-implemented storage]] data associated with the first computer-implemented account;
the second service being functionally separate from the first service and usable to facilitate approval of [[the request to associate the one or more computer-implemented resources with the second computer-implemented account]] a certain request;
However, Hammad in the same field of endeavor discloses:
the first service managing access permissions for [[a computer-implemented storage]] data associated with the first account; (Hammad, Paras. [0008]-[0011], [0032]-[0033], [0051], [0065], [0076]-[0080], a first account is administered/managed in part through a first service (the notification service), which is accessible by one or more administrators associated with the account (issuers)), (Hammad, Paras. [0008]-[0011], [0032]-[0033], [0051], [0065], [0076]-[0080], the notification service (i.e., the first service) is controlling whether access to account information and account usability is allowed. The access permissions are tied to account data/information. The first service manages the access permissions to data associated with the first account. A request/notification is generated by the first service. The first service detects a compromised account and generates a notification. The notification service communicates with issuers, which are the second service, to enable a response. Therefore, Hammad includes a notification that causes access to a second service to respond to a request).
the second service being functionally separate from the first service and facilitating approval of the request to transfer the computer-implemented storage; (Hammad, Paras. [0008]-[0011], [0032]-[0033], [0051], [0065], [0076]-[0080], a second service (issuing service) distinct from the first service (notification service), is handling approvals, routing, enforcement, freezing or restricting accounts).
Hammad is combinable with Stickle, because both are from the same field of suspending/freezing an account. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine account-administration and approval services (notification and issuer services), as taught by Chen with Stickle’s method of transferring computer-implemented storage, in order to improve security, and ensure that a controlled access of ownership occurs.
Regarding claim 6, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 5. Stickle-Hammad teach claim 6 as follows:
The system according to claim 5, wherein determining to modify the status of the first computer-implemented account comprises: determining the first computer-implemented account was compromised by one or more malicious entities, (Hammad, Paras. [0008]-[0011], [0032]-[0033], [0051], [0065], [0076]-[0080], determining that a first account is compromised, and based on that determination close/cancel/freeze the account where the account is hosted/managed by a service provider (e.g., issuer/notification service operating system))
modifying the status of the first computer-implemented account to identify that the first computer-implemented account is in quarantine, quarantining the first computer-implemented account including limiting user access to the first computer-implemented account. (Stickle, Col. 2, ll. 15-35, Col. 18, ll. 1-10, and Figs. 1-2, a secure transfer of a virtual computing resource between at least two entities or customer accounts in a computing environment or virtualized service provider environment. Each of the virtual computing resources on the first party ownership account that are executing or in operation are terminated/suspended (i.e., quarantine) prior to transferring ownership of the virtual computing resources).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 5 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 5. Stickle teaches claim 7 as follows:
The system according to claim 5, wherein the one or more computer-implemented resources associated with the first computer-implemented account comprise at least one computer-implemented storage to store backup data associated with the first computer-implemented account. (Stickle, Col. 10, ll. 1-35, and Figs. 1-2, computing resources are being transferred from the first account to the second account, and data is stored in data store 420).
Regarding claim 10, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 5. Stickle teaches claim 10 as follows:
The system according to claim 5, wherein identifying the request to associate the one or more computer-implemented resources comprises receiving the request from the second computer-implemented account, the request at least comprising an identifier of the one or more computer-implemented resources. (Stickle, Col. 7, ll. 15-30, ll. 40-55 and Figs. 1-2, receiving the request from the second computer-implemented account).
Regarding claim 11, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 5. Stickle teaches claim 11 as follows:
The system according to claim 5, wherein the computer-executable instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to are to further cause the system to: assign a first identifier identify the at least one administrator; assign a second identifier to identify the one or more computer-implemented resources, and link the first and second identifiers. (Stickle, Col. 10, ll. 15-35, and Figs. 1-2, resource ownership information 424, and ownership records 425 are linked to customer account 422. Transfer resources identification 426 tracks computing resources).
Regarding claim 13, Stickle teaches the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: identifying a request to transfer one or more computer-implemented resources associated with a first computer-implemented account to a second computer-implemented account, the one or more computer-implemented resources at least in part managed through a service accessible by at least one entity selected to consider the request, (Stickle, Col. 2, ll. 15-37, Col. 5, ll. 3-30, Col. 7, ll. 21-24, and ll. 58-63, and Figs. 1-3, customer/user 310 tags (i.e., identifying a request) the computing resources 360 (owned by the customer A account) and works in association with the transfer service 370 and the control plane 380 and the security and authentication service 390 to proceed to transfer the resources to the second account).
confirming, by the service, the at least one entity approved the request to transfer the one or more computer-implemented resources associated with the first computer-implemented account; (Stickle, Col. 7, ll. 521-24, and ll. 58-63, and Figs. 1-3, the transfer service confirms the request with at least one entity such as customer 310 by tagging the resources means to be transferred).
and transferring the one or more computer-implemented resources to the second computer-implemented account. (Stickle, Col. 7, ll. 58-65, Col. 8, ll. 1-8, and Figs. 1-3, transferring computing resources from customer A to customer B).
Stickle teaches multiple customer accounts within a computing system (online service provider), obtaining a request to transfer computing resources to the second account , transferring the ownership of computing resources is performed by the same service provider, but does not explicitly disclose that the transferring of the resources are based on the determination that the first account is compromised, and does not explicitly disclose that the first service and second service being functionally separate:
the service being functionally separate from another service to manage access permissions to [[the one or more computer-implemented resources]] data;
However, Hammad in the same field of endeavor discloses:
the service being functionally separate from another service to manage access permissions to [[the one or more computer-implemented resources]] data; (Hammad, Paras. [0008]-[0011], [0032]-[0033], [0051], [0065], [0076]-[0080], a first account is administered/managed in part through a first service (the notification service), which is accessible by one or more administrators associated with the account (issuers)), (Hammad, Paras. [0008]-[0011], [0032]-[0033], [0051], [0065], [0076]-[0080], the notification service (i.e., the first service) is controlling whether access to account information and account usability is allowed. The access permissions are tied to account data/information. The first service manages the access permissions to data associated with the first account. A request/notification is generated by the first service. The first service detects a compromised account and generates a notification. The notification service communicates with issuers, which are the second service, to enable a response. Therefore, Hammad includes a notification that causes access to a second service to respond to a request. a second service (issuing service) distinct from the first service (notification service), is handling approvals, routing, enforcement, freezing or restricting accounts).
Hammad is combinable with Stickle, because both are from the same field of suspending/freezing an account. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine account-administration and approval services (notification and issuer services), as taught by Chen with Stickle’s method of transferring computer-implemented storage, in order to improve security, and ensure that a controlled access of ownership occurs.
Regarding claim 14, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 13. Stickle-Hammad teach claim 14 as follows:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, further comprising: determining the first computer-implemented account was compromised by one or more malicious entities, (Hammad, Paras. [0008]-[0011], [0032]-[0033], [0051], [0065], [0076]-[0080], determining that a first account is compromised, and based on that determination close/cancel/freeze the account where the account is hosted/managed by a service provider (e.g., issuer/notification service operating system))
and modifying a status of the first computer-implemented account to identify that the first computer-implemented account is in quarantine, quarantining the first computer-implemented account including limiting user access to the first computer-implemented account. (Stickle, Col. 2, ll. 15-35, Col. 18, ll. 1-10, and Figs. 1-2, a secure transfer of a virtual computing resource between at least two entities or customer accounts in a computing environment or virtualized service provider environment. Each of the virtual computing resources on the first party ownership account that are executing or in operation are terminated/suspended (i.e., quarantining) prior to transferring ownership of the virtual computing resources).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 13 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 13. Stickle teaches claim 15 as follows:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, wherein the one or more computer-implemented resources associated with the first computer-implemented account comprise at least one computer-implemented storage to store backup data associated with the first computer-implemented account. (Stickle, Col. 10, ll. 1-35, and Figs. 1-2, computing resources are being transferred from the first account to the second account, and data is stored in data store 420).
Regarding claim 19, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 13. Stickle teaches claim 19 as follows:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, wherein identifying the request to transfer the one or more computer-implemented resources associated with a first computer-implemented account comprises receiving the request from the second computer-implemented account, the request at least comprising an identifier of the one or more computer-implemented resources. (Stickle, Col. 7, ll. 15-30, ll. 40-55 and Figs. 1-2, receiving the request from the second computer-implemented account).
Regarding claim 20, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 13. Stickle teaches claim 20 as follows:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, further comprising: assigning a first identifier to identify the at least one entity; assigning a second identifier to identify the one or more computer-implemented resources, and linking the first and second identifiers. (Stickle, Col. 10, ll. 15-35, and Figs. 1-2, resource ownership information 424, and ownership records 425 are linked to customer account 422. Transfer resources identification 426 tracks computing resources).
Claims 9, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Stickle (US 10,104,163) in view of Hammad (US 2008/0319889), and further in view of Chen (US 2021/0119807).
Regarding claim 9, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 5. Stickle-Hammad do not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 9. However, Chen teaches claim 9 as follows:
The system according to claim 5, wherein the computer-executable instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to are to further cause the system to: obtain, via a programmatic interface associated with the second service, identification information of at least two administrators, the at least two administrators comprising the at least one administrator; (Chen, Paras. [0122], [0129]-[0130], and Fig. 12, two or more computing entities are to jointly participate in a blockchain transaction, both parties have access to private keys which both parties acknowledge and accept their role in contributing digital signatures to approve the transfer. The entity can be identified by a unique identifier such as blockchain address (i.e., identification information)).
contact the at least two administrators, by the second service and using the identification information, to invite the at least two administrators to accept participation in a management group linked to the one or more computer-implemented resources; (Chen, Paras. [0122], [0129]-[0130], and Fig. 12, the identifier (blockchain address) is used to track and verify transactions as a proof of authentication).
and obtain, by the second service, an acceptance from at least one of the at least two administrators to participate in the management group linked to the one or more computer-implemented resources. (Chen, Paras. [0122], [0129]-[0130], [0137], and Fig. 12, in consensus mechanism, the validators/peer-nodes must accept their role to validate the transfer).
Chen is combinable with Stickle-Hammad, because all are from the same field of managing accounts within an online environment. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize multi-administrator approval technique, as taught by Chen with Stickle-Hammad’s method, in order to ensure accountability and segregation of duties.
Regarding claim 12, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 5. Stickle-Hammad teach do not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 12. However, Chen teaches claim 12 as follow:
The system according to claim 5, wherein confirming the at least one administrator approved the request to associate the one or more computer-implemented resources with the second computer-implemented account comprises determining, by the second service, that a number of administrators that approved the request equals or exceeds a threshold number. (Chen, Paras. [0094], [0182], and Fig. 6, node 606 has to wait for peer nodes to signal acceptance of the transaction and/or transfer. Multiple 602 nodes are forming a peer-to-peer network which are involved in approval process (consensus mechanism). A threshold number of nodes (e.g., ⅔ supermajority) are required to accept the transfer request).
Chen is combinable with Stickle-Hammad, because all are from the same field of managing accounts within an online environment. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize multi-administrator approval technique, as taught by Chen with Stickle-Hammad’s method, in order to ensure accountability and segregation of duties.
Regarding claim 16, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 13. Stickle-Hammad do not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 16. However, Chen teaches claim 16 as follow:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, wherein the service comprises at least two interfaces to access the service, the at least two interfaces comprising a first interface accessible by one or more entities associated with the first computer-implemented account to identify the at least one entity and a second interface accessible by the at least one entity to approve the request to transfer the one or more computer-implemented resources associated with the first computer-implemented account to the second computer-implemented account. (Chen, Paras. [0216]-[0218], and Fig. 21, the user interface (user 2106) (i.e., first interface) which is associated with the account monitors and receives the transactions. The coordinator 2104 entity (i.e., second interface) is responsible for approving and signing the “approve withdraw blockchain transaction 2108” (i.e., approve the request)).
Chen is combinable with Stickle-Hammad, because all are from the same field of managing accounts within an online environment. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize multi-administrator approval technique, as taught by Chen with Stickle-Hammad’s method, in order to ensure accountability and segregation of duties.
Regarding claim 17, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 13. Stickle-Hammad do not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 16. However, Chen teaches claim 17 as follow:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, wherein the other service is an identity and access management (IAM) service to at least enforce permissions that control access to the first computer-implemented account. (Chen, Paras. [0137], identity and authentication service (i.e., first service) through a trusted authority to enforce control access).
Chen is combinable with Stickle-Hammad, because all are from the same field of managing accounts within an online environment. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to permissions, as taught by Chen with Stickle-Hammad’s method in order to secure storage of cryptographic material against fraudulent transaction to prevent unauthorized access by utilizing multiple managers’ approval. [Chen, Para. 0153]
Regarding claim 18, Stickle-Hammad teach the limitations of claim 13. Stickle-Hammad do not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 18. However, Chen teaches claim 18 as follow:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, further comprising: obtaining, via a programmatic interface associated with the service, identification information of the at least one entity; (Chen, Paras. [0122], [0129]-[0130], and Fig. 12, two or more computing entities are to jointly participate in a blockchain transaction, both parties have access to private keys which both parties acknowledge and accept their role in contributing digital signatures to approve the transfer. The entity can be identified by a unique identifier such as blockchain address (i.e., identification information)).
contacting the at least one entity, by the service and using the identification information, to invite the at least one entity to accept participation in a management group linked to the one or more computer-implemented resources; (Chen, Paras. [0122], [0129]-[0130], and Fig. 12, the identifier (blockchain address) is used to track and verify transactions as a proof of authentication).
and obtaining, by the service, an acceptance from the at least one entity to participate in the management group linked to the one or more computer-implemented resources. (Chen, Paras. [0122], [0129]-[0130], [0137], and Fig. 12, in consensus mechanism, the validators/peer-nodes must accept their role to validate the transfer).
Chen is combinable with Stickle-Hammad, because all are from the same field of managing accounts within an online environment. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to obtain identification information of entities participating in the approval process, as taught by Chen with Stickle-Hammad’s method in order to secure storage of cryptographic material against fraudulent transaction to prevent unauthorized access. [Chen, Para. 0153]
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Hsu (US 2005/0049972) performing transfer data from first account to second account.
Drake (US 2017/0346851) performing managers approvals for transfer.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. The fax phone number for the Application/Control Number: 17/470,067 Page 17 Art Unit: 2438 organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300. Application/Control Number: 17/386,076 Page 25 Art Unit: 2438 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2438
/TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438